Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Fort William Henry

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 15:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Fort William Henry

edit
Nominator(s): Magic♪piano
Toolbox

This was an event of somewhat minor military consequence in the French and Indian War, but it had some fairly interesting (and unfortunate, for some) consequences. I've tried to balance the historiography of some of its more controversial aspects; I hope it meets with your approval. Magic♪piano 20:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: This article looks quite good. I have the following comments/suggestions, which should hopefully help take it towards A-class and beyond (apologies for the long list):
    • there is one disambig link that needs fixing according to the tools: [1]
    • there is one image that doesn't have alt text according to the tools: [2]
    • no issues with ext links (no action required),
    • the columns in the infobox seem to be lopsided on my display (it might just be me, of course), is there any way to rectify this, I wonder?
    • there is a mixture of US and British English, "traveled" (US), "honour" (British), "defence" (British), "cannibalized" (US);
    • in the Background section, this is slightly ambiguous: "The first few years had not gone particularly well for the British". The first few years of what?
    • in the Background section, this sounds awkward to me: "A major expedition by General Edward Braddock in 1755 ended in disaster, British military leaders were unable to mount any campaigns in 1756, and they suffered another setback that year when a French and Indian army led by General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm captured the garrison and destroyed fortifications in the Battle of Fort Oswego." I suggest, rewording to: "In 1755, a major expedition by General Edward Braddock had ended in disaster, while the British had been unable to mount any campaigns the following year. They had also suffered a significant setback when a French and Indian army led by General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm had captured the garrison and destroyed the fortifications at Oswego in August 1756."
    • in the Background section: "In July 1756 the Earl of Loudoun arrived to take command of the British forces in North America, replacing William Shirley". Is there a link between this sentence and the previous one? If so, it probably needs to be made more explicit. For example, are you saying that Shirley was replaced because the war had been going badly for the British? Currently it is only implied;
    • in the British planning section, "Loudon's plan for the 1757 campaign was submitted..." submitted to who? I don't think you clarify this;
    • in the British planning section, "...included purely defensive postures along the frontier with New France, including ..." (repeated derivative "included" and "including" - can you reword, perhaps?);
    • in the British planning section, I think the comma is out of place in this clause: "...area between William Henry and Carillon was a wilderness dominated by Lake George, that historian..." (I don't think the comma is required, if "that" was changed to "which", it would be necessary);
    • in the British planning section, this wording seems confusing: "Loudoun's plan depended on the expedition's timely arrival before Quebec..." ("before Quebec" - how are you using the word "before" here? Are you using it to denote time, or to denote proximity? If the latter, I suggest changing it as modern readers will probably be confused by it);
    • in the British planning section, this probably needs rewording: " As a result of this turmoil..." (turmoil is repeated, having been previously used in the sentence before. I suggest rewording slightly);
    • in the French planning section, I think there is a word missing in this clause: "...since it provided the British a launching point for attacks against Fort Carillon..." (...with a launching point, perhaps?);
    • in the French planning section, "suggested that troop levels...might make an attack" - this doesn't seem right to me. A "troop level" doesn't attack - it refers to a size, or an amount, I think. "Troops" attack, though, and "troop levels" either expand or decrease. Depending upon your meaning, I suggest a minor rewording here;
    • in the French planning section, this sentence needs work: "This idea was further supported by questioning deserters and captives taken during periodic scouting and raiding expeditions both sides conducted, including the January Battle on Snowshoes." (the issue with this is twofold. Firstly, the word "that" is probably required between "expeditions" and "both", and also the "both sides" is confusing as it implies that "both sides" questioned deserters to confirmed the British intentions. Surely the British knew their intentions and it was actually the French that confirmed the British intentions through questioning deserters";
    • in the French planning section, this is an example of passive voice: "New France's governor, the Marquis de Vaudreuil, had begun the process of recruiting Indians as early as December 1756 for the campaign of the following summer". I suggest rewording thusly: "As early as December 1756, the New French governor, the Marquis de Vaudreuil, began the process of recruiting Indians for the following summer's campaign";
    • in the British preparations section, "Fort William Henry, built in fall 1755..." (I think there are two words missing here: I think "the" should be added between "in" and "fall"; and "of" between "fall" and "1755");
    • in the Prelude section, I suggest saying: "Webb, the British officer who commanded..." As you have already introduced him there is no need to be so formal as to use the officer's rank, but if you include the clarifying clause, it will reinforce to the reader who is being talked about here;
      • Well, I think the clarifying clause is also somewhat redundant, given that he's been introduced. The only reason for using the title there was that he was introduced several sections back; I've just removed the title. Magic♪piano 17:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Siege section, please clarify from where the advance force of French troops departed: "...his advance force of French troops departed...";
    • in the Siege section, "...along the lake's western shore..." What lake is this? I think it needs to be clarified here;
    • in the Siege section, "...at 11 that morning...". Per WP:MOSTIME, this should probably be tweaked to "11:00 am";
    • in the Siege section, "...Monro refused, and sent messengers south to Fort Edward, indicating the dire nature of the situation..." (I think you should add something like this here: "...Fort Edward, indicating the dire nature of the situation and requesting reinforcements"...);
    • in the Siege section, you might consider wikilinking the term "battery" as it has a specific meaning within the military;
    • in the Siege section, there is a disconnect between the two clauses in this sentence: "The garrison in the fort returned the fire, but it was largely ineffectual, and some of their guns were either dismounted or burst due to the stress of use". Essentially this sentence is implying that because the firing was ineffectual, the guns were dismounted or had burst, but this doesn't make sense. I think what you are trying to say here is that the firing was ineffectual because the guns were dismounted or they had burst. If so, it needs to be reworded to convey this meaning, but at the same time you need to say why this would be the case. The casual reader will not understand why this is the case (as an engineer that has only once fired an artillery piece, I'm assuming that being dismounted means that the guns need to be re-layed before they are fired each time, and without proper equipment this is difficult - maybe I am wrong);
    • in the Siege section, "On 7 August Montcalm sent Bougainville..." I think this requires a comma after "August" per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank/Training;
    • in the Siege section, "After another day of bombardment by the French, in which..." (I think this should be "...during which...");
    • in the Siege section, "...Monro raised the white flag." (I think here you should include a clause, "...indicating that the garrison wished to surrender" in order to clarify the meaning of the white flag);
    • in the Massacre section, I suggest wikilinking "camp follower";
    • in the Massacre section, "...refrain from participation in the war for 18 months" (I suggest replacing "war" here with "fighting" to avoid repetition with "honours of war" previously in the sentence);
    • in the Massacre section, the meaning of this is ambiguous: "They were allowed to keep their muskets but no ammunition, and a single symbolic cannon" (was it no ammunition for the muskets, or no ammunition for the muskets and cannon?) If the later, I suggest rewording to: "They were allowed to keep their muskets and a single symbolic cannon, but no ammunition.";
    • in the Return of the captives section, I suggest wikilinking "parole";
    • in the Aftermath section, I suggest briefly clarifying who William Johnson was. This could be done with a small clause, for example "...had reached William Johnson, Chief Brewer of the Colonies, on 1 August." ("Chief Brewer of the Colonies" is tongue-in-cheek (too much egg nog for me!) - here you will need to add his actual position/occupation);
    • in the Return of captives section, this sentence sounds a little awkward: "The fleet continued on to Europe, where a few more former captives were released that eventually returned to the colonies". ("that" should probably be "who", I think);
    • in the Legacy section this doesn't sound right to me: "Historians disagree on where the responsibility for the Indian actions falls" ("falls" is the issue here, as it seems to disagree with "actions");
    • in Legacy section, "...an explorer who was in the Massachusetts militia at the siege". I think this should be, "...an explorer who served in the Massachusetts militia and was present at the siege" (for clarity);
    • in the Legacy section, "...denying visible trophies. The terms of surrender at Fort William Henry effectively denied the ..." (repetition of derivatives "denying" and "denied" - I suggest rewording slightly if possible);
    • in the Legacy section, "...(the British) against their friends (the Indians), denying them any chance at promised war trophies..." (repitition of "denying", and "war trophies" - perhaps reword?);
    • in the Participating Indian nations section, the first sentence doesn't go anywhere. It should normally be followed directly by the list with a colon after it (e.g. "According to historian William Nester, the following tribal nations were represented in the French army: Abenaki, Algonquin...") , however, currently there is a whole paragraph separating the sentence that introduces the list and the list itself. I suggest re-arranging this slightly. Maybe reword the first sentence thusly: "According to historian William Nester, a number of tribal nations were represented in the French army. Some were only...The nations that took part in the siege included: Abenaki, Algonquin, Fox, ....";
    • in the References section, is there a requirement for both ISBNs and OCLC numbers? Usually, I believe one or the other is enough (this is not a war stoper, just an observation);
    • in the References section, the title of the works should be in accordance with WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. Dodge, Jennings, Nester and Steele all need to be tweaked. For example, "Relief is greatly wanted: the battle of Fort William Henry" should be "Relief is Greatly Wanted: The Battle of Fort William Henry";
    • in the Further reading section (per above), the title of the Cooper work should be tweaked;
    • in the Further reading section, instead of having the long note "ISBN is for a modern edition available in 2010", I suggest just tweaking the mark up so that it presents both the original publication date and the updated version, this can be done using the {{cite book}} template as follows: "|origyear=1921 |year=2010". This will display as "(2010) [1921]". AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - In the infobox the British casualties are listed as not recorded. Are there any estimates at all on british casualties? Even a rough estimate would be better than the current listing in the infobox, if a number cannot be provided than perhaps a descriptive term such as light or moderate could be applied?XavierGreen (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most sources do not specifically enumerate French casualties (which is what I assume you meant). I haven't checked Steele (the most detailed account I have access to) yet, but French casualties were by all appearances quite light. I'll probably change the listing to "light", with a suitable citation. Magic♪piano 01:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes French is what i ment to say, and if light is the best the sources state it will do. But numbers are always preferable of course.XavierGreen (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a suitable note now. Magic♪piano 14:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, changed to support.XavierGreen (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 Citations are good except these need fixing:
    • Further Reading: Requires publisher location: Bellico, Russel P (1995). ; Requires date: Dwight, Timothy.
    • References: Spell out location and publisher in full per your style: Starbuck, David (2002).
    • Notes: "Nester, p. 57. He claims the second battery is at 900 feet; this is probably a copyediting error, based on later battery placements." Surely, "He claims the second battery was at 900 feet; this is probably a copyediting error, based on later battery placements"? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching these; I've fixed them. Magic♪piano 14:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nota Bene: Nester's "copyediting error" is actually a poorly-described (on his part) version of what the French did. Steele, it turns out, explains it much better; I've elaborated the text to explain more exactly where and how the French batteries were placed. Magic♪piano 14:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "poorly-supported": poorly supported
  • "Indian": I'm glad this is BritEng so I don't have to make the tough calls here. See Native American name controversy. AP recommends "American Indian" or "Native American" when there are multiple Indian nations involved, although I suppose either term would get tedious if you repeat it enough, and many writers would start writing just "native" or "Indian" at some point. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've occasionally had discussions with others on the naming subject; as the article on the controversy says, no one is entirely happy with any alternative. I generally stick to "Indian" for aggregates and situations where tribal affiliations are unknown (I do go to some effort to get an identification if the documentary record suggests one might be available), but am open to dispassionate arguments on the subject. Magic♪piano 18:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this, but I typically see "north-east" and "south-east" in BritEng and "northeast" and "southeast" in AmEng. (Btw, the article reads very nicely in AmEng, and the nominator is American ... it looks like it would be a very small conversion job if you want to convert.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, oxforddictionaries.com supports "running the gauntlet", but only "gantlet" is supported by merriam-webster.com, Webster's New World Dictionary, and Chicago (at 5.220) ... although to be fair, Chicago does say the alternate spelling is "frequently seen" ... they just don't like it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recently-arrived": recently arrived
  • "Cooper's description of the events contains numerous inaccuracies, but his work, and the sometimes lurid descriptions of the event by early historians like Benson Lossing and Francis Parkman led to the belief that many more people died than actually did." Fixed the comma error, which I believe is the same in BritEng, per Chicago 6.17, "Commas in pairs". - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs fixin'

  • "Colonel Monro died in November 1757, of apoplexy that may have been the result of anger over Webb's failure to support him.": Do you believe he was killed by anger, or is that what the source said?
  • Contemporary documents state he died of apoplexy; I believe the reason for the anger comes from Starbuck, although he is not alone in drawing this connection (Pargellis does as well). Magic♪piano 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In modern terms, the diagnosis "apoplexy" means roughly a stroke or heart attack leading to sudden death. What I'm saying is: doctors no longer believe that anger causes strokes or heart attacks, although sudden exertion can be a precipitating cause. Even if the sources believe something to be true, we shouldn't repeat it if all modern sources disagree.tweaked. Personally, I would have said "Colonel Monro died in November 1757, probably of a sudden stroke or heart attack." - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poor outcome of the 1757 campaigns also led King George II to elevate William Pitt to Prime Minister.": Poor performance usually leads to a sacking rather than an elevation, so I'm not following. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the statement in question. This is slightly complicated to explain, and I don't think the article is necessarily the place to elaborate, but either Pargellis is wrong, or I misread (or misstated) him. Pitt was first given control over American affairs in 1756, but was limited by Newcastle's power in Parliament. Following the military failures of 1756, Pitt gained power by joining with Newcastle (who was as titular a PM as they were in those days), who promised him a freer hand in military affairs. This coalition did not take shape until after the 1757 campaign planning was well under way (hence the relatively late orders to Loudoun), and Pitt could not implement his more aggressive strategies until 1758. The coalition government was in power until 1762; Pitt was apparently not recognized as a PM until 1766. All of this implies that Pitt's rise in power did not actually hinge on the results of the 1757 campaign. Magic♪piano 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The two issues above don't affect my support. AustralianRupert, I've read your copyediting notes, and they're outstanding. One thing ... it's common and accepted to ask the writers to make all the edits themselves, for good reasons: copyeditors are often the scarce resource around here so it does make some sense to ask others to help when possible, and it's unlikely a writer will learn something if we do it for them. And, this particular writer is outstanding and probably really appreciates the notes. But, since you're asking for feedback ... personally, I don't think the writers want to, can, or should learn everything in, say, Chicago. And even if I held the position that it's best for them to learn this stuff, and even if every judgment call of mine were perfect, long copyediting to-do lists put some writers off. I can't prove that any individual was driven from the project by a copyeditor, but I've seen people's enthusiasm wane often enough that I think it's something to consider. My approach is to make most of the corrections myself (with an explanation in case they're interested), and to try to get writers to learn and help in two areas: clarity, and silly little problems (punctuation, repetition, consistent names) of the kind that I might have to fix 50 times in a long article. The checklist may or may not be helpful at communicating what we're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, and especially your insights on American vs. British English. My position on prose commentary vs. copyediting, for what it's worth, is a pragmatic one: if an editor is asking for prose commentary (or appears to be), I'll offer that. Otherwise, I'll tip to whichever (commenting or fixing things myself) is likely to occupy less of my time. Magic♪piano 16:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • French preparations, "a group of Ottawas was not stopped when it was observed that they were ritually cannibalizing another prisoner." I think the plural/singular nature of this sentence is a bit off. You say "a group" (singular) "was not" (singular) "they were" (plural).
  • Siege, "a spectacle the large Indian contingent relished." Why?
  • Well, the sources don't actually say why; presumably it's something they didn't get to see much. (Parkman, for example, describes them "[yelling] their satisfaction when they saw the splinters fly from the wooden rampart.") Magic♪piano 17:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siege, "were either dismounted or burst due to the stress of use." Why? Were they overused? It would seem that guns, being guns, would be designed and mounted so that they wouldn't break as soon as they were used the first time.
  • Continuous use of period cannon could indeed lead to these sorts of events, especially older guns and mounts. While gun mounts and such were intended to take abuse, they could also fail under heavy use. Sources are fairly clear that the guns were under this sort of stress once siege activities began. Magic♪piano 17:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Participating Indian nations section. Does the analysis by Nester relate specifically to this siege, or is it for the entire French Army and the war as a whole? Does "some of the atrocities" refer to just the atrocities committed after the siege? If this section relates to the war/army as a whole, how much bearing does it have on this particular article?

Overall a nice article. I look forward to supporting when the above are addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. The article looks good, and I have added my support for its promotion to A-class. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Siege_of_Fort_William_Henry&oldid=1156955780"