Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Blenheim/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC) [1].

Battle of Blenheim edit

Notified: Andrew Gray, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Bavaria, WikiProject France, WikiProject European history, WikiProject History, talk page notice 2020-11-09

I am nominating this featured article for review because two weeks ago, serious issues with the FA criteria were identified by RetiredDuke on the talk page. They were never addressed so here we are. (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks to address some pretty minor issues is hardly enough time. I had already listed the article to be looked at by a couple of Milhist members in the thread immediately above yours. This is an over-enthusiastic nomination given the issues addressed are far from serious. In summary, they are some missing citations (much of this material can just be deleted as it was uncited when added and added little to the subject), and some pretty minor prose issues with flowery language. You would be better off using the limited number of FAR noms you are allowed to nominate more seriously deficient articles. I will have a look at rectifying the issues shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion on prose: Like many articles on (and off) Wikipedia, the word "however" is overused. Use it only where needed to show contrast, and not as just another conjunction. And where contrast is clear without it, leave it off. Consider using "but", or recasting the sentence to use "although". Eric Corbett has some good advice and links here and here.
I agree that the other issues are not major. Kablammo (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the however's. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the book that many of the uncited passages came from and have addressed all bar one of the citation needed tags - Dumelow (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove some of the text which I couldn't source but I have now addressed the last one - Dumelow (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help here, Dumelow! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to get part of the last CN tagged bit in the Initial Maneuvers section cited, but the source I have access to discussing Blenheim is a short chapter in a larger 1960s book about "Great Military Battles", so I was unable to cite the rest of that statement due to lack of detail in my source. Hog Farm Bacon 17:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarise where we are at, there is one remaining "citation needed" tag, and the image licensing has been checked by Nikkimaria (details on the talk page), and there are a few images that need licensing fixed or the images removed. I will have a look at these two issues in the next day or so unless someone else gets in ahead of me. Once they are fixed, I think this article is satisfactory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are Harvref errors, there is dreadful MOS:SANDWICH everywhere with an unbearable navigational template full of redlinks taking up most of the top of the article and contributing to clutter, and why was this removed?

  • The famous Lake poet Robert Southey scathingly criticised the Battle of Blenheim in his anti-war poem After Blenheim, but later praised the victory as "the greatest victory which had ever done honour to British arms".[100]

This seems an undue focus on MILHIST, leaving off a well-known poem about the futility of war that referenced Blenheim. Please reduce the images, or better arrange them, and convert the template full of red links taking over the article to a foooter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've autocollapsed the campaignbox to reduce its intrusiveness. I agree it is overly long and should ideally be broken down into shorter boxes by period or location - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone please reinstate some sort of legacy section with the poem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - Are the harvref errors from most of the references being as ref tags, but a handful being sfns? I'm willing to convert the sfns over to ref tags if that'll fix anything. Hog Farm Bacon 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm famously useless with harvrefs, but I believe (?) they are sources that were removed, no longer used? Sample:
  • Chandler, David G. (1964). "Blenheim, 1704". In Falls, Cyril (ed.). Great Military Battles. New York City: MacMillan. pp. 30–41. OCLC 221501112. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFChandler1964. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the source I just added to cite the note I could. Pointing a no-target error, since I added it as a ref tag inline citation, which is the prevailing style. So I think there's one of two things that'll have to be done. Either the ref tags will all need to be converted to sfns, or the {{Cite book}} templates will need to be done as typed-in text, without templates. Both will entail some work, not sure which one's preferable. Hog Farm Bacon 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The HarvRef errors are at Chandler 1964, Chrisholm 1911, Faulkner 2008, Webb 2013.
  • If what I think is going on is going on, the best way to handle this will be to switch everything to sfns and {{Cite book}}. It'll take a few minutes, and it'll flag more errors before it all gets done. I'm pretty sure Chisholm 1911 will take an additional fix, but we'll see. Gonna try to work on this. Hog Farm Bacon 01:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so I've been going through, and have run into a couple problems. This produces a number of footnotes that it's not clear if they're sourced or not. Additionally, I ran into the text On 14 May, Tallard brought 10,000 reinforcements and vast supplies and munitions through the difficult terrain, whilst outmanoeuvring Johann Karl von Thüngen, the Imperial general who sought to block his path.[1]. Since the footnote is to Falkner, but the accompanying text makes it clear that Falkner doesn't back up the 10,000 figure, I'm not sure what to do with this, as I can't tell what source the main info is coming from. I'll just leave this as is, which means that it will likely continue to flag a harverror, but there's no way around that one without someone figuring out where than 10,000 figure comes from. Hog Farm Bacon 01:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the 10,000 figure. The most recent source that I could find that stated 10,000 was published in 1909 - Dumelow (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SandyGeorgia - How many harverrors are flashing now? I've done my task, except for two points where I lacked enough information to create an sfn. Chisholm and another source weren't used, so they've been removed. This also uncovered a problem with notes either only vaguely sourced or unsourced. Hog Farm Bacon 03:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Falkner: Blenheim 1704, p. 20. Falkner gives a total of 8,000
I've removed one image (Tallard) as overly cluttered and another (the diorama) for having iffy licensing (per Nikkimaria's analysis on the talk page), and moved some stuff around, addressing all of the SANDWICH issues that appear on my system except for the long campaignbox. I can't guarantee that it looks good on other systems, and the removal of Tallard might cause some pushback, so we'll see where this goes. Hog Farm Bacon 01:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked three devices (desktop, laptop, iPad), and except for that absurd mess of redlinks taking up the entire top of the article, images are OK now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are also three of the footnotes that are just unsourced notes. FN1 is just geographic stuff that's probably self-proving (distances and stuff), but FN2 and FN7 need either removed or cited. Hog Farm Bacon 01:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly removed FN7 as an over-long description for a thing that's wikilinked anyway. Hog Farm Bacon 01:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten/cited some problematic footnotes. One I couldn't help with that needs attention is footnote b about Blindheim lying in the principality of Palatinate-Neuburg - Dumelow (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted these with teh proper quote template - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, if someone has access to Churchill's Marlborough and can cite the three or four notes that mention different figures, this is now completely fine. I would be happy to delete the Churchill notes if no-one has a copy to hand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to use an older edition but I have added page numbers for the Churchill notes (and also for Lynn) - Dumelow (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still see a few small issues. Exact casualty figures from the infobox aren't cited anywhere, and Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Homburg, and Scotland are mentioned as belligerents but not mentioned in the article. It's also in Category:Battles involving Hesse-Kassel, so without a citation for Hesse-Cassel, it currently fails WP:CATV there. Hog Farm Bacon 16:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we still have a HarvRef error (some of you folks need to install the script I have installed ...now, if I could only tell you where!) Churchill's Marlborough is not correctly linking to its harvref ... I may have learned how to fix that if given enough time :)
    Overall, I agree we can Close without FARC once these stragglers are addressed, but will mention that the MOS:DONTHIDE ridiculous template at the top of the article is troubling, and hope that MilHist editors will deal with that issue eventually. What a ridiculous template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the campaignbox is a mess and bloated, but that's probably best addressed elsewhere than a FARC for one article. Hog Farm Bacon 16:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm to me if that nice caterpillar quote is from the Winston Churchill or from Winston Churchill (Cavalier)? It now links to the first. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the former, I've switched the citation to the direct source (Churchill's Marlborough His Life And Times) - Dumelow (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I figured it would be, but wanted to be sure. Is that Mr. Bothmer in the text, Hans Caspar von Bothmer? RetiredDuke (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Friedrich Johann von Bothmer [da], I've added interwiki links for him and Cuno Josua von Bülow [de] - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. That was just me keeping up with all the secondary players. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, I have read it again now, it meets the criteria in my view. Thanks to all involved. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, minor remaining issues can be fixed without FARC. Hog Farm Bacon 00:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Blenheim/archive1&oldid=992574105"