Talk:Robert Nivelle

General Comments

What about his nickname "Blood soaker" for spilling his men's blood? See the German article.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Nivelle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and I am not prepared to pass the article for GA yet. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is a little stilted, but its not to bad and is good enough for GA.

MOS is all over the place, references should come after punctuation, not before, among other things.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Robert Nivelle is one of the most controversial figures of the First World War, his actions causing the deaths of tens of thousands of men and almost collapsing the entire Western Front. He has both supporters and (more) detractors, but this article only has two sources. Although these sources seem to have been used well, a figure this notorious must have a wider range of sources used in the development of this article. I would expect at least three more giving a range of opinions on him and a section dicussing his historical notoriety. --Jackyd101 (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

This article is woefully short on important parts of his life, especially his pre-World War I service and a discussion of his historical notoriety. Both of these are skimped over almost completely.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Comments by nominator: Thank you , Jackyd101, for reviewing this article. I do not take offence at anything you have said, as all your points are valid. I will work to address as many of the problems I can, and I would firstly like to address each one individually.

• MOS: I should be able to sort this out. You stated "other things". Could you please elaborate?

Actually this was my fault, I misread something and assumed there was a repeated puncutation mistake but in fact it was fine. Sorry.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• References: Unfortunately, the sources I have used all the only ones I have that address Robert Nivelle. Do you know where I could make a request for other editors to utilise any sources they have about him, and contribute what information they can find to the article?
• Major aspects: I can start a 'Legacy' section, in which his historical notoriety can be discussed. I am afraid I don't have any more information about Nivelle's life than that which has been presented already.

For both the above, try an appeal at the Military History and French history talk pages to see if any one can help. Unfortunately I can't think of an editor working in this area right now you could appeal to personally, but try looking for major contributors in these types of articles. The article is fine as far as it goes, but unfortunately it juust doesn't go far enough.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your response. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments by nominator:

• Thank you for giving me advice on how to try and get other editors to help.
• References: Jackyd101, I have re-examined the Good Article Critera, and this is what it had to say concerning references: "it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout". You failed me in regards to references because "a figure this notorious must have a wider range of sources used in the development of this article." However, the Good Article Criteria doesn't state that a certain number of sources is needed. Theoretically, I only need to use one source. As a result, I don't think I should have been failed in regard to references. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is actually a failing in the guidelines. I'm sorry but in opinion a figure as controversial as this needs a wider range of references for the article to be comprehensive. If you strongly disagree with me on this issue then please by all means take it to WP:GAR, that should provide a wider consensus on this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should have a wider range of sources used. I am not arguing against that idea. I am arguing that, since the Good Article Criteria does not specify that a certain number of sources is needed, I shouldn't be failed in regards to references. I don't think an additional review is necessary, because I think it would be easier if you would accept that an article doesn't need a set number of sources for it to become GA. The criteria does not state it should be treated as guidelines, and I therefore think that your opinion that the reference criteria is wrong, is for lack of a better word, irrelevant. I know it sounds like I am ordering you, and being uncivil, but I have not been able to phrase this response in a more neutral tone. I apologise for that. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking offence, and I am well aware how difficult it can be when having a good-natured typed disagreement to make your tone come through, so please don't worry on that account. If I get offended I will let you know. In reply I understand what you are saying and I think we are arguing at cross-purposes. I'm not suggesting that there is a set minimum of sources required, my additional three suggested above was simply the minimum I believe would be necessary to give a comprehensive range of opinion on this particular man (if you can do it in less then please do so). I guess the point here is that the problem is one of comprehensiveness, not referencing and if that is the case then I readily conceed the point that the referencing, as far as it goes, is of GA standard in this article. It does not however go far enough.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point now. By extension, this article will gain more sources if more of Nivelle's life is described. I will work on trying to broaden the scope of the article. Hopefully, within 7 days, the article will be up to GA standard. Thanks for all your help. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not of GA quality. The legacy has definately improved, but the beginning and end of his life is very weak. I'm afraid that this does not pass GA at this time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't very well written. It seems as though it was translated from French into English.

Nickname

During my time in 1960s France I was told by several old soldiers who'd served in WW1 that even before Nivelle took over a major command he was known as "Butcher Nivelle".AT Kunene (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Rank Question

How can his rank be given as a three star general when he served as commander in chief of the French Army? Surely he must have been promoted to serve in such a position?

Technically, General de Division is the highest French rank. General de Corps d'Armee (4 stars) and General d'Armee (5 stars) are technically titles rather than ranks and I'm not sure whether they existed or had separate insignia in WW1. It's not as silly as it sounds - during the American Civil War Northern corps were commanded by brigadiers and armies by major-generals, perhaps to avoid having a surplus of men with inflated ranks (and pension expectations) after the war. Joffre was the first Marshal to be appointed under the Third Republic, when he was sacked at the end of 1916.Paulturtle (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On the Foch biog there is a picture of Foch wearing 3 stars on his sleeve in 1917-18, either as Army Chief of Staff or as Generalissimo in March-August 1918. So that suggests the 4- and 5-star insignia were not then used. I still don't know if the titles technically existed, but French generals are always just known as "General" anyway, both in French and English - "General de Gaulle" not "General de Brigade de Gaulle".Paulturtle (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also a very famous photo, taken during the Battle of the Somme, of Joffre, Haig, President Poincare, King George V and Foch (then commanding French Army Group North), posing for the cameras after some conference or other. Joffre, CinC at the time, is clearly wearing three stars, although the cuff buttons create a bit of confusion. Some books (e.g. Clayton) claim that 4 and 5-star insignia were used at the time, but this does not appear to be correct. Paulturtle (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, for anyone wondering (after 7 years), Général de division was the highest rank at the time. The ranks of Général de corps d'armée (4 stars) and Général d'armée (5 stars) were only created in 1939. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct, but I think they were sort-of used unofficially in the latter years of World War One. After reading about this and peering at photos for donkeys' years I think the insignia on the plain informal kepi might have been a series of horizontal bars - zero for a corps commander (a division commander would have been a brigadier, of course), one for an army commander, two for an army group commander - under the three stars (don't know what they did on the more formal kepi with leaves all over it). The cover photo of Charles Williams' biog of Petain supports this, as does a photo I've seen of Eugene Debeney. Nivelle was also given "the seniority of an Army Group Commander", whatever that means, when posted to North Africa (which never at any time reported to the CinC Western Front). We can't post my suppositions and inferences from photos on wikipedia, though. It's hard to get a comprehensive answer as the French Army tends to be woefully undercovered in Anglophone books.Paulturtle (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)