- Oppose
Comments: very interesting article, but I have a few concerns:
- there is one dab link, although to be honest, I'm not sure that it can be fixed (probably no action required);
- the external links all work (no action required);
- the images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
- the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations: [1] (no action required);
- the images lack alt text. It is not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in (suggestion only); Done
- if possible, you might consider adding an image to the Generalship section to break up the text a little (suggestion only);
- Is on my "to-do", but I have yet to find a suitable image on Commons - despite a long search - that suitably expresses his role as a force commander, rather than another typical solo Wellington pose. But I'm avoiding a repeat of the main picture, with him on a horse in some battle - they all represent the same idea. If I have any luck, or come across one I'll pop one in there. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- are all the items in the See also section necessary? The first one probably is, but the others I'm not so sure about and I would suggest removing them (suggestion only);
- I believe they are - medals often arise as a result of successful battles and campaigns. They serve to credit those who fought and their success. I think Wellington is highly under-rated, especially here on Wiki (considering Napoleon has an A-class article, and Wellington barely scratches a lowly C-class) is seems fair to say without a Battle Record there would not be corresponding medals to read about. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but be advised that you might be asked to remove most of them at FL. Its not a big issue for me, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't understand why anyone would want related links removed at any level, whether Stub or FL.. I'd hope they can provide a WP policy which gives a good reason why it should be a bad thing. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument would probably be that they are not "directly-related", which IMO they aren't. They are related to the individual battles for which they are awarded, but not to Wellington's battle record. If he received them, then by all means his article should probably link to them (in prose), but it is probably over kill to add them in a See also section in this article. That is, however, just my opinion (albeit one based on experience in my involvement in many ACRs, FACs and FLCs). It's your call, nonetheless, as I said. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "having lead a successful military career during the Napoleonic Wars" probably should be "having led a successful"; Done
- the last part of the first paragtaph in the Military career section needs a citation as it appears to be uncited;
- The wording is based on my conclusion drawn as a result of producing the table that follows. I have no source, simply because no one else has produced a table of similar content, to the best of my knowledge (hence the reason why I have done so). Ma®©usBritish (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but at A class you need to be able to provide a citation for this sort of information. At the very least, it should be possible to provide a citation for the assertion that "Britain played a major role in securing Europe against French occupation between 1803 and 1815". If you could add a citation for that, I would be happy with that. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- same as above for the last part of the second the third paragraphs of the Military career section; Done
- same as above for the last part of the second and fourth paragraphs of the Generalship section; Done 2nd para
- 4th para, or rather sentence as it stands, is again a conclusion drawn from the battle record table - no source. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable at A-class, IMO. It either needs a source, or it should be removed. Is there some work that paints a general picture of the campaign, showing the span of six years between the first and last battles that could be cited? Even if it were just a book with a map that depicted the progression of the campaign. You could then cite the page number of the map. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- irregular capitalisation: "only faced Napoleon's Marshals" should probably be "only faced Napoleon's marshals" (as it is an improper noun, I believe)
- As it's a title, like "Captain" or "General", it looks incorrect with small case 'm'. Not sure if it's a proper noun, or whether using a small case for ranks is another wacky Americanised.. sorry, I mean -ized.. cock-up of the English language. :) I think most British authored books I read use upper case for Marshal. I do, habitually, because it's a rank, title, role of honour and distinctive position, all in one. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- irregular capitalisation: "Indicates a Decisive Victory" should probably just be "Indicates a Decisive victory"; Done
- there is information in the lead, which is not presented in the body of the article. For instance, in the lead "Between 1794 and 1815 Wellesley participated in a number of military campaigns" and "rose in rank by purchasing his first four commissions". These should be covered in the Military career section. Currently that section, however, does not provide the reader with information on when Wellington's military career began. Also did he receive any formal military training. It probably only needs a short sentence explaining these things. His service in India should also be briefly mentioned in this section, IMO (would probably only need a sentence again);
- Or I could link Arthur Wellesley's article as the "Main" which contains this information in full? Unfortunately his first 4 commissions involved him moving through about 5 or 6 different units, infantry and cavalry, taking on administrative duties but never training formally as a soldier. It would take a little more detailed text to cover these non-combative years, but would just be a duplicate of the Main article. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A sentence or two in general terms in the Military career section would provide enough information, IMO. For instance (without having the specific knowledge to make it accurate, here is something I've written): "Wellington's military career began in ? when, at the age of ?, he purchased a commission as a ? in the ? regiment. He received no formal military training, although this was the norm at the time, and following this his career progressed as he purchased promotions up to the rank of ? His first battle came at ? in ?". That is pretty much all you would need to add, IMO. I will leave it up to you, though, but currently I don't believe that the article provides the reader with enough of a background understanding of the Duke's military career to put the list in context. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- a great number of the lines in the Battle record list are cited in the Action column, which is great, but there are a few that are not. For instance the Duke's presence at the battles of Mallavelly, Done, Seringapatam, Done, Sultanpet Tope, Done, Argaon, Done, Gawilghur, Done, Grijo, Pombal, Done, Redinha, Done, Sabugal, Done, and Garris. Done For A-class, these probably also need to be cited (remember A class is just below FL);
- Correct. I have a dozen books on Wellington that I can personally read, and cite. As well as a few scanned books. Unfortunately they are all primarily focused on the Napoleonic Wars. I have yet to acquire a comprehensive text on his career in India worth citing. It's something I had intended to do when looking to boost the article from A to FL. At the moment I simply lack a good book on those Indian wars.. and I don't think the Sharpe books are citable.. ;) Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the Sharpe books couldn't be used. Have you searched on Credo Reference? I believe that they have a Who's who at Waterloo that might help. The link is here: [2] (if you can't access it, send me a message and I will see if I can. I think I have access through my local library). Also, have you looked for journal articles or dictionaries of biography? Sometimes, these can be a gold mine of information. I'm afraid that without citations, however, it does not meet A1 of the A-class criteria at WP:MHA. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- to be honest, I'm not sure that Footnote A is acceptable to act as a citation for the outcome of the battles. It would probably be best to provide a citation for each entry, unless there is a general citation that can cover all these results. As it stands, Footnote A looks like it could just be your own analysis;
- I left a request for alternative suggestions to a footnote, on the original PR/BCR page. There were none. I see no other alternative either. By not explaining that the column is for Tactical outcome, and not Strategic outcome, it leaves an invite for war editing over some of these battles, such as Quatre Bra. By giving a footnote, it is more clear what the intention of that column is. I am not aware that footnotes have to be considered part of the article, but rather act in support of it, to explain/clarify an authors intentions as is the case here. I believe that's what makes footnotes distinct from notes - footnotes are general comments to support the authoring, whilst notes support the content with remarks that would seem out of context in the main body, but relevant to a researcher. Those outcomes come from the cited sources, and are not my analysis, btw. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the outcomes come from cited sources, please provide the inline citation. Currently it appears uncited and given that it appears to be drawing conclusions, it should be cited even if it is in a Footnote. You can include an inline citation in a Footnote. For instance, look at the example in this article: Operation Kita (which is a GA/A class article) and USS Chesapeake (1799) (which is an FA). If necessary, a citation per individual line item in the outcome column could be added if there is no general source that encompasses all, by simply adding the citations into the table beside each item. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have to disagree with you on this point. If a battle is cited in the Action column, then that citation obviously covers the date, war, location, possibly his rank, and the outcome for that battle - so it's common sense that it extends across the full row - there's no benefit to citing the Result column of every battle, when the cite would just be the same as the one used already. I'd consider it WP:CITECLUTTER, and I think that the Footnote is clearly worded explaining that there are no conclusions being drawn. Anyone could reasonably argue that all battle results are drawn conclusions - especially Strategic analysis - hence why I stuck with Tactical results - because they are usually very clear to determine, whereas Strategic results are often argued about. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, it is not obvious to me that a citation in one column relates to another. If you wish to get around repeating the citations, you could probably include an explanatory Footnote in the columns that says something like: "Unless specifically cited, the information in this column comes from the citation provided in the Action column". That would be acceptable, IMO, and would then only require one note. Regarding the Footnote, I cannot agree with you about the lack of in line citations, as from my perspective, it is written in a manner that indicates that conclusions are being drawn and that facts are being presented. As such, IMO, you need to cite it per WP:NOR. You say that the analysis is not your own but comes from cited sources, as such you need to identify what those sources are and adding it directly to the footnote would seem to me to be the best way of making it clear that it is not your own analysis. I am unsure why you seem reluctant to do this as it would only require one or two inline citations and I have provided you with a couple of examples of methods that you could use to achieve this. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because the examples you give don't appear relevant to this List format. They're using the "for the purposes of this article" method of footnoting, whilst I'm using the "explain authors intentions" method to describe the purpose of the table and remove any doubt as to its design to the reader without over-citing it with duplicated links. Again, how can anyone be reading the article and not understand the purposes of a footnote basically saying "Outcome is the Tactical result only" and a short example? Perhaps that example infers Original Research, and should be removed to simply state the fact. Regardless, I don't know how you cannot translate one column in a row to another when they are related - hence the purpose of tables in the first place - to correlate date and make it relate to its fellow rows and columns. It is only natural to assume that if a citation has been given regarding the battle event, then it must be relevant to the full row. Why is it you don't expect me to cite the date? Answer: because the citation in the Action column will confirm it, and the location, and everything across the row. Why would the result be any exception? So again, I think you're mistaken in your beliefs, or you're simply not accpting the table as providing relational data. You're asking me to cite one or two inline citations, but that does not make sense when there are ~60 rows and each battle has different sources. How does one citation cover all of them if this is the first example of such a battle record? Ma®©usBritish (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that it is acceptable to cite a Wikipedia page as an inline citation as you have for Note # 3. I suggest replacing this with citations to books or reliable websites, even if this means a citation for each entry (although one general citation that encompassed all entries in the column would be the best solution if possible).AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know of no books that completely detail Wellington's ranks and dates of commission, in one or two pages, as completely as the Wiki article given. But it also unlikely that the Rank he held per battle is going to be disputed. Few books give his rank on each battle either, so you're asking the near-impossible. It's merely a "see also" for those who want to know his commission dates, although I have yet to see anything that disapproves of it in the WP:MOS. I could be wrong. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you cannot include something in the article if you can't cite a reliable source. Per the guidance at Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose". As such I would suggest simply removing the ranks if they can't be cited, or only include those that can be cited and leave the rest as "unknown". AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check the new info under "Military Career", although its all a load of bollox to me, adding this bloated info is unprofessional - anyone daft enough to question Wellington's rank for each and every battle is daft enough to ask whether London was still the capital during Dunkirk, or the Somme, or D-Day and deserves a slap. Or as wiki puts it: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue! Either way, there's a lot of citations in that new sub-section - thanks to Holmes.. again.. but over-kill is still a bad thing. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you don't respect my opinion or time enough to respond in civil manner. I've undertaken many A class reviews of other editors' work over the past two years so I at least feel I know a little bit about the requirements (whether that is true in reality is, of course, arguable). I have a pretty thick skin, however, I do not respond well to implications that I'm being "daft" or asking you to add "bollox" when I am trying to help you. I have no other motive than to try to get your article promoted to A-class and maybe FL. I'm insulted by your remarks and as such, from my perspective, we are done here. Personally, I feel that the article is close to the standard, however, using a Wikipedia entry as a citation as you have done and continuing to refuse to add citations to factual assertions in the Footnote is a war stopper for me. BTW, the information you've added in the Military career section is good, although it is more than what I was asking you for (I was not asking for that level of detail – I said a sentence or two at the most) and it is out of chronological order (the Allied commander section should be after the information about promotions, IMO). Additionally, I would suggest moving the first paragraph to the Battle record section as it relates more to that section (culling any repetition) and making the Military career section a short overview of the Duke's career consisting of a brief chronology of promotions/first battle experience and then the Allied commander subsection. The reason for this is to provide the casual reader with enough context for the list. Overall, my assessment of the article is that it meets A2, A3, A4 and A5 but fails on A1. You are more than welcome to ask others to provide their opinion (and I encourage you to do so). I will not be continuing to take part in this review, however. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, there was nothing "uncivil" about my response - I was being frank, and my comments neither imply nor suggest anything regarding yourself, please don't bite off more than you can chew; I referred to general readers in terms of questioning his rank, and whatever policies you claim require re-entry of information rather than cross-referencing are bollox. If you feel I don't respect your opinion you might ask yourself why I took the time to query your concerns, make alterations, additions and such - before Lording it up - there's a review and there's "do it my way, or not at all" - PR's are subjective, and you certainly subject yourself to excessive demands IMO. And the new section added last night is self-referring. By dating his promotions they now match the dates around which the battles took place, and those in between - we know ranks are something someone maintains, unless demoted, which Wellington was not. So that solves that. Thanks for your time, however much you begrudge giving it. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|