"Within historiography there is a degree of uncertainty about the period in which the Legions existed." - I'm not sure you really mean historiography here; did you mean "Amongst historians there is..."?
"Magocsi et al." - you'll need to expand the et al. I'd also expect to see the historians' full names (e.g. John Smith, rather than Smith) the first time they appeared in this format.
It's the bit in the main text that's the issue, rather than the citation. They're appearing as people in the text, and they'd therefore normally be introduced by full name. I won't die in a ditch over it though!
Hchc2009 (
talk)
16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
"Demographically, most of the soldiers came from the ranks of the peasantry" - you could delete "demographically" without changing the meaning of the sentence if you wished.
"Paris was the seat of two Polish organizations pretending to be a sort of government-in-exile" - are you happy about the verb "pretend" here? (which could be felt to be POV, if not backed by the literature)
"Jan Henryk Dąbrowski, a former high-ranking officer in the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, began his work in 1796 – a year after the total destruction of the Commonwealth – when he went to Paris, and later, Milan, where his idea received support from Napoleon Bonaparte, who saw the Poles as a promising source of new recruits, and who superficially appeared receptive to the idea of liberating Poland." This is rather a long sentence and probably needs breaking in two somewhere.
" were seen as among the most pro-French foreign forces in the Cisapline" - seen by who? (if its not critical who, then you could just say "were among the most...")
" From a Roman representative, Dąbrowski obtained a number of trophies that the Polish king" - should probably be "Dąbrowski obtained a number of trophies from a Roman representative, that the Polish king..."
"part of the Legions' symbols" - I'm not sure about the use of the word "symbol" here, as its usually used to refer to an emblem rather than a standard.
"Soon afterward, supplies from the captured Gaeta fortress allowed the creation of a Legion cavalry unit" - do we know what kind of supplies these were?
"the anti-French coalition advanced upon Italy" - I'd lost track of who the anti-French coalition was by this point, as I don't think it had been made clear in the previous sections.
" became part of the soon besieged garrison at Mantua" - the "soon besieged" doesn't work well as a phrase for me. Suggest "became part of the garrison at Mantua, and were soon placed under siege by..."
"Finally, at the end of the Siege of Mantua (April–July), the French commander François-Philippe de Foissac-Latour decided to release Polish soldiers – then under Wielhorski – into Austrian custody as the Austrians claimed them to be deserters; this marked the end of the Second Legion, as only a small number of Poles were able to evade capture (the French were allowed to withdraw most of their forces under the condition that they would remain neutral)." - another very long sentence that could do with being broken up into two.
"With the disappearance of the Cisalpine Republic, the Legions would be reorganized in France" > "the Legions were reorganized in France". You might want to consider "With the collapse of the Cisalpine Republic" or "With the end of the Cisalpine Republic", as disappearance seems a bit odd here.
"were reorganized near Marseilles as the Italian Legion (La Legion Italique) into a 9,000-strong unit " Did you mean "were reorganized near Marseilles into the Italian Leigion (La Legion Italique), a 9,000 strong unit," ?
"In 1800[3][19] or 1799[6] (sources vary)" I'd suggest "In either 1799 or 1800," - you probably don't need the sources vary bit, and I'd start with the earlier of the two dates.
"According to Davies, it would suffer significant casualties" - unclear by this point in the paragraph what the "it" is; if its the Legion, I'd name it rather than using a pronoun.
"The size of Legions decreased after the Treaty of Luneville (9 February 1801), which made no mention of Poland." is there a link between these two events? Also "the Legions".
"most of the disgruntled legions" - is it true to call them legions by this point, as they've been reorganised into brigades? Or would it be more accurate to say "Legionaries"?
"By 1805, during the War of the Third Coalition, the Polish troops in Italy had been renamed the 1st Polish Legion (1e Legion Polonaise) and attached to the Kingdom of Italy.[26] In 1806, all that was left of the old Dąbrowski and Kniaziewicz's Legions was one demi-brigade, consisting of one infantry regiment and one cavalry regiment, now in the service of the Kingdom of Naples." - Are these two sentences talking about the same troops? (I was a little confused)
"Although some chose to remain with the French forces, and fought in Italy under the Kingdom of Naples" - this seems to be repeating the previous section a bit.
"When Napoleon was forced into exile on Elba, the only unit he was allowed to keep as guards were the Polish Lancers.[28] " - isn't this sentence out of sequence?
"Napoleon used the Poles as a source of recruits with little desire" - should presumably be "Napoleon used the Poles as a source of recruits and had little desire"
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Appears mostly fine at this stage.
The "Notable members" section at the moment is just a single wiki link. Unless the plan was to expand this, I'd move this link down to become a "See also" and remove the section heading.
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
Some references give location and publisher, some just publisher - this should ideally be consistent.
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
"(leading to the expression, "the Polish Legions in Italy")" doesn't seem to be cited
fn 15 - " The Legions, hopeful for a renewal of the war, were seen as among the most pro-French foreign forces in the Cisapline" - I'm having trouble seeing the "most pro-French forces" on p. 224.
It comes out gradually, but I really wasn't 100% clear as to what sort of units the Legions comprised/made up. For example, was a Legion the basic unit, or was it broken up into battalions etc.? How big was a legion? There must have been a 1st Legion, but did they all have numbers, etc.? Were they mainly infantry? If so, were there riflemen, or where they all muskets? etc. Basic stuff, but it isn't very clear at the moment.
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
"Polish Legions soldier in Italy" - unclear if this meant that the reconstruction was in Italy, or that the reconstruction was of a soldier in Italy. Also worth labelling it as a reconstruction.
The positioning of the images seems to be predominantly up at the top of the article. Could any "general" images, e.g. 'Vistula Legion' Polish infantry, be moved into an imageless section down below? This would avoid the right-hand "column of images" you get on a screen like mine.
Hchc2009 (
talk)
07:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
"Within historiography there is a degree of uncertainty about the period in which the Legions existed." - I'm not sure you really mean historiography here; did you mean "Amongst historians there is..."?
"Magocsi et al." - you'll need to expand the et al. I'd also expect to see the historians' full names (e.g. John Smith, rather than Smith) the first time they appeared in this format.
It's the bit in the main text that's the issue, rather than the citation. They're appearing as people in the text, and they'd therefore normally be introduced by full name. I won't die in a ditch over it though!
Hchc2009 (
talk)
16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)reply
"Demographically, most of the soldiers came from the ranks of the peasantry" - you could delete "demographically" without changing the meaning of the sentence if you wished.
"Paris was the seat of two Polish organizations pretending to be a sort of government-in-exile" - are you happy about the verb "pretend" here? (which could be felt to be POV, if not backed by the literature)
"Jan Henryk Dąbrowski, a former high-ranking officer in the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, began his work in 1796 – a year after the total destruction of the Commonwealth – when he went to Paris, and later, Milan, where his idea received support from Napoleon Bonaparte, who saw the Poles as a promising source of new recruits, and who superficially appeared receptive to the idea of liberating Poland." This is rather a long sentence and probably needs breaking in two somewhere.
" were seen as among the most pro-French foreign forces in the Cisapline" - seen by who? (if its not critical who, then you could just say "were among the most...")
" From a Roman representative, Dąbrowski obtained a number of trophies that the Polish king" - should probably be "Dąbrowski obtained a number of trophies from a Roman representative, that the Polish king..."
"part of the Legions' symbols" - I'm not sure about the use of the word "symbol" here, as its usually used to refer to an emblem rather than a standard.
"Soon afterward, supplies from the captured Gaeta fortress allowed the creation of a Legion cavalry unit" - do we know what kind of supplies these were?
"the anti-French coalition advanced upon Italy" - I'd lost track of who the anti-French coalition was by this point, as I don't think it had been made clear in the previous sections.
" became part of the soon besieged garrison at Mantua" - the "soon besieged" doesn't work well as a phrase for me. Suggest "became part of the garrison at Mantua, and were soon placed under siege by..."
"Finally, at the end of the Siege of Mantua (April–July), the French commander François-Philippe de Foissac-Latour decided to release Polish soldiers – then under Wielhorski – into Austrian custody as the Austrians claimed them to be deserters; this marked the end of the Second Legion, as only a small number of Poles were able to evade capture (the French were allowed to withdraw most of their forces under the condition that they would remain neutral)." - another very long sentence that could do with being broken up into two.
"With the disappearance of the Cisalpine Republic, the Legions would be reorganized in France" > "the Legions were reorganized in France". You might want to consider "With the collapse of the Cisalpine Republic" or "With the end of the Cisalpine Republic", as disappearance seems a bit odd here.
"were reorganized near Marseilles as the Italian Legion (La Legion Italique) into a 9,000-strong unit " Did you mean "were reorganized near Marseilles into the Italian Leigion (La Legion Italique), a 9,000 strong unit," ?
"In 1800[3][19] or 1799[6] (sources vary)" I'd suggest "In either 1799 or 1800," - you probably don't need the sources vary bit, and I'd start with the earlier of the two dates.
"According to Davies, it would suffer significant casualties" - unclear by this point in the paragraph what the "it" is; if its the Legion, I'd name it rather than using a pronoun.
"The size of Legions decreased after the Treaty of Luneville (9 February 1801), which made no mention of Poland." is there a link between these two events? Also "the Legions".
"most of the disgruntled legions" - is it true to call them legions by this point, as they've been reorganised into brigades? Or would it be more accurate to say "Legionaries"?
"By 1805, during the War of the Third Coalition, the Polish troops in Italy had been renamed the 1st Polish Legion (1e Legion Polonaise) and attached to the Kingdom of Italy.[26] In 1806, all that was left of the old Dąbrowski and Kniaziewicz's Legions was one demi-brigade, consisting of one infantry regiment and one cavalry regiment, now in the service of the Kingdom of Naples." - Are these two sentences talking about the same troops? (I was a little confused)
"Although some chose to remain with the French forces, and fought in Italy under the Kingdom of Naples" - this seems to be repeating the previous section a bit.
"When Napoleon was forced into exile on Elba, the only unit he was allowed to keep as guards were the Polish Lancers.[28] " - isn't this sentence out of sequence?
"Napoleon used the Poles as a source of recruits with little desire" - should presumably be "Napoleon used the Poles as a source of recruits and had little desire"
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Appears mostly fine at this stage.
The "Notable members" section at the moment is just a single wiki link. Unless the plan was to expand this, I'd move this link down to become a "See also" and remove the section heading.
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
Some references give location and publisher, some just publisher - this should ideally be consistent.
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
"(leading to the expression, "the Polish Legions in Italy")" doesn't seem to be cited
fn 15 - " The Legions, hopeful for a renewal of the war, were seen as among the most pro-French foreign forces in the Cisapline" - I'm having trouble seeing the "most pro-French forces" on p. 224.
It comes out gradually, but I really wasn't 100% clear as to what sort of units the Legions comprised/made up. For example, was a Legion the basic unit, or was it broken up into battalions etc.? How big was a legion? There must have been a 1st Legion, but did they all have numbers, etc.? Were they mainly infantry? If so, were there riflemen, or where they all muskets? etc. Basic stuff, but it isn't very clear at the moment.
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
"Polish Legions soldier in Italy" - unclear if this meant that the reconstruction was in Italy, or that the reconstruction was of a soldier in Italy. Also worth labelling it as a reconstruction.
The positioning of the images seems to be predominantly up at the top of the article. Could any "general" images, e.g. 'Vistula Legion' Polish infantry, be moved into an imageless section down below? This would avoid the right-hand "column of images" you get on a screen like mine.
Hchc2009 (
talk)
07:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply