Talk:Hanover Expedition/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next day or two. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Lead:
 * "but not as yet openly hostile" ... leaves it a bit unclear who Prussia was hostile to - suggest clarifying - was it to Napoleon or to his foes?
 * ✅ Clarified


 * "the Austrians into surrender and Russians to retreat into Poland" reads a bit awkward to me - suggest "the Austrians to surrender and the Russians to retreat into Poland"


 * "The expedition, while a total failure, had little damaged the British position because of the lack of combat that had taken place in it, and its method of quick amphibious transportation and landings of troops on a foreign shore would go on to be imitated in the Walcheren Expedition in 1809." also clunky to me - suggest "The expedition, while a total failure, had little effect on the British position because of the lack of combat. Its method of quick amphibious transportation and landings of troops on a foreign shore would go on to be imitated in the Walcheren Expedition in 1809."


 * Background:
 * "of which George III had been sovereign" suggest putting in the date he lost control in here?


 * "the Duke of York, leaning on his experience in the Flanders campaign to argue that any expedition relied too much on the actions of its allies to be without weakness." this reads like a Victorian history? Can we ... make this less ... flowery? Perhaps "the Duke of York, relying on his experience in the Flanders campaign, arguing that expeditions that relied too much on the allies' actions would be difficult."?


 * Initial landing:
 * "This crossing was not without difficulty" why not "The crossing was difficult"? This is ... in general an issue with the writing in the article. It's often very wordy and ... reads like a Victorian history rather than a dispassionate recounting of the events. I've hesitated to do a more thorough copyedit, not wanting to upset the nominator, but it's often difficult to work through the writing. If you'd like, I could do a more thorough copyedit.
 * I'm going to stop here (two sentences into "Initial landing") - and let the nominator consider whether a fuller copyedit by me is wanted. I'm not saying the article will fail GAN without it, but if the nominator wants one, it makes more sense for me to do it while I review, rather than returning to it after completing my review. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks very much for your work so far. If you're willing to provide a fuller copyedit as you go through the article then I'd be very grateful, and I promise that I'm not at all upset! I think my enthusiasm for the topic has shone through a little too much, although I reject the idea that my style is Victorian - I'm not quite that old! Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just figured you'd been reading the sources and taking on their style (we all do that...). And I've noticed that a lot of writers about the Napoleonic Wars tend to a style that's a bit more ornate than other historians. I'll pick this back up after lunch... (soup - it's drizzly and rainy and chilly here and soup sounds really good). Ealdgyth (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuing:
 * Initial landing (concluded):
 * "line infantry" link?
 * Already linked in planning


 * "Don's position on the continent was tenuous but safe." Perhaps "Don's position on the continent was tenuous but not immediately threatened."?


 * "Despite this difficulty, the harsh winter weather continued to hold off and," this seems to imply that the difficulty held off the harsh weather... I think the solution is to add a bit more here somehow, but I don't have a good suggestion at the moment.
 * ✅ Have made an attempt, what do you think?


 * Expedition expanded:
 * "Their plan was slowed by the reticence of the Swedish force and the continuing confusion surrounding the intentions of the Prussians, and Tolstoy decided that he could not invest enough men into an invasion and ensure the continued blockade of Hamelin." was the slowing of the plan caused by two things or three? If two - we should say "Their plan was slowed by the reticence of the Swedish force and the continuing confusion surrounding the intentions of the Prussians. Also, Tolstoy decided that he could not invest enough men into an invasion and ensure the continued blockade of Hamelin." If three, perhaps "Three things slowed their plan: the reticence of the Swedish force, the continuing confusion surrounding the intentions of the Prussians, and Tolstoy deciding that he could not invest enough men into an invasion while ensuring the continued blockade of Hamelin."
 * ✅ Clarified


 * "It was decided that Don's force, then spread about, would be brought together as one field army. On 27 November this new command was given to Cathcart, who would be arriving with 12,000 reinforcements. Don was superseded, but continued with the army as its second in command." I THINK what's meant here is "On 27 November Pitt told Cathcart, due to leave Britain for Hanover with 12,000 reinforcements, that he was now in charge and to order the concentration of Don's forces into a field army. Don would become Cathcart's second-in-command."
 * ✅ Clarified


 * Offensive breaks down:
 * "The army continued to stand at its positions." Can we safely say "Because of these issues, the army stayed in its positions rather than attempting offensive operations."?
 * ✅ Removed sentence. I forgot to add the actual reasoning for some reason, but the next paragraph explains it anyway.


 * Evacuation:
 * "should not endanger his force if he was not supported by them" can we say "should not depend on them for offensive actions."?
 * ✅ Clarified


 * "and while securing his Bremen headquarters," what does this have to do with ensuring the KGL evacuated first?
 * ✅ Nothing, just a very clumsy way of trying to say where his headquarters were. Moved to a more appropriate point.


 * "As well as this, the Prussians would be withdrawing Tolstoy's force, which had been left under their auspices by the retreating Alexander I of Russia." the placement here implies that it was part of the treaty - if not, we probably need to reword this somewhat.
 * ✅ Hopefully clarified


 * Aftermath:
 * "Prussia also closed all its newly obtained ports to all British traffic" this sorta implies that the old Prussian ports weren't closed too? Is that what is meant?
 * ✅ No, poor wording again from me. Clarified.


 * "Some senior generals in the army were angered by the failure of the expedition, it having been controlled by civilian politicians that had deigned to take on the role of military experts, but again little was made of it." perhaps "Some senior generals in the army were angered by the failure of the expedition, feeling that its control by civilian politicians trying to be military experts had caused its failure." I"m not sure what "but again little was made of it." is supposed to mean or add to it, as it's unclear what the "it" is here.
 * ✅ No idea what the last bit was meant to mean either.


 * Please do check my copyedits - I tried to do them in small bits so that you could revert those that were wrong/misleading/etc.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind copyediting and comments. I have addressed all of them above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * that looks good to me. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)