Wikipedia:Peer review/Napoleon I of France/archive2

Napoleon I of France

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because myself along with several other editors would like to get this to FA. I would like suggestions regarding what we must do to get this to pass the review.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Natural Cut through Egypt: The first paragraph is only one sentence. I like the rest of the lead other than "wrecked" making me think of ships and perhaps a little clarification on the "different sources" he drew on - how (if at all) that's part of what made his tactics worth studying.

Should have a citation for the fact that his background "afforded him greater opportunities to study than were available to a typical Corsican of the time" unless it's in the existing citation for the next sentence. At the end of the same paragraph, I'd clarify "studied artillery" - presumably "he learned how to operate a cannon", but I'm trying to be nitpicky for FAC purposes.

I changed the sentence about coming into conflict with Paoli so it says Napoleon's (commissioned) military service was what brought him to Corsica this time. Correct me if I misunderstood the intent there; also, Jacobin Club = Paoli's faction?

Is there significance to him being "Capitaine Napoléon Bonaparte"? Also, a translation of the title (Le Souper de Beaucaire) would be great.

"Running out of money, on 15 September he was removed from the list of generals in regular service following his transfer request" - Napoleon ran out of money because he wasn't getting paid? Or couldn't afford to bribe anyone else? Or maybe the Committee ran out of money and gave him the pink slip since he was just twiddling his thumbs? :-)

Couple things in the paragraph that starts with Horatio Nelson. Are the 13,000 soldiers the army we just talked about? Or did they conquer Damascus and leave the rest behind? As for Jaffa, "on discovering many of the defenders were former prisoners, ostensibly on parole" makes me scratch my head - had everyone else evacuated or was there just a really, really high crime rate? (It sounds fine as-is on second reading.)

I regret that I may not be able to get to the rest for a few days. Hopefully I got the ball rolling for you. Natural Cut (talk)

thanks very much Natural. Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence", i think it's better to have one sentence to summarise, "the lead of the lead" if you will. wrecked has been a problem before and will change as you suggest, perhaps to damaged, trying to think of right word. "different sources," detail is in the warfare section. his tactics are studied because of his success rather than his sources, on reflection the sources point has been there a couple of years and i don't think needs to be in lead. I'll carry on in a bit Tom B (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right about the lone sentence - if it's within Wikipedia's guidelines, leave it be. I also mentioned on your talk page that you have a better command of English than I (e.g. I had to look up 'tautology') so thank you for the copyediting of my copyedits! Natural Cut (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An example/explanation of how/why the Italian campaign 'began badly' wouldn't hurt but isn't totally necessary. I'm personally curious if Napoleon's leadership or some other factor changed their fortunes.

have now added explanation, Tom B (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The first part makes perfect sense, but how was the Legion d'Honneur meant to 'offset the inequality of wealth amongst the population'?

my attempt, badly, to summarise Mclynn's verdict. i think i'll remove unless we can get some corroborating sources, Tom B (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Coalition: I can't think of the right way to put it, but "knew the French fleet could not defeat the Royal Navy" should have some sort of qualification since he clearly had a plan whereby he thought he could defeat them. (Even if it failed.)

someone's fixed that Tom B (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

'Again Austria had to sue for peace' - Unclear what this mans.

sue for peace is linked earlier in the article. Suing for peace is usually initiated by the losing party in an attempt to stave off an unconditional surrender. sue is not that well known so will adjust. Tom B (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Under the Fifth Coalition, if 'give up power' simply means to make some concessions in the concordat, we can merge the two 'suggestions', but maybe Napoleon wanted him to step down altogether in favor of a French Pope.

yes, have merged, Tom B (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence about Russian serfs feels out of place. Is this to say it's also a case where he made a mistake in his attempts to balance various interests?

yes, i've added a little explanation, Tom B (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Sixth Coalition, Prussia 'rejoined Austria, Sweden, Russia, the UK, Spain, and Portugal' to be (re-)joined by Austria and Sweden later in the paragraph. Further down, it feels like there ought to be a better transition between Napoleon and and Ney's conversation, and Napoleon's abdication (I'm personally curious what the outcome was/would have been after reading the "Vive L'Empereur!" bit.) Or take out the sentence and leave it with Napoleon being confronted and abdicating two days later.

i've reworded. in what i've read there wasn't much transition in real life between Ney conversation and abdication. Tom B (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why they didn't just execute Napoleon, especially the second time. Not to mention they could have locked him up for life the first time instead of giving him his own island. I suppose it's indirectly explained in the paragraph about Britons loving him, but I still have to wonder given how many people plotted to rescue him.

erm, rule of law! some people did want to execute him e.g. Prussians, British leaders. i think it's worth bearing in mind that we're looking at this from a post second world war, war crimes perspective. i don't think he had committed crimes under 19th century law and it appears the British did not have a legal basis to send him to St helena. Tom B (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Very true about the perspective and scope of what he had done. It wasn't meant something that necessarily needed fixing in the article; should have stayed on topic. Natural Cut (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

'Considered unhealthy even by the British' - Excuse me?

clarified, Tom B (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

'Napoleon emancipated Jews from laws which restricted them to ghettos, and their rights to property, worship, and careers.' - I know what the sentence is trying to say, but 'and restored their rights' sounds better to my ear, or 'expanded their rights'. It also says he hoped it would attract Jews, which should probably be explained.

i think this is reasonably clear. i don't think he really restored their rights as they didn't have any before hand. jews were restricted in many countries for hundreds of years. Tom B (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter point is fixed, but my suggestion on the sentence stands because it says 'and their rights' without giving a verb, such as 'gave them rights'. But I'll defer to your skill if you think I'm being pedantic (or just need to brush up on my grammar). Natural Cut (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

yes thanks have amended, Tom B (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

'Credited with the introduction of conscription' needs correcting/specifying. The article on the topic specifically mentions medieval serfs being expected to serve etc, so he didn't invent the concept.

it says he is credited rather than that he invented it, i'll clarify. Tom B (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a little ambiguous as to who/what/where he was introducing it to. You hit the nail on the head with your edits though. Natural Cut (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is very solid overall. Let me know when it goes up for FAC. Natural Cut (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything but the one point (which isn't even major) looks to have been addressed. I'm sorry you got the novice peer reviewer on this one, and thank you for your patience. Hopefully someone else does a read-through because it would be equally useful for me given I was the first one to do so. Natural Cut (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

? for a 'novice' peer reviewer you identified a lot of relevant points. Tom B (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was referring to some problems I had while editing and such. What I meant about helping me as well was that if they identify things I missed then I can keep it in mind for future reference. Natural Cut (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Charles Edward:

This is a beautiful article to start, Good job so far Tom! This a big topic, and you have done it justice.

• I think the article could do with a slight increase in the inline citations. It never hurts to put a couple sources, especially to the more controversial things where there are different schools of thought. But overall, very well sourced.

Yes, will do Tom B (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I know the article is already lengthy, and it covers his campaigns and politics very well. However, I think it could benefit from more information on his family life. For example, forcing Jerome to divorce her wife and marry another. Or his relationship with Joseph, or his other brother. His disappointment and frustration with them over their failure to successfully govern their realms, etc. Josephine and his second wife are covered well, but the rest of his family relationships could be useful to the reader.

will endeavour to, Tom B (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC). Adding detail on family rulers, still needs to be addressed

• The only political matter I would expand on is Fouche and his "Reign of Terror". I have read that they executed thousands of French royalists and extreme revolutionaries. There were even a couple towns that were ordered to be entirely destroyed by Fouche, with the consent of Napoleon. A line or two would suffice.

are you sure you're not referring to Fouché's role in the Reign of Terror in Lyon from 1793-4? i.e. before Napoleon Tom B (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I will look this up to double check. But just from memory, it seems to me that Napoleon had something to do with something of this nature. (Is that too specific? Haha!) Charles Edward (Talk) 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Another item that is worth inclusion that I did not see is Napoleon's supposed epilepsy, or likelihood that he suffered it. And how it worsened with the stress of his position overtime. There are several documented events which are believed to have been epileptic seizures he suffered in public, as well as numerous supposed on to occur in private - some historians link the worsening seizures to his increasing reclusiveness in the latter years of his reign.

included a note, Tom B (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts! Hope they help. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks good ideas, will endeavour to include asap. Tom B (talk)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) By the way, VAST improvement in sourcing from the last PR. 02:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)