This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of the Gebora article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of the Gebora is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
above comments moved from LOCE request template
A few very minor issues that need consensus for the sake of consistency:
-- Malachirality ( talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the words "extricate" and "mired" better convey the situation you are describing. An alternate, shorter, but similar version would be In a bid to extricate Marshal Andre Massena from a quagmire in front of Lisbon's defensive Lines of Torres Vedras... (quagmire is, admittedly, a charged word, but appropriate here I think). Anyways, let me know what you think, or just make the changes yourself. And I hope your Thanksgiving was also awesome! --
Malachirality (
talk)
05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There are broken links to the first and second sieges of Badajoz. I'm proofreading -- any way to fix those links, or should they be removed? Unimaginative Username ( talk) 05:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Soult was now in a difficult position: deploying two battalions to escort the prisoners taken at Olivenza back to French-held Seville left him only 5,500 infantry and a large (4,000-strong) contingent of cavalry with which to continue his campaign.". The last part, describing his cavalry as "large", seems to contradict the thrust of the first part, which is that his force is inadequate and his position difficult. If I'm understanding this correctly, one way to describe the contrast while maintaining the overall meaning of difficulty would be:
"Soult was now in a difficult position: although he had a large (4,000-strong) contingent of cavalry, deploying two battalions to escort the prisoners taken at Olivenza back to French-held Seville left him only 5,500 infantry with which to continue his campaign."
. Does this correctly describe the situation? Unimaginative Username ( talk) 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I need some information to proofread this clause:
"between 11–18 February, the French were only able to shell the southern end of the Spanish line,"
As written, it means that (because of the flooding) the French could only shell the Spanish - they couldn't attack on foot or on horse, they could only lob shells at them. If that is what was intended, then the sentence is correct as written. However, sometimes in this situation, what is intended is "the French could shell nothing but the southern end of the Spanish line, not the northern end or the city of Badajoz or anything else". If so, then the revision would be:
"between 11–18 February, the French were able to shell only the southern end of the Spanish line..."
A fine distinction of meaning - let me know which. Thanks,
Unimaginative Username (
talk)
05:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Soult sent nine infantry battalions, three cavalry squadrons, and two artillery batteries under Mortier's command..."
Were only the artillery under Mortier's command? If so, then the sentence is correct. If the infantry, cavalry, and artillery were all under Mortier's command, then it would read,
"Soult sent nine infantry battalions, three cavalry squadrons, and two artillery batteries, under Mortier's command,..." to indicate that "under Mortier's command" is an additional bit of information that applies to all of the preceding, rather than merely to the item to which it is attached without the comma. Thanks,
Unimaginative Username (
talk)
06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In the article he's refered as Sir Arthur Wellesley, Viscount of Wellington. Is that correct, since he was member of the peerage and would have the higher honorific "Lord" instead of "Sir"? Demophon ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
About the spanish flag in the infobox, I think in that period of time the spanish flag looks like a red X with a white background. A M M A R 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The following source is mentioned in the references-part: "Fortescue, Sir John (1917), A History of the British Army, vol. VIII, Macmillan, < http://www.archive.org/details/historyofbritish08fortuoft>. Retrieved on 13 September 2007". However, it's not used in any of the notes... Is it a general source or what? Is it really needed? Jopparn ( talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The text says: "Additionally, about 6,000 troops were sent forward from the Lines of Torres Vedras on 19 January, arriving at Elvas on 29 January. When these forces joined with Mendizabal's remaining 3,000 men, a Spanish cavalry division, and a brigade of Portuguese horse, the Allies had an army almost 15,000 strong, under the command of La Romana, with which to hold Soult in check.[17] La Romana, however, died of an aneurysm on 23 January, and command of the army then fell to Mendizabal.[18]"
If the forces arrived the 29th and La Romana died the 23, where they then really under his command? Jopparn ( talk) 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of the Gebora article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of the Gebora is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
above comments moved from LOCE request template
A few very minor issues that need consensus for the sake of consistency:
-- Malachirality ( talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the words "extricate" and "mired" better convey the situation you are describing. An alternate, shorter, but similar version would be In a bid to extricate Marshal Andre Massena from a quagmire in front of Lisbon's defensive Lines of Torres Vedras... (quagmire is, admittedly, a charged word, but appropriate here I think). Anyways, let me know what you think, or just make the changes yourself. And I hope your Thanksgiving was also awesome! --
Malachirality (
talk)
05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There are broken links to the first and second sieges of Badajoz. I'm proofreading -- any way to fix those links, or should they be removed? Unimaginative Username ( talk) 05:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Soult was now in a difficult position: deploying two battalions to escort the prisoners taken at Olivenza back to French-held Seville left him only 5,500 infantry and a large (4,000-strong) contingent of cavalry with which to continue his campaign.". The last part, describing his cavalry as "large", seems to contradict the thrust of the first part, which is that his force is inadequate and his position difficult. If I'm understanding this correctly, one way to describe the contrast while maintaining the overall meaning of difficulty would be:
"Soult was now in a difficult position: although he had a large (4,000-strong) contingent of cavalry, deploying two battalions to escort the prisoners taken at Olivenza back to French-held Seville left him only 5,500 infantry with which to continue his campaign."
. Does this correctly describe the situation? Unimaginative Username ( talk) 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I need some information to proofread this clause:
"between 11–18 February, the French were only able to shell the southern end of the Spanish line,"
As written, it means that (because of the flooding) the French could only shell the Spanish - they couldn't attack on foot or on horse, they could only lob shells at them. If that is what was intended, then the sentence is correct as written. However, sometimes in this situation, what is intended is "the French could shell nothing but the southern end of the Spanish line, not the northern end or the city of Badajoz or anything else". If so, then the revision would be:
"between 11–18 February, the French were able to shell only the southern end of the Spanish line..."
A fine distinction of meaning - let me know which. Thanks,
Unimaginative Username (
talk)
05:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Soult sent nine infantry battalions, three cavalry squadrons, and two artillery batteries under Mortier's command..."
Were only the artillery under Mortier's command? If so, then the sentence is correct. If the infantry, cavalry, and artillery were all under Mortier's command, then it would read,
"Soult sent nine infantry battalions, three cavalry squadrons, and two artillery batteries, under Mortier's command,..." to indicate that "under Mortier's command" is an additional bit of information that applies to all of the preceding, rather than merely to the item to which it is attached without the comma. Thanks,
Unimaginative Username (
talk)
06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In the article he's refered as Sir Arthur Wellesley, Viscount of Wellington. Is that correct, since he was member of the peerage and would have the higher honorific "Lord" instead of "Sir"? Demophon ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
About the spanish flag in the infobox, I think in that period of time the spanish flag looks like a red X with a white background. A M M A R 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The following source is mentioned in the references-part: "Fortescue, Sir John (1917), A History of the British Army, vol. VIII, Macmillan, < http://www.archive.org/details/historyofbritish08fortuoft>. Retrieved on 13 September 2007". However, it's not used in any of the notes... Is it a general source or what? Is it really needed? Jopparn ( talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The text says: "Additionally, about 6,000 troops were sent forward from the Lines of Torres Vedras on 19 January, arriving at Elvas on 29 January. When these forces joined with Mendizabal's remaining 3,000 men, a Spanish cavalry division, and a brigade of Portuguese horse, the Allies had an army almost 15,000 strong, under the command of La Romana, with which to hold Soult in check.[17] La Romana, however, died of an aneurysm on 23 January, and command of the army then fell to Mendizabal.[18]"
If the forces arrived the 29th and La Romana died the 23, where they then really under his command? Jopparn ( talk) 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)