Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military history of France

Military history of France

I decided to expand and improve this article because I’m interested in the subject and I felt it was very under-covered in its initial version. Pictures were added, information referenced, sources increased, categorization improved, grammatical and spelling errors fixed, the number of battles and wars greatly expanded, visual quality got better, and descriptions also became more detailed. I greatly appreciate any and all input. I also just want to clarify a few things (these will become clearer after you’ve read/reviewed the article, so please do that first):

1. The article is somewhat long, but this is out of necessity, not oversight. I can’t change the fact that French military history was long, but I did try to be as economical as I could.

2. On the other hand, someone could claim that the article is short. For example, one could object to the fact that some wars (Revolutionary and Napoleonic) are covered as separate categories while whole periods of centuries received a category. This is because some periods, like the ones mentioned, witnessed profound change in warfare, and the literature also reflects this division. One of the books I used (it was on general world military history), for example, devotes one chapter of about 20 pages on 1,000 years of Medieval warfare while giving one chapter of the same length to 23 years of Revolutionary and Napoleonic warfare.

3. Because the article may be judged as (probably) long, I have included many pictures for variety and “visual entertainment,” but I would more than concur should anyone suggest some need to be taken away. However, the very reason why I put so many up was to provide some balance.

4. Below the descriptions for each era of warfare are the major conflicts (organized into wars and battles) that occurred in that era. However, you’ll notice that not every war or battle featured in the tables at the end is included in the descriptions; this is because those descriptions are meant to give a feel for what happened and why it happened. They are not meant to regurgitate every war or battle that French military history covers (that in itself is impossible, anyway). Furthermore, there is sporadic analysis of society and politics and how they shape war. This just follows from modern military theory that war has many different aspects besides what happens on the battlefield.

5. There are some online footnotes (six), which I more than realize is a weakness. However, they do not in themselves represent important claims, and because of that I thought it would be more convenient if I used online sources. One was a copy of part of the Versailles Treaty (primary source). One is a Britannica article on the “Grand Empire,” which does little more than give a casual description of that term (and I wanted nothing but that, so I thought it would suffice). One is a link to another wiki page on the Demographics of France, and if I must find another source for that then I will. One is a site on French colonization that I used for the size of the French colonial empire; a book might have been more reliable here, but I went back myself and added the number of squared miles of France at the time in question and found the number to be correct. The last is a site that talks about the controversy regarding the date of a battle, and the issue at stake is between several different historical authorities claiming different things (you’ll see in the site).

6. Articles in wikipedia look different depending on the text size or screen size in which you are viewing them. The way in which I expanded this article means that for optimal visual quality you should use the “Larger” text size. To do this (in Internet Explorer), go to “View,” then “Text Size,” and select “Larger.” If you don’t do this, the spatial relation between the words and the pictures will look disjointed. This can sometimes be a big problem in wikipedia, and someone needs to find a way to fix it. Also, a desktop would be ideal because of the large screen size.

I am hoping for some comments and help with the sources, prose (does the article read well), visual quality, and extensiveness of coverage (did I leave something out that should've been in? and so on). Thank you in advance for your suggestions (I also put this on the regular Peer Review page, so if you want to talk about there, go ahead).UberCryxic 01:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

It's not all that long, actually (merely 68K; note the review below, where the article is nearly 85K), and quite well-written. Some more specific comments, in no particular order:

• The stub-list sections at the bottom should probably be removed. If these people aren't prominent enough to link in the main text, they're not worth mentioning. The same might be said for the lists of battles in every section; given that the selection seems rather arbitrary, I would favor getting rid of the tables and adding a paragraph or two of extra prose to each section instead.
• The images are laid out very well, except for the first one; due to a quirk of MediaWiki, it and the table of contents will overlap on smaller resolutions.
• The introduction should probably be split into more paragraphs.
• The "See also" links at the end of every section are usually linked in the text (or should be, for most of those topics). If they're redundant, they should be removed.
• "Franks" and "Pre-Charlemagne ..." sections could probably be merged; as it is, the first of those is quite short.
• "Ancien Régime": I'm probably a little biased here, but I would have expected a somewhat longer treatment of the Italian Wars and the Wars of Religion, given that we're talking about a century of continuous warfare.
• Why is the Rafale photo at the end of the modern section, and not down with the air force? Maybe an image of modern French troops would be more appropriate there.

All things considered, a very good article; but it still needs some more work (primarily playing with the layout and trimming some of the extra lists). —Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, thank you very much for your comments. I actually debated whether I should keep the war and battle lists, and even now I'm not sure. One good reason why I think they should be there is for some people who might simply want chronological referencing; that is, the military diehards who want to know what battles happened in say the Nine Years War rather than just read that the Nine Years War ended in a stalemate. In that context, the lists are a place of convenience; here's the war, and here are some of the prominent battles. One good reason why they should probably not be there is for lack of importance, as you mentioned. To be honest, however, at this point I am leaning towards keeping them in there, simply because I think they just provide more resources and outlets for those interested in the topic (same with the lists at the end; they add variety to the coverage). Furthermore, although in the Gallic, Frankish, and Carolingian categories all the battles at the end are mentioned in the description, this is not true at all for the other categories, where most are left out. But we'll see.

Yeah that first image is so annoying. I played around with it night and day trying it to get it ABOVE the History of France box, but notta. However, I am encouraged that the Military history of Canada, which is a FAC, has a picture at the same relative location. So I don't think this is a weakness. Moreover, it's a very evocative painting (that's why I put it up top), and I really don't want to take it away.

Agreed on the introduction; I'm just trying to figure out how to do it. Also agreed on the Franks and Charlemagne; however, when I tried to merge them into one category, a bad gap emerged between two of the paragraphs that I couldn't get rid of. As of now, they're still separate, but I will make the Franks slightly longer.

Questions on coverage are really difficult, and I am really uncertain how much to give to what. For example, you probably noticed I gave a lot to the Revolutionary and the Napoleonic Wars. I tried to be fair and reflect the literature as closely as I could. But I'll think about this some more.

Anything else? I'm really worried about the sources and the quality of the writing; from previous experience with FAC judges, they care a lot about those two things. Once again, thanks for your help.UberCryxic 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The sources should be fine; this is meant to be an overview article, after all, so there's no real need to cite highly specific works (which would be more appropriate to articles about the wars themselves). The writing style seems good as well (although I only read the article once); listing it on FAC should get it the attention of a number of very skilled copyeditors in any case.
• As far as the lists of battles are concerned, my main quibble was that they were quite incomplete, and thus presented a rather arbitrary selection of links. Whether or not you want to avoid this is something for you to consider; one option would be to use a selection of appropriate campaignboxes instead.
• Finally, the lead image would be fine in its present position if it were a bit smaller. Alternately, it can be moved above the template easily enough. —Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, how do I get the picture above the history box? I've tried a ton of things and in the end it always looks weird. The best that I can do is to get that picture to the right of the box, but I can never get the damn thing (excuse language, but it is frustrating) above. Don't even tell me how to do it, just do it for me please! Haha.....

About the battles, I'll probably wait and see what they say on FAC. I agree that it is arbitrary, but I was also restricted by what battles wikipedia has or doesn't have. For example, in the French Wars of Religion, I also wanted to include Coutras, a very famous battle in 1587 that for some reason no one in wikipedia has chosen to describe.

One more thing, I took your advice and deleted the Fortifications category; that was kind of pointless. It was boring and wouldn't enrich anyone's experience with the subject.UberCryxic 06:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the image Kirill. All-right, I fiddled around with the introduction a little. It's still three paragraphs, but I deleted some sentences and this time the paragraphs are about the same size. Tell me what you think now.

I also deleted some of the "see alsos" and....I've been looking for pictures of modern French troops to replace the Rafale photo in the modern secction, but they're nearly all in news sites, and then I'd have copyright problems. Don't know what to do about that.UberCryxic 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Juppiter

You have done a lot of work, and this article is impressive. I don't think you should worry at all about the citation/source thing. You have listed plenty of sources at the end of the article, and that should be enough. Don't feel the need to go out and find links to websites with the same information you researched already.

My only problem with the article is the incredibly long introduction. The reader gets bogged down with a bunch of superfluous language before he/she gets to the article's beef. Some of that can definitely be removed. Remember, the user is there for historical facts, of which there are enough in this article that it doesn't need the extra fluff.

Drop me a line on my talk page when you go for FAC and I'll give you a support vote. Juppiter 05:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Juppiter. I'm probably going to wait a few days, iron out some of the details that we've been talking about here, then I'll go for it. The introduction is definitely a problem, and here I need help. I encourage people to go ahead and change the introduction in any way that will make it more fluid and readable; honestly, I need some outside help with it. Whoever wants to make a change, make it, I'll see it, and we'll discuss from there.UberCryxic 06:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well now I re-read the introduction and I changed my mind. I think that information should be retained. Perhaps it could be made into a bulleted list, kind of like a timeline? I definitely liked it better on the second read but I think it'd be easier for the casual reader as a bulleted list. Juppiter 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what I took out was just the part about the geography (ie. the places that French military history encompasses). You think it's that important? Or were you talking about something else? Also, are you talking about the wars being bulleted or the introduction in general? I'm all for you going and making any stylistic changes you see fit so I can get a better idea of how it should look.UberCryxic 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed the introduction again. This time I left the last two paragraphs practically unchanged, but I shortened the first and I included what I think you were asking for Juppiter (the geography). I took out the part about why French military history should start with the Gauls since it's probably superfluous. I'm liking this version of the introduction (a bit long, but appropriately long, considering the subject), but tell me what you think.UberCryxic 00:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I like what you did with the intro, it's a smooter read now. Forget what I said about doing a bulleted list, it's fine the way it is. Anyway, I wouldn't feel right editing your article, one time I lost a featured article candidate because somebody changed what I did (for the worse.)

Juppiter 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)