Talk:Battle of Borodino/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll read through and make straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning. I'll jot queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has had a copyedit which is a definite improvement - thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• fix one disambig link to Jäger.

• The state of exhaustion of the French forces and the lack of recognition of the state of the Russian Army led Napoleon to remain on the battlefield with his army instead of the forced pursuit that had marked other campaigns that he had conducted in the past - a bit repetitive. Why not "The state of exhaustion of the French forces and the failure to perceive the Russian Army's imperilled condition led Napoleon to remain on the battlefield with his army instead of the forced pursuit that had marked other campaigns that he had conducted in the past" - the idea is to not use two "states" and also some word like "imperilled", "decimated", "damaged" etc.

• By withdrawing, the Russian army preserved its combat strength, eventually allowing them to force Napoleon out of the country. - singular/plural fix needed

• The extended French supply lines were vulnerable to assault by Russian raids which seriously depleted Napoleon's forces - so did they raid?

• and he inspired the complete loyalty of both his army and his subordinates - you've mentioned infighting (presumably with each other) previously, were they also insubordinate to barclay? Needs to be added if so.

• The construction of the redoubt and its purpose is still disputed by historians. - "debated" by historians? No initial view is put for ward to dispute against....? better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The initial Russian disposition, which stretched south ... - this use of the word "disposition" I am unfamiliar with. can we link to a wiktionary definition or apprporiate wikipedia entry?

• According to Historian Alexander Mikaberidze, the.. - why the direct ex-wiki link? Why not a web cite reference or redlink to desired article page?

1. checked link now workingTirronan (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
2. replaced with suggested sentence.Tirronan (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
3. fixed singular/plural disagreement.Tirronan (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Included forces actually attacking supply lines.Tirronan (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
5. changed and he inspired the complete loyalty of both his army and his subordinates.Tirronan (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Reworked the paragraph, positioned the sentence at the end of the paragraph.Tirronan (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Changed disposition to Position, perhaps a bit clearer.Tirronan (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Removed direct link, it is already cited to a page.Tirronan (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: - not sure about the map, I guess it either needs a fair use rationale, or it needs someone to redraw it (rather than direct scan) from the book/source...? (see below)

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - just the map to sort out. okay, I'll assume good faith on the map that the author has state that in the text somewhere. All else in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The map file is from Wiki Commons here is the info.Tirronan (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Description English: Map of the Battle of Borodino Date 2006 Source Gregory Fremont-Barnes (main editor) - The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, page 172. Adapted from Chandler 1987, 437.

Author Gregory Fremont-Barnes (main editor)

Permission (Reusing this file) See below.

[edit]Licensing

The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time. Date/Time Thumbnail Dimensions User Comment current 11:52, 16 June 2010 936×619 (94 KB) Andynomite ({{Information |Description=English: Map of the Battle of Borodino |Source=Gregory Fremont-Barnes (main editor) - The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, page 172. Adapted from Chandler 1987, 437. |Author=Gregory Fremont-Barnes (m)

Reviewer:Sandpiper (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Hmm. dont know how this is supposed to be formatted, but my comments (not necessarily a complete list.):

• 'Russian losses, while heavier, could be replaced due to Russia's large population, since Napoleon's campaign took place on Russian soil. ' , like, by snapping ones fingers? Peasants do not a well trained army make.

• Dont understand, 'Kutuzov inspired the loyalty of both his army and his subordinates'. His army was not subordinate to him, his subordinates were other than his army? What is the distinction here?

• Opposing forces – starts by saying the army had changed since 1805-7. I dont know the significance of this date, but later in the same paragraph it talks about changes starting in 1802. So we dont mean changes since 1805, but since 1802?

• table – estimates by historians of what? Soldiers? Deaths? Acts of brutality? Table has a big swath of whitespace beside it in the middle of the article where there should be text (or something!).

• Position: I have copyedited 2nd para of 'position' but am not certain I have still got the facts right. What exactly does the ref Mikaberidze p26, 75-76 say and thus where should it be placed.? I am not clear whether this chap said what I have said, that Kutuzov made his dispositions because of fear the french would go around him: the original wording implies there might be some additional reason for his choice of disposition of the armies. Could someone check this and confirm or revert my edit?

1. Replaced with the sources of the replacement troops absorbed into Russian line formations.Tirronan (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Restated as per previous question, Barclay faced plotting because he was a Scott, Kutuzov was a native born Russian Noble from an old house.Tirronan (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Reworked that paragraph starting with the 1st change to the Russian Army and stating that it had changed from its battles with the French in 1805-1807.Tirronan (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Hived off table with a bit of explanation as to its contents there.Tirronan (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
5. No you are quite correct Kutuzov feared for his right flank so much he'd compromised any chance that he would win the battle. The edit is fine.Tirronan (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think someone else says it, but the intro seems a bit short as a summary of the entire article. Might want enlarging a bit, but I havnt learnt waht the article says yet.

Lead looks a good size now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...'he [kutuzov] possessed the ability to muster a good defense,< ref Riehn, p. 235./ref >' . Can you explain a bit more about what Riehn said? ..that he was only good at defence.. that he had some previous campaign where he showed ability at this... what I mean is it seems a very odd thing to say about a general, as though it should be half of something like ...he was a lousy general though quite good at defence. It is not clkear to me from reading on that he actually did a very good defensive job.

• 'The construction of the redoubt...is still disputed'. What is meant by 'construction'? When it was built, its actual design?

• 'According to Historian Alexander Mikaberidze, the French Army remained the finest army...' Is this assertion disputed by other historians? If not, shouldn't Mikaberidze simply be used as a ref and not mentioned in the text?

• The 'central event/position' section: who is Toll referred to in last para twice? There is a colonel von toll mentioned later so maybe he needs to be formally introduced when first mentioned? Ditto Clausewitz, who seems to have been a colonel taking part in the battle but also later a historian. It is not always clear whether he is being referred to as an eye witness and participant or historian commenting and assessing afterwards. Eg 'according to Colonel Karl von Clausewitz, famous for his work On War, the Russian commander "seemed to be in a trance."[50 '<riehn p251>'

• 'The third area of operations was around the village of Utiza. ' What were the first and second? Is it Utiza or Utitsa? (I would guess the reference to 'Utitsa woods' ought to say Utiza). While on this section, I was a bit phased by the polish contingent capturing Utitza and then Tuchkov ejecting the French by 0800. Rather confusing that poles presumably were in fact French. Then some westphalians captured it, and I presume they were also French. Then it said 'Despite taking the village the Russians and Poles proceeded to skirmish and cannonade', so in fact the Russians and Poles together took the village? I have rewritten the paragraph to try to make a clearer sequence of events and a bit clearer as to who is on which side. Please check I didnt muck up. The 1st Grenadier division was probably deployed at the village, or outside the village, or in the village? Presumably poniatovski's men were all Polish? He sounds Polish. Probably better to mention he had 10,000 polish soldiers rather than just soldiers, so it is clearer. Again, I would do it, but he might have had other nationalities under his command too so then they would have to be itemised, 5000 poles and whatever. I notice that poniatowski was involved in the attack on Shevardino redoubt, where it says 5,000 French died. Would that be Polish French or French French? If we are going into detail of him commanding Poles at utiza, then presumably we would do the same at shevardino. Junot was subordinate to poniatovski or acting independently? What rank was baggovut, or indeed Konovnitzyn, who also appears without rank elsewhere in the article. Everyone should be fully named and ranked on first mention. There are several people later who seem to get just one mention, general comte Dumas, etc. I am not sure what the correct form is, but i would have thought a full name is called for even though it gets very messy where loads of people are just popping up in the narrative.

Thanks for the help guys.Tirronan (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)