Talk:Vallière system

Upgrade article

A large part of this article was moved from the Jean-Florent de Vallière article. To bring the article up to a B class assessment the following actions were taken. Djmaschek (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Three cited sources that were missing page numbers were moved to the Further reading section.
• Five diagrams from "Études sur le passé et l'avenir de l'artillerie" by Ildefonce Fave (1863) were added.
• New Introduction, Background, and Reduction of calibers sections were written.
• Photos were consolidated into 5-photo galleries.
• A Vallière vs. Gribeauval artillery table was added.
• More references were listed and cited. Existing citations will be cleaned up.
• More work is needed on the Obsolescence section.

A note on scoring

This article was created on 29 September 2025 by transferring relevant parts from the Jean-Florent de Vallière article. At some point while it was being expanded, a bot assessed it as C class. For scoring purposes, I think it's fair to claim that this article went from stub to B class. Djmaschek (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it went from none to C. No assessments were made until October. Donner60 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vallière system/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 21:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 21:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Will review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 21:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• "Because Vallière intended his new guns to be used in sieges and in the field, they were not suitable for field artillery" - this sentence doesn't make sense to me. If the gun was intended to be used in the field, then how come it wasn't suitable for use as field artillery?

  @Hog Farm: I agree that it's ambiguous. The sentence from Kiley reads as follows: "In reality, Vallière designed his system to be employed both in siege warfare and with the field armies, but it was not a field artillery system." The one from Summerfield reads: "Vallière believed that it was folly to create specific guns for the field, siege and garrison." Personally, I think that because Vallière was an expert in sieges, his guns were really designed for siege warfare. However, no source actually says that. I will rewrite it so that it makes more sense. Djmaschek (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Spot-checks (from Greene and web sources)

• "The barrels of Vallière guns were adorned with intricate ornamentation. Also, the handles were made to resemble dolphins. These details made it simple to identify the caliber of the artillery piece at a glance" - OK
• "There the allies were joined by a second French corps under Claude-Anne de Rouvroy de Saint Simon which was landed from the French fleet under François Joseph Paul de Grasse." - OK
• "In 1762, the Prussian army re-bored captured Vallière 4-pounders to take 6-pounder shot" - OK
• "The Americans re-bored most of the over-engineered Vallière 4-pounders to accommodate standard British 6-pounder round shot" - OK

This is in very good shape - clarify the above point and this will be at a GA-level. Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.