Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Carillon

Battle of Carillon

While most of the other Ticonderoga-related battle articles have been straightforward to improve, this one presents a somewhat distinctive problem, which I would like feedback in addressing.

A key feature of this battle is that the commanders on both sides made errors, which were, for the British, the source of their disaster. (Montcalm rightly knew that he was extremely lucky.) The feedback I'm looking for is not so much how to describe the battle; I think that part of the article is in pretty good shape. I'd like suggestions on how to present the many errors made in the preparation, execution, and aftermath of this battle. I have roughed in some of the critical (and apologetic) materials, but there are more to come, and I'd rather get feedback before continuing. Magic♪piano 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• Its best if the images face into the article article most if not all the portraits are looking out
• In the lead section which frontally assaulted an entrenched French position without using field artillery no need for the frontally
• The first paragraph in the Geography section is unreferenced
• If they had a limited number of Indian allies, they need adding to the Belligerents section of the info box
• There is a mixture of measurements used 6 miles by itself and later 0.75 miles (1.21 km) you could use the conversion template = 6 miles (9.7 km)
• In the Battle lines forn section - Each column was preceded by companies of the regimental light infantry companies. Could change to Each column was preceded by the regimental light infantry companies. no need for the by companies.

Some small points - but this is a very good article as it stands --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

• End of the lede: "...and tactical errors that might have made an attacker's job more difficult." Isn't that what Montcalm wants? this should be clarified.
• The caption of the first picture should have parentheses around "aka Carillon" or a comma before and after it. the caption of the second picture could expand a bit more on what William Pitt did (e.g. Where did he order the expedition?) or alternatively add a "who" before "ordered the expedition"
• Last sentence of the "Background" section: "Montcalm left Quebec for Carillon." You could expand on that, e.g. for exactly what purpose? Defending it? Or to lead the 3500 men into the Mohawk River Valley?
• In "British preparations" section, briefly expand on why Fort William Henry was reduced to remains. In the same section, Lake George cold be linked to again, and if an article exists Lord John Murray could be as well.
• The map in "French defense preparations" is too small to actually see the lines without going to its file page. It should be increased in size. Also, where is the sawmill in relation to the other locations?
• The numbers in "First march" can be spelled out.
• In the "Battle" section: "the 42nd and 46th regiments on the British left, persisted in the attack." Any explanation for this besides fog of war? Also, two {{fact)) tags in the section
• In the "Aftermath" section, John Bradstreet should be linked in the text too.
• Nester's analysis needs to be sourced in the "Analysis" section. Also, would it be possible to combine the analysis section into one section which explains multiple viewpoints? That would read much better and look much more encyclopedic.

Good job on the article, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I know that a number of things are still uncited, but this is very much a work in progress, as I want to figure out how to present the material before going through the rigmarole of citing it. Magic♪piano 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)