Talk:Convention of Alessandria/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

  • Could you provide a source for the map. Ie in the same way you would for a prose statement of fact. (The way this is handled in File:Guyenne 1328-en.svg is one possible approach.)
  • The map could do with a title.

Prose[edit]

I have done a little copy editing. Feel free to bring anything you are not happy with back here for discussion.

All of my suggestions are just that. Feel free to tackle anything I have commented on in your own way, or to tell me why you think I am wrong.

  • Note 1. "a treaty of peace" is a little odd. Consider 'a peace treaty'.

checkY Agreed and changed - Dumelow (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note 2. "Saint-Julien was intended to buy the Austrian empire time". Seems to be missing a start, eg 'The despatch of' or similar.

checkY I've reworded the first sentence of this footnote - Dumelow (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Djmaschek notes, this really needs an infobox. This is not a requirement, but a strong recommendation. You could do it in 15-20 minutes. I will even do it for you if you ask me nicely .
  • Thanks for the offer, but I thought that I had already added it... are there other parameters you would like me to add? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The War of the Second Coalition was the second war on revolutionary France by the European monarchies" "on" -> 'against'.
  • Were all of the nations you list at war with France in both wars?
  • Optional. "In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte began an Italian Campaign" 'a campaign in Italy'.
  • "Towards the end of the day, the French overcame the Austrian surprise attack, driving them out of Italy and consolidating Napoleon's political position in Paris as First Consul of France in the wake of his coup d’état the previous November." This sentence is trying to do too much. Try a full stop after "attack", or add something like 'after a hard fought battle' or 'after coming close to defeat'. The battle clearly didn't drive the Austrians out of Italy, as they are still there in the next sentence. I would skip this bit, as the whole of the following section is about how an effect of the battle was to lead to the Austrians relinquishing part of Italy. The political bit may be accurate, but move it to Aftermath; and, possibly, introduce 18 Brumaire in its chronological place?
  •  Done I'm unclear about what you mean by 18 Brumaire? I understand it was a month, but why does it need to be mentioned? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coup of 18 Brumaire. I've added a mention in the background section. I've rejigged the second paragraph of this section also, if you could review and make any changes. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At 4:00 AM" -> am.
  • "In the agreement, the Austrians agreed to evacuate to the left bank of the Bormida, and that hostilities would cease for forty-eight hours while negotiations for what became the Convention of Alessandria were carried out." Another sentence trying to do too much. Try a full stop after "hours" and move the last bit to the end of the paragraph - something like 'The final agreement was formalised and signed as the Convention of Alessandria' or similar.
  • "It immediately ceased hostilities" You probably want to reread that.
  • "and abandon strongholds in the Piedmont and Milan" This implies some strongholds. Is that what you mean, or is 'all of their' missing?
  • "the French would have accepted much fewer concessions" "much" -> 'many'.
  • "The Cispadane Republic was re-established and a temporary government was put in place until the signing of a peace treaty." With whom - the Cispadane Republic?
  • "Count Joseph Saint-Julien was sent to deliver the convention to Francis II" Saint-Julien appears a little out of nowhere. Who is he. Possibly add 'Austrian diplomat' or whatever to the front of the sentence?
  • "Austria soon dispatched Saint-Julien to travel to Paris, carrying news of the signed armistice, and to further consider the terms of the treaty." "Armistice", what armistice? Surely he either delivered the signed treaty, or he entered into discussion of its terms. If he did do both I think that you need some further explanation. Or if you are using armistice to refer to the convention I suggest that you don't.
  • ce'd, and see the note next to it. It was a fairly complex situation, one that I think is best explained in the note. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " at which Saint-Julien was convinced to assume the position of" "convinced" -> 'persuaded'.


Lead[edit]

  • Optional. "a treaty signed on 15 June 1800 between Napoleon's French First Republic and" Replace "Napoleon's" with 'the'.
  • Personally I think it helps to introduce Napoleon and show how integral he was to the republic... but am open to changing Eddie891 Talk Work 00:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further negotiation followed between them" "them being two (which) of the three countries, or all three?
  • "Count Joseph Saint-Julien" See above re introducing him.

I am on holiday and away from my sources, so I can't really do this fine budding article justice, but I shall leave you with the comments above for now. There is absolutely no rush. You are filling a surprising and important gap and I would rather that we get it right than do it quickly. So take your time and come back to me when you think that the article is ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I think we've responded to most of your concerns. Thanks for taking up this review Eddie891 Talk Work 12:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is looking good. I will concentrate my new comments down here.
  • I have again been a bit bold with some changes. Do flag up if you are not happy/don't understand any.
  • Infobox. Optional. I am not convinced by your stating that a nation was defeated by an individual. Why not say 'after the defeat of Michael von Melas by the French Republic'? (PS That was an ironic suggestion')
  • Infobox parameters. Optional. "Negotiators", "Initial signatories".
  • Not done, there is not a list of specific people for either, and it would only duplicate the 'parties' parameter otherwise.Eddie891 Talk Work 19:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then say ' his [second] Italian campaign
  • "Napoleon's French First Republic". It's an unusual construction. Would you write 'Francis' Archduchy of Austria' or 'George's Kingdom of Great Britain'? Maybe 'the French First Republic led by [dominated by?] Napoleon'?
  • "refused to accept the terms and give up Austria's Italian holdings" My understanding is that their was never a question of Austria giving up all of their Italian holdings, as this implies. Just those in north west Italy. The map in the article would seem to support this, as would the lead.
  • A comment only. The mix of referencing styles jars a bit. You will want to swap them all in harv before you nominate for ACR.
  • Bibliography. Could you put all of the titles of works in title case. And remove the two months from publication dates.
  • Sources:
Hewson needs an OCLC. (656982611)
Knight, could we have the full title: 'A History of England Volume 7: 1760-1840'.
Sainsbury. Should that be 'Les'? And if you are referring to the translated version, you should give the English title.
Does Shosenberg not have an OCLC or ISSN?
Good work. Barring these minor points, two of them optional, you are done.
Gog the Mild (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, How's it look now? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. A fine piece of work, which is now a Good Article. Well done, both of you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. Do either of you have any thoughts as to where to put it in the GA list? The best MilHist fit seems to be under "Battles, exercises, and conflicts (1800 to present)", but a case could be made for "Massacres, war crimes, and legal issues of warfare". Or for World history, European history. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild, I'd probably say European history, because it doesn't clearly fit into either of the other two in my mind.
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a thorough and speedy review Gog. I did very little, Eddie deserves all the credit for this one - great work! - Dumelow (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Well done Eddie. Ping me when it goes up for ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Convention_of_Alessandria/GA1&oldid=879226171"