Wikipedia:Peer review/Le souper de Beaucaire/archive1

Le souper de Beaucaire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I simply want a review to help it reach GA standards, I'm not interested in attaining FA class as the subject and context is relatively straight-forward, it lacks controversy, and is not given a great deal of attention by Napoleonic historians, though it is usually mentioned by his biographers to some extent, but not trivially because of its affect on his career rather than the effects of the publication itself, which were few.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Nev1

• "to deal with the rebels from Marseille in Avignon, where army munitions were stored and required for the French Army of Italy": were the supplies needed by the army, or needed in Avignon? If it's the former I recommend changing the sentence to "to deal with the rebels from Marseille in Avignon, where army munitions [required by] the French Army of Italy were stored". The bit in square brackets could probably be swapped for "by".

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

I've tweaked the end of the sentence so it reads ok, but the "Marseille situated in Avignon" bit could be misconstrued by readers. What's the demonym for someone from Marseille? Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Carteaux's troops attacked, they fought with National Guardsmen": "with" can be ambiguous, so I'd suggest swapping it for "against", or if the National Guard were the prime target then it could be rewritten to "Carteaux's troops attacked the National Guard". To be honest, the whole sentence could be rearranged, as it's unclear until the end what Carteaux's men were attacking.

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

Still an issue here. Were the guardsmen killed during the siege or in the assault on the town? Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The "siege" refers to the town being attacked, troops on both sides attacked - there was no prolonged effort, no fort, it was probably just street fighting level as casualties were only ~30 dead according to one source, and citizens were involved, although that's not surprising in itself given that it was the French Revolution. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• The manual of style advises against starting sentences with numbers. "28 July was the last day of the fair when Napoleon arrived" could be changed to "Napoleon arrived on 28 July, the last day of the fair". I'd also be tempted to start a new sentence at that point, but that's up to you.

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

Adding "The" before "28 July" made it inconsistent with the rest of the article, so I rearranged the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the Rebellion in Southern France section you switch from the past tense to present while explaining the debate between Napoleon and the merchants ("That evening Napoleon and the four merchants discussed the revolution", contrasts with "The merchant stresses that Marseille does not fight for the Royalist cause").

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

• The final sentence of the Rebellion in Southern France needs a source.

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

• "The pamphlet would be read by Augustin Robespierre, brother of Maximilian Robespierre, who would prove impressed by the revolutionary context": this could be rephrased to avoid the passive voice.

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

• "but it served to advance Napoleon's career, he quickly became recognised for his political ambitions": there seems to be a natural break where that comma is and I would replace it with a full stop, breaking up a long sentence.

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

• Is there any particular reason page 127 of the Doyle reference (#3 at the moment) is in italics?

• Page numbers in italic refers to a full-page illustration or table on the cited page. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the references section the first year of publication is given for Chandler and Hibbert, but not Doyle.

• "First published" date, i.e. original year, only applies when the copy being used has a different publication date, but possibly no edition identified. Sometimes hardbacks/paperbacks, or later reprints have a different publication year. There would be nothing gained by citing "(1998) [1998]". I like to use the origyear parameter to give researchers precise details of the copy I have at hand when citing text. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

I understand your reasoning, but it's easy to leap to the conclusion (as I did) that the omission was a mistake rather than deliberate. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the same section you give the town/city and country for Chandler and Cronin, but not the others. You need to be consistent.

• Major cities such as London or New York do not normally have their country follow because they are known to everyone, using country would be superfluous. Lesser known places, where the country may be less known, e.g Hull, require a country. More about clarity than consistency, and acceptable referencing. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

If you're aiming for GA, the lead will need to be expanded to adequately summarise the article.

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

The later reprints could be mentioned in the lead, just a sentence to round it off. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also expect some more information on the pamphlet itself. While the background is well-explained, the contents could be expanded upon. Was it a direct transcript of the conversation or was the meeting just an inspiration? As the article's slender there's plenty of room for details of publication. How long was the pamphlet, how many were printed and where, do any examples survive, was it ever reprinted, what was its distribution? How has the pamphlet been assessed by Napoleon's biographers and historians of the revolution? Nev1 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Nev1, have answered a couple of points therein and will look into the rest shortly. As for the last paragraph, on analysis: to be frank, I don't know – I read history and judge for myself, I don't tend to read assessments of history – i.e. historiography. In most cases his biographers just briefly mention that the pamphlet was written and gained him political favour. It doesn't normally get an in-depth analysis, sometimes a few lines in the form of a short summary of what he wrote and what he gained. Sometimes the biographers suggest various views on why it may have been written, but as aside personal thoughts ("he probably wrote it because...") not as fact because no one can truly know his motives as he never documented them, which to me suggests he never expected it to be as well received as it was by politicians. I don't like to write "X historian believes... whilst Y historian believes..." type commentary: I prefer history "as is" over modern critical, political and sceptical analysis, to keep articles less prone to controversial views, as it sets a more neutral tone and less convoluted. That also helps give the overall article less pro- or anti-Bonaparte tone, which a lot of biographers have trouble doing because they often either love or despise the man and sometimes can't help conveying it subtly in their form of analysis rather than their biographical tone. David Chandler is one such Napoleonic historian – many reviewers consider him anti-Bonaparte and pro-British. I don't, I find him fairly even keel and fair-minded, in fact he's more disdainful of other historians who clearly glorify Napoleon and defend his every move or vilify him with unreasonable contempt. But even analysis itself is open to interpretation.
• None of my books comment on quantity printed, how many survived etc (maybe no one knows, given that those who supported it were executed), they look at it as one of Napoleon's contemporaries, not as a piece of history – it's not treated as profoundly as, say, the original hand-written Gettysburg Address documents, and lacks the same reverence. I'm sure there may be detailed analysis somewhere, but that type of history is not my thing and I don't have time to research for too long on the matter, even though it would be nice to know the facts as to how many were printed and survived. I doubt they were reprinted as the rebellions in question were put down through sieges and bloody assaults shortly after so there would be no need to redistribute the documents. And if they had no effect the first time, doubtful they would a second. There may be reproductions, but only for the sake of recreating Napoleon's own work for historians, as is now common for many documents, but not for political distribution purposes. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's usual to respond to a reviewer's comments rather than mark them done yourself as it could appear that I think the issues have been resolved when the case is I haven't yet checked the article again. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter.. it's a peer review, not a promotion, I'm not obliged to do or not do any suggestions - you don't need to consider anything resolved, there is no support/oppose whether I do or not because PRs are to aid development not just raise the status. I've always done it this way, anyway, even in class reviews so that reviewers know what I've done/not done in the case of a list of things to consider.. you always have the further option of striking things if you feel an urge to check them off yourself. But as the one who is technically being peer reviewed, as the author/nominee, I reserve the right to check things off as I see fit. Live with it. :)

Please explain: why have you placed a link to a "Thomas the Tank Engine" remix YouTube video? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I had other things on my mind when I was writing the reply. I've replaced the link with the one I meant. In any case, I realise it is a minor point but it gives the impression that I agree your changes when I haven't checked what you've done to the article yet. It's a matter of transparency, and that this is a peer review as opposed to an A-class review is immaterial. If I wanted to show that I thought I'd addressed a point in a review I'd add :{{done}} ~~~~ so it's clear who said what. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have your way, I have mine, it's trivial. Moving on, as you can now see what I've done, as well as that new material has been added since, if you'd like to further your comments regarding the article, please feel free to do so. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made it clear you put the ticks there, as it' trivial I'm sure you won't mind.

Anyway, possible motives for writing the pamphlet are precisely the kind of thing that should be included. Speculation on the part of historians of course, but worth including. That Napoleon didn't bother committing his reasons for writing the pamphlet to paper doesn't mean the article can't include the possibilities. If he had, then I'm sure people would still speculate whether he was being completely truthful or not. It's a shame the sources don't comment on aspects of publication such as numbers and distribution, but perhaps not surprising. The bit from Bourrienne about later reprints is a nice addition. Is there any further information on why it was reprinted in 1798? Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No idea why they published it in 1798, unfortunately de Bourrienne does not give any reasons in Memoirs. Perhaps, as the Revolution was drawing to a close, and it was evident, at least to the French, that history had been made over the past 10 years, that scholars were starting to gather together documents and such evidence from the period for publication? That's just my speculation, though. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, if the sources don't say anything about it our hands are tied. Nev1 (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone could get hold of a 1798 copy, as it was a book rather than pamphlet so I assume some may have survived, there might be a foreword from the editor or publisher to explain the reasons. Assuming also that there is, it's probably in French, so a translation would be needed. The National Library in Paris only has an 1821 copy, but nothing earlier, according to search results. Surprisingly, this article also lacks a counterpart on the French wiki, so perhaps one day someone will do that and expand it with reliable French sources regarding the reprints. It sould simply be a matter that the English don't care as much about the document as French ones might have. I'm going to drop an editor I know, living in Paris, a message in a moment to ask him if he knows of anything, that he might be good enough to reference. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)