Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Blenheim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Battle of Blenheim

I came across this last night and have been tidying it - it's a good-sized article, copiously cited and decently written, on a major historic event. Doesn't seem to be missing anything obvious that I can see. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support this very nice article! Lead could use a little expansion though. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Rlevse 12:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Only three sources are given, all from British writers (one of which is the brother of Princess Diana). I would hope that 300 years on nationalism and historical romanticisation wouldn't creep into any of the text or bias the accounts, but I would feel more comfortable if more sources were included; preferably some French and German. --Oldak Quill 12:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just added information for the referenced text The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army. Unfortunately, since David Chandler is both the editor of this book and the author of the first book in the references list, the notes section is unclear as to which book is being referenced. MarkBuckles 08:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • To differentiate between two books by the same author you normally follow the surname by the date of publication (eg. "Smith 2004"). --Oldak Quill 13:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Oldakquill in seeing this as undersourced. One author (discounting the feeble efforts of Spencer, see note 11 for an example) is not enough. I suggest that Lynn's Wars of Louis XIV might be a useful second source. Churchillian and Creasyesque nationalist tub thumping are quite unnecessary and have no place in an FAC. A general problem with writings on the War of the Spanish Succession is the same as those on the Hundred Years War; you don't see the wood for the trees. Same here with the "decisive" victory claim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Object It's a good article, but the source issue is bothering me too. The reason is because the article seems too British-centered, which would obviously follow from sole use of British sources. There is analysis of Franco-Bavarian movements, but not nearly as much as those of Marlborough. The "decisive victory" label is more than appropriate; Blenheim was one of the greatest tactical masterpieces of all time. It was not politically decisive, but few individual battles in this era were.UberCryxic 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The battle is a particular milestone for the British. It was the Waterloo of the century before Waterloo, and consequently it's not off the mark to have some of that tub thumping, so long as it is understood as "from the British point of view, Churchill's decision was brilliant," etc. I.e. it would not be a critical stop to have the Anglo point of view, if it were clear throughout that what is being reported is that this is the perception of the battle rather than an objective reality. To set the more objective scene, other sources would be necessary, and Angus McLellan has good tips. British political history is still overshadowed by the positivist and Whiggish historians of the 19th century, and the military history still has too few cynical or critical sources. No vote. Geogre 12:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First of all thank you Shimgray for nominating the article. I’m also very impressed by all the comments made by the all the other contributors.

Let me briefly address Angus’s comments on Creaseyesque and Churchillian ‘tub-thumping’. Both historians are credible and important sources of historical appreciation. One quote from Creasey (which was added by another writer) and one from Churchill, that are fully sourced, is perfectly acceptable in an encyclopaedic article. It is just as relevant to quote these historians as it would be, for example, to quote Gibbon in an article on the fall of Rome. History is not a pure science it is about interpretation of the ‘facts’ as we know them: John Lynn’s ‘facts’ are no more or no less coloured by his interpretation and perspective than Charles Spencer. Spencer is a source I shall continue to use, and am using, in a rewrite of another battle in the 1704 campaign, the Battle of Schellenberg. It is acceptable as long it is backed up by other sources, which was in this case John Tincey’s ‘Blenheim 1704:The Duke of Marlborough's Masterpiece’. Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2004. ISBN 1841767719. I omitted to add it to the reference list but every detail of the battle was checked using Tincey’s book. Adding German or French sources is not going to change the details of the battle. As John Lynn says 1704-1706 were ‘years of triumph for Marlborough and Eugene’. There is no debate in historical circles that the battle was a resounding victory for the allies – this is not a moot point.

What’s wrong with the word decisive? Knocking Bavaria out of the war and routing the Franco-Bavarian army was pretty decisive in that all the allies’ goals were accomplished. Again let me quote Lynn – ‘The crushing Allied victory at Blenheim did not decide the fate of the war, but it ended the war on the Danube’. Maybe we need to agree on a definition of the word ‘decisive’.

It is fair to say that the article is somewhat Anglo-centric. Part of this was because I was concerned that the article was getting too long. This is why I labelled one sub-heading as ‘Marlborough’s march’. I could have gone into more detail about Tallard’s shambolic and near disastrous march to the Danube but I was concerned about the article’s length. What is the ideal length of an article? Is there a limit?

I agree with the basic thrust of the comments made however. I will try to bring up to FA standard that we can all accept, fully sourced and with a few minor additions/alterations. I would be very appreciative if you would then get back to me and comment. Please don’t read anything I say as belligerent. All your criticisms are valid, welcome and much appreciated. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: There isn't an ideal FA length. Some people will complain if it gets very long, but "very long" is always subjective. If you hold your readers' attentions, they won't complain at length, and if you don't.... Well, that's not going to be an issue. Some FA's have been extremely long (I'm guilty with A Tale of a Tub and Augustan literature), but the subject matter will excuse detail or punish it. If you need the length, use it and let people ask for tightening. It's better to do that than to abridge ahead of time and confuse your readers. Geogre 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've rewritten most of the article, taking into consideration the comments made. Raymond Palmer 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Strong Support after substantial improvements. This is quite the legendary battle article now, rivaling even my Austerlitz (!)UberCryxic 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: One thing that should be added is the importance of Bavaria to the Austrian war effort after Blenheim. Because of the weak Austrian finance and the rebellion in the east the contribution they could levee in Bavaria was vital to continuing the war, especially later in the war when the English and later the Dutch betrayed them.--Carl Logan 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the time being. Here are some suggestions for improvement from the first half of the article. MarkBuckles (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Scholarly tone: "It also resulted in knocking Bavaria out of the war." and "he would return in good time", and "side-stepping Thüngen's efforts to intercept him"
    • NPOV: "leading to the brilliant Villars being replaced by the less dynamic Marsin" and "with considerable skill, Marshall Tallard managed to bring 10,000 reinforcements" and "The whole operation was an outstanding military achievement." (for this last one, would like to see some information on who thinks so in the article body, even with a cite). Also "Marlborough skilfully encouraged this apprehension"
    • Unexplained, unlinked vocab: "whose loss would almost certainly have led to the collapse of the Grand Alliance"
    • Redlinks: Robert Alexander Hillingford and Jacob van Schuppen. possible to create a stub or network to find a art-interested wikipedian who can? Also, Gross Heppach and Launsheim
    • Table proportion: Is it just my browser, or does is the France and Bavaria side of the table almost twice as big as the England side?
    • Single-sentence paragraphs: "The only forces immediately available for the defence of Vienna were Prince Louis of Baden's force of 36,000 stationed in the Lines of Stollhofen[5] to watch Tallard."
    • Long quotes should use block quotation style.
    • Context of quotations: "A scarlet caterpillar, upon which all eyes were at once fixed, began to crawl steadfastly day by day across the map of Europe, dragging the whole war with it." Poetic, but not sure this is a good way to begin a section of an enyclopedia. Full quotes like that should have some in-line explanation. I would prefer the situation be presented and then illustrated with a quote. And why is Churchill talking about this? Was he a scholar on the subject? I would want to know.
    • Voice: "It was decided that Eugène would advance" who decided?
  • Support: It's a great article on an important subject. I can certainly see the uses of each of the things others are objecting to and decipher the passives, etc. If sentence 1 is "the three met" and sentence 2 is "it was decided that," then the passive, while still being a passive, is comprehensible. The epigrammatic quotations are interesting, too (the tactic depends upon others following Churchill; if they don't, then Holland freaks out; Churchill IV says that Churchill Sr. is a red (lobster back) caterpillar that everyone watches: the tactic worked), so I have no problem. The general assessment also works. My own knowledge is mainly of the effects of the battle back in London, the very large political effects. Great stuff. Geogre 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Very good effort on a very important confrontation. Along with Yorktown and Valmy, Blenheim is the most important battle of the 18th century and this article does it justice. Well writ, well illustrated and well referenced.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - masterful. It is ages since I read Churchill, but, if I may suggest, some details from the chapter on John Churchill in Mark Urban's recent book, Generals, could add even more colour to an already rich tapestry (it would be nice to explain how difficult Marlborough found the Dutch - he essentially presented them with an ultimatum, either they could come with the British or he would march his troops south alone; it would also be good to explain how unusual it was for a British army to venture so far away from the coast and the possibility of escape with the Royal Navy; there is no mention of the Allied centre essentially remaining still, taking artillery fire, for an hour or two as it was reinforced and Eugene's attack was organised - Marlborough ordered his infantry to lie down and the cavalry to dismount; after being captured, Tallard sent to Marlborough asking him to let the French army withdraw, and Marlborough replied "Inform M Tallard that in the position in which he now is, he has no command."; after the battle, Frenchmen were heard to plaintively say Oh que dira le Roy!; later, Tallard congratulated Marlborough on beating the best soldiers in the world, and Marlborough replied "execpt those who had the honour to beat them".) -- ALoan (Talk) 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object on a few formatting issues that need to be cleaned up:
    • Quotes should not be italicized if they are in quotation marks.
    • The source of an epigraph should be separated from the text of the quote by an em-dash.
    • The nested header in the "Cultural references" section is unnecessary.
Fix these points, and I'll be happy to support. Kirill Lokshin 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)