Talk:Armagnac Regiment/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 15:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Initial comments

G'day, I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article, so thank you for your efforts so far. I am a bit disappointed that the peer review was closed without much comment - I think quite a few of the points I will raise below could have been resolved through that process before the nomination. Anyway, I have put together some initial comments. I will place the article on hold for about seven days while these are addressed before coming back and continuing the review. Please note that I will have intermittent internet access during this time (as I am travelling for work), so I may not reply straight away even if pinged. If you have questions about what I am asking, please add a comment directly below the comment and I will come back and clarify when I get a chance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• in the lead, mention the year that the regiment was formed
• I would suggest expanding the lead a little more to completely summarise the article
• in the lead, "before disbanding shortly thereafter the later" (not sure what "the later" means here)
• this will need a reference: "As hostilities in the American colonies began to explode, the Kingdom of France seriously considered joining the war, on the side of the 'Americans'. Therefore, beginning in 1776 and 77, the French overseas colonies began expanding, especially in the Caribbean." Also, I suggest that constructions such as "began to explode" be reworded as this sort of language is too sensational for an encyclopaedia. "Terrible expedition" also seems a bit like hyperbole to me. Overall, I would suggest performing some copy editing to tighten the grammar a little
• "become a better force overall": in what way?
• in the Formation section, is it possible to discuss how each battalion was structured -- how many companies, command arrangements etc?
• "In 1782, an important turn of events unfolded, when a detachment" -- remove the editorialising, for instance "In 1782, a detachment..."
• "from the first days of the year with" -- this is very awkwardly worded, suggest reworking as part of a thorough copy edit of the article
• "they landed in Lorient, and immediately marched to Thionville to re-train, re-equip and recruit back to its": subject verb disagreement
• "when the 21 February 1779 ordnance was issued, it didn't": avoid contractions; additionally, I am not sure that this ordnance has been properly introduced in the text
• "took part in the successful Invasion of Tobago": are there any more details about what actual fighting elements of the regiment participated in?
• same as above for the Sainte-Christophe section; can more details about what the regiment actually did be added? -- also "brilliantly cited" seems like a machine translation to me. Do you mean they were cited for gallantry or something similar?
• are there anymore details that could be added about the regiment's role in the Defence of Thionville?
• "equivalent to almost 179 Million in today's currency": probably best to avoid "today" and provide an actual year for the conversion as today is indistinct
• I would suggest adding some more prose to the uniforms section, it will also need to be sourced.
• the colours section seems to be unreferenced; I would also suggest that the prose should be expanded to summarise the different colours so that the gallery just compliments the text
• in the body, add mention of the successor regiment's subsequent service (currently it is mentioned uncited in the lead)
• "admirable" -- to whom? Suggest removing such judgement statements as it implies a point of view; either that or attribute to someone whose opinion is relevant. For instance, "Author X described the regiment's performance in the campaign as "admirable"..."
• "File:Régiment d'Armagnac Officer.jpg": needs source, author and a more appropriate date as currently it is impossible to tell if the author's life plus 70 years requirement has been met
• "File:Rég d Armagnac Col.png" (and the other flag images) -- the underlying copyright of the flag (not just the rights of the creator of the file) probably also needs to be addressed on the image description page. One assumes that Template:PD-France might apply, but I am not certain. It might pay to ask someone with more knowledge.
  • @Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, have you any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Given the dates in question I agree PD-France would likely apply. I'm a bit wary of the "own" claim - this is a pretty unusual design for an own-work file IME, but the source document cited is also out of copyright so it's not a major issue either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• while not tied to the GA criteria, I'd suggest sorting the references alphabetically by surname first to give it a more tidy appearance
• in the references, is there an OCLC number that could be added for each of the Susane works? These can often be found at worldcat.org
• I am not sure about the way you are bolding items throughout the article; I don't think it complies with MOS:BOLD
• capitalisation "1st Battalion" v "1st battalion" and "2nd Battalion" and "2nd battalion" -- suggest it would be best to be consistent with how you present this
• "File:Navarre Grenadier and Armagnac Fusilier in 1789.png": the date is incorrect on this file and the author should have a date of death to enable the life plus 70 years licence to be confirmed
• "File:Incendie Granville 1793.JPG": the date of death for author should be added to the image description page to confirm the licence
• "File:Régiment d'Armagnac, Digby Smith.jpg": is very likely a copyright violation IMO and should be removed from the article
• the redlinked "Main article: Reorganisation of the French Infantry Corps (1776)": should be removed per WP:REDNO
• "Captain de Villers was killed, while Lieutenant Colonel Feydeau de Saint-Christophe, Lieutenant de Servilange, and Second Lieutenant des Ecures": as there has been no real context provided to explain why these people are important, I would suggest simply providing casualty figures if known rather than naming them (with the possible exception of Saint-Christophe if he was the battalion commander). For instance, "casualties included one officer killed and three wounded, including the battalion's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Feydeau de Saint-Christophe"
• the article seems to rely heavily of Susane (1849-1853) and Lienhart & Hmbert (1906) - if possible I would suggest trying to add a few more citations to more modern works
• Valentin doesn't actually seem to be referenced; as such I'd suggest moving it to a Further reading section
• I couldn't see where citation 7 references the information it is listed against -- is this a landing page to a sub page somewhere?
• are there any more details about what the garrison battalion did during its existence?
  • @J-Man11: G'day, are you in a position to start addressing these comments, or do you think it would be best for me to close this review at this point? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    • G'day, I can see that you have made a start with these responding to some of these comments, but I am concerned that there is too much to do and feel it would be best that you continue to work on the article outside of the GAN review process. Additionally, I am concerned that some of the recent changes are retrograde, particularly in relation to grammar. I also have concerns about using You Tube as a source. Finally, the lack of engagement from yourself here on this talk page is also a concern for me. It isn't hard to say hello and start corresponding with someone who has taken the time to offer a review; indeed it is common courtesy. Anyway, I am sorry, but as such, I am not willing to pass this nomination at this stage and am closing the review. You are free to re-nominate whenever you feel you have addressed the previous issues. Good luck with taking the article further and thank you for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)