Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry de Hinuber/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 April 2025 [1].

Henry de Hinuber

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Hanoverian army officer. Having offered his services to Britain when Hanover was invaded during the Napoleonic Wars in 1803, he spent the next decade commanding a regiment of the King's German Legion. In 1813 he was given command of a KGL brigade fighting in the Peninsular War, serving there until the end of the conflict and conducting a strained relationship with the Duke of Wellington. When Napoleon escaped from his exile Hinuber was prepared to command the division he was at the time leading, but he was superseded. Somewhat understandably frustrated by this, he refused any other commands and missed Waterloo. With the end of the war he joined the reconstituted Hanoverian Army, serving until his death in 1833. A fluent speaker of English and French, he anglicized his name from Eduard Christoph Heinrich von Hinüber. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]

Lead

  • Hinuber commanded his brigade at the Battle of Nivelle in 1813 and then at the Siege of Bayonne in the next year,... Could you replace "in the next year" with "in the following year" (indirect speech)?
  • Done
  • London has been linked neither in the lead nor in the first section.
  • Per Epicgenius below, I've found in the past that editors have deemed London not a necessary link

Early life

  • His older brother was... "Elder" is more commonly used when referring to human relationships.
  • Done

MSincccc (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoverian army
  • Hinüber was part of a mixed group of 800 Hanoverians that joined with an Anglo-Indian army which on 13 July 1783 attacked the French-held city of Cuddalore. Could this sentence be simplified? It can be improved.
  • Done
  • Hinüber was one of the latter group,... This sentence could be rephrased as:
Hinüber chose/opted for the latter, finally departing in July 1792. It avoids the slightly awkward phrasing of "one of the latter group" and directly states Hinüber's decision.
  • Done
Peninsular War
  • Hinuber had been given command of ... You could use "he" here as "Hinuber" is mentioned in the very previous sentence.
  • Done
Pickersgill-Cunliffe A fine article indeeed. It was an interesting read. Looking forward to your responses to the above. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: Hi, thanks for taking the time to review this. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MSincccc (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EG

[edit]

I will leave some comments in a bit.

Lead:

  • Para 1: "Originally part of the Hanoverian Army, in 1782 he fought in the Second Anglo-Mysore War in India" - This is grammatically correct, but it still feels weird to have "Originally part of the Hanoverian Army" set up as a modifier, as it implies that he was not part of the army when he fought in the war in 1782.
  • Rejigged
  • Para 3: "where he notably led the response to the French counter-attack" - As mentioned below by Tim, this a word to watch, specifically a WP:PEACOCK term. In addition, is the "notable" part referring to his role in the attack being a significant one, or the fact that this is what he's best known for?
  • I've removed it, completely unnecessary
  • The "Personal life" section mentions a wife and five kids, but this isn't mentioned at all in the lead.
  • I don't consider the existence of his family to to be a key point in "a summary of its most important contents", when he is known exclusively for his military career. I won't die on this hill but don't think it is necessary to include it.
  • I only mentioned this because the Personal life section is the only one in the article that is not mentioned at all in the lead. (Technically, the "Early life" section isn't really touched upon either, but at least the birth date is mentioned briefly.) While I agree it's not strictly necessary per MOS:LEADREL, because de Hinuber wasn't known for his personal life, you do summarize all the other level-2 sections in the article, so this omission just jumped out at me. Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to MSincccc's comment above, I don't think London really needs a link (it's one of the examples mentioned in WP:OVERLINK, actually).
  • Have responded to MSincccc, and yes my understanding is "London" is a well-enough known term to not need a link

At this point, I'm going to wait for MSincccc and Tim riley to complete their respective reviews of the next few sections so as to avoid conflicting comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "His father was the German tutor to George II's children." - Like a German-language tutor, or just a tutor who was German?
  • Source says "His father was the German tutor of the children...", so I can't confirm this - possibly both, I suppose?!
  • "at which point he was sent to live with his uncle in Hanover so that he could receive a German education" - Similarly, is this a "German-language" education?
  • Similar to the above, the source doesn't provide any more detail. I think it means a culturally German education, but can't add anything to the text
Home service:
  • "Hinüber joined the Hanoverian Army as a cadet in the Hanoverian Foot Guards in April 1781. He was subsequently commissioned as an ensign in the 15th Infantry Regiment on 1 July." - To me, these two sentences feel a bit choppy. It's basically structured like "Hinüber did this. Then he did something else the same year", so I'd consider combining these. (Also, you don't need "subsequently" if you do decide to combine them, as July is after April.)
  • Done
  • "regiment had been formed in May to go to India and reinforce the British Army fighting the American Revolutionary War and Second Anglo-Mysore War" - This may need a few words or a comma for clarity (specifically after "Army"). Was the regiment was fighting in these wars, or was it the army at large?
  • Slightly reworded
India:
  • Para 2: "While in India the regiment was renumbered as the 14th Infantry Regiment and Hinüber was promoted to captain on 6 April 1788.[2][9] In 1789 the seven-year contracts of the Hanoverians began to end," - The juxtaposition of the years at the end of the first sentence, and the beginning of the second sentence, looks unwieldy. Perhaps these can be rephrased so that you don't have what's basically an "In 1788. In 1789" situation.
  • Rejigged
Flanders and defeat:
  • Para 1: "On 29 April the small 1,800-strong garrison escaped a besieging French army of 14,000 men, receiving heavy casualties as it fought through to Roeselare" - I would remove "small", since the sizes of the garrison and the French army are already both mentioned.
  • Done
  • Para 2: "This latter battalion" - Personally I'd say "The latter battalion" (or even just "The latter").
  • Done
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Working closely with a fellow Hanoverian, Friedrich von der Decken, Hinuber initially expressed doubts to him that they would be able to meet the 400-man requirement, and he championed the recruitment from prison hulks to bolster their numbers." - The pronoun "he" in the last clause ("he championed the recruitment from prison hulks to bolster their numbers") has an unclear referent; it could refer to Hinuber or von der Decken.
  • Changed
  • Para 2: "Soldiers who had previously served in either of these branches were taken away from Hinuber's main cadre, which was then used to form the 1st and 2nd Line Battalions" - This is a little confusing. Were the soldiers who were not taken away from Hinuber's main cadre used to form these two battalions, or were the battalions composed of soldiers who were taken away?
  • Reworded
  • Para 3: "He was promoted to command the new battalion on 16 June, advancing to lieutenant-colonel" - The words "promoted" and "advancing" are synonyms in this instance; even though you're using different words, you're still saying twice that he was promoted. Would something like "He was promoted to lieutenant-colonel on 16 June, commanding the new battalion" work?
  • Done
Initial service:
  • Para 2: "The army disembarked on 16 August and, after an initial assault led by the KGL on 24 August, a bombardment of the city began on 2 September." - The sentence switches from active to passive voice midway through. I suggest keeping the entire sentence in either active or passive voice.
  • Rejigged
  • Para 2: "The 3rd Line Battalion was at the time 851-men strong" - I don't think the hyphen is necessary here, since this isn't an adjectival phrase like "the 851-man-strong 3rd Line Battalion" would be.
  • Done
  • Para 4: "Until now still holding only temporary rank, Hinuber was granted permanent rank as a British major-general on 18 August of the following year" - Instead of saying "Until now", I'd rephrase the sentence to something like "Having still held only temporary rank". This is specifically not a WP:RELTIME issue (like most uses of "now" would be), but it may be unwieldy to use "now" and the present tense to refer to an event from two centuries ago.
  • Done
Peninsular War:
  • No comments on that first paragraph.
Investment of Bayonne:
  • Para 2: "While respected as a competent commander, Hinuber's relationship with Wellington was difficult. " - This contains a dangling modifier (grammatically, it implies that Hinuber's relationship, not Hinuber himself, was respected as a competent commander).
  • Rejigged
  • Para 3: "His brigade took 328 casualties in the fighting and Hinuber was himself wounded." - Nitpick, but does the 328 figure include Hinuber?
  • Yes, reworded
Battle of Bayonne:
  • Para 1: "Early in the morning on 14 April a French deserter from Bayonne came to Major-General Andrew Hay, commanding the piquets, to warn him of the French plan to make an attack on the Anglo-Spanish besieging force." - I would change this to "...Hay, who was commanding the piquets..." Otherwise, grammatically it seems like the deserter is commanding the piquets.
  • Done
  • Para 3: "including Hinuber, who received a severe contusion, and his brigade major who was killed" - I would add a comma after "brigade major" for consistency (since there is a comma after "Hinuber"). In this case, "who received a severe contusion" and "who was killed" are treated as parenthetical phrases, so they should consistently be denoted with commas.
  • Done
I will give feedback about the rest of the article in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peacetime occupation:
  • Para 1: "This made him the commander of all KGL infantry in the Netherlands; six line battalions and two light battalions organised into three brigades" - The semicolon should be a colon. Usually you'd use a semicolon if both halves of the sentence could theoretically stand alone as separate sentences, but the second clause would be grammatically incorrect as a standalone sentence, so another punctuation mark should be used instead.
  • Rejigged
  • Para 2: "He was also awarded the Army Gold Medal with a clasp for his service at the Battle of Nivelle" - Do we know when?
Hundred Days:
  • Para 1: "the newly arrived British units received a backbone of experienced soldiers" - Is there a better term we can use in place of "backbone" (which is being used figuratively here)?
  • Replaced with core
  • Para 2: "Frustrated by the loss of his division, Hinuber continued his tense relationship with Wellington by arguing that as he had originally been given command of all the KGL infantry in the country by Adolphus" - I recommend a comma after "arguing that" for readability, and also because "as he had originally been given command of all the KGL infantry in the country by Adolphus" functions as a parenthetical expression here.
  • Believe I have to disagree here. Adding the comma creates the suggestion that Hinuber is arguing he should keep his command of 4th Divison, which he is not.
Return to Hanoverian service:
  • Para 2: "Hinuber was also appointed colonel of the regiment to the 5th Hanoverian Infantry Regiment," - Also on 1 March?
  • Yes, added
  • Para 3: "The Militärcomité was tasked to create the Federal War Constitution to codify the new army; this it completed on 12 October, after which the committee was dissolved" - While grammatically correct, "this it completed on 12 October" sounds a little jarring, at least to me. As a matter of fact, I think it might flow better if you were to say "The Militärcomité was tasked to create the Federal War Constitution to codify the new army; the committee was dissolved after this was completed on 12 October."
    • Have changed the sentence in a slightly different manner
  • Para 5: "He continued to be included in the Army List, but was withheld any pay or further promotion" - Do the sources say why?
  • No, it's likely to have been administrative. Why continue to pay or promote someone who is currently employed in the army of a different nation?
  • Para 5: "He died there, suffering from mastitis, on 2 December 1833" - Could this be condensed as "He died there from mastitis on 2 December 1833" or something similar?
  • Done
Personal life:
  • You mention five children, but only three are listed. This is technically okay, as the paragraph says "Their children included" and not "Their children were", but I was just wondering why the other two children aren't listed.
  • I couldn't find who they were!
That's it for me, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe. On the whole, this mostly looks good. Please let me know when you've finished looking at these. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Hi, thank you very much for returning and taking another thorough look. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I support the promotion of this FAC. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

It seems an odd thing to carp about, but when a word comes up time after time one does begin to notice it, and there are a helluva lot of "with"s in this article. More than fifty, in fact, and though nobody could possibly object to them in "lived with his parents" ... "sent to live with his uncle" etc, they are less welcome in such constructions as "his family was part of the bureaucratic elite, with relatives such as Jobst Anton von Hinüber playing an important part...", where it could be avoided by redrawing on the lines of "his family was part of the bureaucratic elite: relatives such as Jobst Anton von Hinüber played an important part...". Similarly in such phrases as "With George III ruling both Hanover and Britain", "With his regiment having been renumbered", "with the Third Anglo-Mysore War beginning" etc. At one point in the Forming the KGL section you manage in a 50-odd-word stretch to average a "with" every ten words. I recommend a thorough pruning.

Never say I don't have a writing "style"! I've come as close to a decimation as I think I could reasonably manage

Now, to individual comments:

  • "where he notably led the response" – a bit WP:PEA. Notable according to whom?
  • Per Epicgenius response, removed as utterly unnecessary
  • "A quarter of the Hanoverians became casualties, including Hinüber who was wounded in action. They occupied the abandoned French outposts" – "They", presumably being the three-quarters who hadn't been killed or injured, but your prose says it was the dead and wounded who did the occupying.
  • It would have been impressive if they had! Changed
  • "In 1789 the seven year contracts" – needs a hyphen.
  • Done
  • "his regiment were stationed in the Netherlands ... the regiment was seconded" – is "the regiment" singular or plural? You should be consistent here and throughout.
  • Have tried to wipe out as many of these as I could find
  • "Hinüber chose to go by Henry de Hinuber" – perhaps "go by the name of"? I've never seen just "go by Name Surname" anywhere before.
  • Done
  • "with fellow Hanoverian Friedrich von der Decken" – clunky false title. An indefinite article and a comma will remedy that.
  • Done
  • "and as such he championed the recruitment" – not sure what you mean by "as such" here. Do you mean "accordingly" or something like that?
  • Removed as unnecessary
  • "With the siege of Hamelin underway" – Both the OED and Chambers give "under way" as two words, not one.
  • Already removed as a casualty of one of the other FAC edits

Real life summons me. More later. I'm enjoying this article. Tim riley talk 15:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Hi, have responded above and ready for more! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second and concluding batch.
  • I notice a few citations that are not in numerical order. Perhaps this is intentional, but I mention them just in case:
  • stationed around Celle.[9][2][26]
  • was given the British rank of major on 17 November.[34][2]
  • Line Battalion which was officially formed in May.[35][33]
  • to 4 June 1811, when he was promoted in British service.[34][2]
  • transferred to the command of the 2nd Hanoverian Infantry Brigade.[9][2]
  • was withheld any pay or further promotion by seniority.[81][2]
  • based in Frankfurt.[81][2]
  • suffering from mastitis, on 2 December 1833.[81][10][83]
  • the first of which was pre-marital.[9][3]
  • Imperial Austrian Army hussar officer.[9][3]
  • Fixed
  • Other minor quibbles:
  • "Hinüber and his regiment was stationed in the Netherlands" – two nouns but a singular verb.
  • Fixed
  • "Upset by storms in the Bay of Biscay, the French took control of the city " – this reads as though it was the French who were upset by storms. Is that the intended meaning?
  • No, fixed
  • "intended to take pressure off their Austrian allies " – "their" being Britain?
  • Yes
  • "Joachim Murat's attempted invasion of the island" – You mention immediately before that H had remained in the Mediterranean but not specifically that he was still on Sicily: might be as well to replace "invasion of the island" with "invasion of Sicily".
  • Done
  • "The brigade had seventy casualties" – here and elsewhere I as a non-military man (presented with the Queen's Award for Cowardice in 2014) find "casualties" a confusing term. One could, presumably, be a casualty if slightly injured, severely injured, or dead, and though I realise you are confined to what the sources say I think it would be helpful, if possible, to say "x injured and y killed".
  • I have split out one of these statistics into killed/wounded, but the others are not expanded upon by the sources
  • "Hinuber, who received a severe contusion" – this seems a conspicuously posh way of saying "who was badly bruised".
  • I'm following the source in calling it that, didn't want to change it considering the rather particular use of the word
  • "The KGL was kept separate to the other British Army units " – "separate from" might be a more normal usage.
  • Done
  • "to ensure that the newly arrived British units received a backbone" – I am far from expert with hyphens, but I note that earlier we have "newly-formed 1st Battalion" with a hyphen but "newly arrived British units" here, unhyphenated. I think the second form is correct, but don't take my word for it.
  • Made consistent
  • "Ron McGuigan and Robert Burnham note that if Hinuber had stayed with the army" – I'd be a bit cautious with "note" here. It suggests that the statement that follows is an established fact agreed by all, which I'm not sure is true here.
  • Changed to argue
  • "The Militärcomité" – needs to lose the '' and be instead {{lang|de|Militärcomité}}. This is for the benefit of people using screen readers.
  • Done
  • "Bundesmilitärkommission [de]" – the same applies here, though goodness knows how one goes about combining the interlanguage link and the lang template.
  • "but was withheld any pay or further promotion by seniority" – I didn't and don't quite understand what you are saying here. Does it mean that his seniority made him ineligible for pay and promotion or that he was ineligible for pay and for automatic promotion according to seniority?
  • I've removed the seniority mention as it isn't necessary - he wasn't getting a promotion of any type! Promotion for a general would come by seniority, as in you get towards the top of the list of lieutenant-generals as the people above you either die or get promoted, and when you get to the top you get promoted too. He would have gotten to the top of the list and continued to sit there, with those junior to him being promoted over him.
  • "five children, the first of which was pre-marital" – as children are people, perhaps a child is "who" rather than "which", so "first of whom"?
  • Done

That's my lot. This is an excellent article which I have enjoyed reading and reviewing. Tim riley talk 12:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Hi, I've actioned all your points above. I'm glad you enjoyed it; I do worry sometimes that my interests are far too niche for any kind of wider audience! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When writing is as lively and vivid as yours you need have no worry that it won't communicate to an audience that is interested in the topic, which is what we're here for. I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It is well and widely referenced, with a judicious mix of vintage and modern sources, the info-box is marvellously succinct and informative, the illustrations will do very well and are no doubt as good as they can possibly be (a pity of course that there's no picture of Hinuber but I'm sure that's because there isn't one to be had), the narrative is clear and an excellent read, seemingly balanced and comprehensive. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm pleased to sign up to its promotion. I don't recall encountering any previous articles by Pickersgill-Cunliffe but I hope to encounter more. Tim riley talk 16:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to make a correction but you were in fact my very first FAC reviewer, at Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer) in 2022! I couldn't find any image of Hinuber, or even mention of one existing. There is an image on the internet that claims to be Hinuber, but there was no source for it and the blog it was hosted on has since gone down. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Menin1794Huck,JohGerhard,Han1799_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • November 1799, Hanover, added
  • Ditto File:The_Sortie_from_Bayonne,_at_3_in_the_Morning,_on_the_14th_April_1814_-_Fonds_Ancely_-_B315556101_A_HEATH_012.jpg
  • 1815, London, added
@Nikkimaria: I need some help for the last two. Artwork isn't published, because these are photographs of the actual art. What's the correct license? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria and Pickersgill-Cunliffe: can I get a status update on this please? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When were reproductions of the artwork first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, so I've removed them. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • In the infobox "Siege of Cuddalore" was not in the American Revolutionary War but the Second Anglo-Mysore War.
  • I've rejigged the infobox to make this clearer
  • The sentence "There his family was part of the bureaucratic elite; relatives such as Jobst Anton von Hinüber played an important part in the moulding of Hanoverian culture." doesn't seem correct to me, I would suggest changing it to "There his family was part of the bureaucratic elite and relatives such as Jobst Anton von Hinüber played an important part in the moulding of Hanoverian culture."
  • Done

History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042: Hi, thanks for the comments, I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, my comments:

  • Link to Hanover in the Early life section, as it is the first mention in the body?
  • I haven't linked Hanover as it's referring to the country, which articles we don't usually link
  • Butting in, modern countries are not generally linked but historical ones often are (though granted MOS is not that specific). In this case if we mean the Electorate I think a link would be helpful to the reader. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remained un-captured": perhaps "had not been captured" would be better?
  • Done
  • "casualties including Hinuber": you say he was not killed but wounded. I think you meant injured here instead of casualties.
  • No, casualties is a phrase including both killed and wounded
  • Add 44233039 as the JSTOR ID for Bamford 2015?
  • Done
  • Add [2] and [3] as the URLs for Beamish 1847 and Batty 1830 respectively? They have full access to these sources.
  • Done
  • Add [4], [5] and [6] as the URLs for Fortescue 1911, 1910 and 1912?
  • Done
  • I reckon the Gothaisches... we have referred here is volume 3. Can we state this in the biblio?
  • I don't believe the copy I used referenced a particular volume
  • Add [7] as the URL for Linsingen-Gersdorff 1880?
  • Done
  • Add [8] as the URL for Napier 1882?
  • Done
  • Add [9] as the URL for Oman 1930?
  • Done
  • Add [10] as the URL for Ompteda & Ompteda 1894?
  • Done
  • Add [11] as the URL for Philippart 1820?
  • Added the version I used
  • Add [12] as the source for Poten 1903?
  • Done
  • Add [13] as the URL for Schwertfeger 1907?
  • Done
  • Add 10.1524/mgzs.1977.21.1.7 as the DOI for Seier 1977?
  • Done
  • Add Category:Recipients of the Army Gold Medal, Category:British Army personnel of the Peninsular War?
  • Done

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Hi! Thanks for taking a look. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, everything looks good now, I can support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

" History of the King's German Legion", " Aus Hannovers militärischer Vergangenheit" and "A History of the British Army. " are pretty old, are they still used today? Otherwise, everything seems fine (formatting, reliability - I checked the reviews of some books here). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi, thanks for taking this on. History of the King's German Legion is still, disappointingly, the most detailed account of the unit. It is used by Burnham and McGuigan in their biography of Hinuber and was republished as recently as 2012 by the Cambridge University Press. I'm not German so can't say for sure how used Aus Hannovers militärischer Vergangenheit still is in that country, but it's the only work I could find that covers the brief points I use it for. The author of A History of the British Army, Fortescue, has an ODNB entry which notes that the work has "never been surpassed in its scope, operational detail, and wealth of documentation" and continues to be used and republished. In my case it provides details that more modern, and slimmer, histories gloss over. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments

[edit]
  • Cite 56 should include page 248.
  • Done.
  • Cite 56 again, could you spell out the support in the source for "the 1st Division was brought up in reserve".
  • "the day was saved by the tardy arrival of Hope's reserves — the 1st Division and Lord Aylmer's brigade...Hope did not put in his last reserves — neither the Guards nor the German Legion brigades lost a man this day".
  • What does "brought up in reserve" mean?
  • Reworded to "kept in reserve".
But the source doesn't say that. In fact I read the source as meaning that the 1st Division was involved in the fighting.
  • I've quoted directly from the source. I don't understand how you can say it doesn't say that. They arrive, in reserve, but aren't put into combat.
  • A history of the Peninsular War, published in 1930, is the only source for the first paragraph of "Investment of Bayonne". Why should this be considered "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"?
  • See my below comment on Oman - I could use a mix of slightly more modern sources to piece together the narrative but would not be able to find one modern source to replace it to the same level of detail.
Off the top of my head and without referring to it I would be surprised if Lipscombe's 2012 Bayonne and Toulouse 1813–14 was not adequate to cover this action. It may or may not be to the same level of detail, but sufficiently detailed for summary style surely. (A cursory search also throws up Campaign To Defend Southwest France, 1 July 1813 Through 14 April 1814, 2014, although this may not be sufficiently HQ. Although could hardly be less so than 19th century sources.)
  • I'm going to make a concerted effort to replace as much as I can with Lipscombe. Disappointing that it's Osprey, which while usually entirely correct in what they say, aren't exactly the chunkiest of volumes! As you say I won't use Campaign to Defend because it's only a master's thesis.
  • @Gog the Mild: As said I will work on this soon, but I wanted your further opinion: Reading Lipsombe now he doesn't mention Hinuber once. While I realise the source is much newer it feels asinine to be replacing sources that do mention the subject of the article with sources that don't. Of course this won't stop me from doing it. Lipsombe also uses Batty, Beamish, Fortescue, Oman, and Dispatches in the work. Feels a little circular!
  • Similarly the next paragraph is largely cited to a single source from 1820. Is there nothing more recent?
  • I've added some Burnham & McGuigan citations here to lessen the load of the 19th century! Philippart is probably the last time prior to Burnham & McGuigan that a source provided an account from the perspective of Hinuber, which is why I have used it. This work also continues to be republished, most recently I think in 2007. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To take other periods I am familiar with, Livy and Froissart continue to be published, without getting anywhere near RS, much less HQ. In what way is Philippart high quality? As opposed to convenient?
  • I agree with Jo-Jo re the age of some of the sources. An occasional older source for something strictly factual and uncontroversial is fine. But this article has 49 citations to works more than 100 years old, some more than 200 years old. WP:RS says in part "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light ... or vocabulary changed. ... Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded". Why should these be considered high quality reliable sources?
  • Apart from some of the German sources which I am not expert enough to guarantee, the sources I use are frequently republished and detailed histories. This is especially the case for Oman and Fortescue, with which every modern retelling on the Peninsular War the detail gets thinner and thinner. I've touched on Fortescue in my response to Jo-Jo above, but for Oman I believe the most recent re-publishing was Greenhill in 2004. To again lean on ODNB, Oman's entry states "His History of the Peninsular War is unlikely ever to be displaced as the fullest basic military narrative of that conflict".
See my comment above re the (lack of) value of reprinting. I like Oman. I once used a cite from him in a GAN, accepting that this was the kiss of death for any hopes of progressing to FAC. The ODBN quote is the sort of thing which could establish HQ status, but ODBN articles tend to be by fans and enthusiasts of their subjects. Is there evidence of this view being more widely held? And when was that comment made? Re fullness, have you read any of, say, Lipscombe - I have a one of his three works on aspects of the Peninsula War, and - in the areas he covers - he is superior to Oman. (IMO.)
I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but does your lack of comment on the ten non-Fortescue, pre-1925 works mean that you accept that they are not HQ? In particular your comment "some of the German sources which I am not expert enough to guarantee". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the German sources, my comment was more about how not being German I won't be able to reliably identify the use of those sources in recent native literature. I won't have access to any of it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi, happy to further discuss the sources but have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I have now removed much of the problematic content. That remaining is hopefully uncontroversial and/or specific facts that are not provided elsewhere. Please let me know if this has solved the issues! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping.

  • "France, in alliance with America, had declared war on Britain in 1778, resulting in conflict between the Indian colonies of both nations." I'm quite sure that one does not need to go back more than 110 years to find a RS for this statement.
  • I've used another Tzoref-Ashkenazi work for this, as they are easily the most modern historian to cover the German part of the Indian conflicts, and it specifically clarifies which war was the reason for the German entry in the theatre, rather than a more wide "this war was also going on at the same time". As a result of this I have removed the American Revolutionary War mentions, being replaced with the Anglo-French War.
  • "The military historian Sir William Napier ..." How would you feel about 'The 19-century military historian Sir William Napier'?
  • Done. When using his opinion like that I sometimes wonder whether it might be better to describe him as a Peninsular War veteran and general, rather than a historian - but I think your change works here.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi, see my responses above. Thank you for taking me to task on my less than stellar source choices; while I don't believe I ever use sources I suspect could be wrong or poor, this doesn't give me an excuse to use them in the place of other, available, modern sources! Useful food for thought in my future writing. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always happy to be of service.
  • I am now content that all of the sourcing, for the purposes for which you use it, meets the FA HQ RS level. I have never intended to do a full review, although it is a good looking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Henry_de_Hinuber/archive1&oldid=1284665291"