Wikipedia:Peer review/Napoleon I of France/archive1

===Napoleon I of France===
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review to get it to featured level, grateful for suggestions that will help it pass at wp:fac.

Thanks very much, Tom B (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Napoleon I of France/archive1.

Based on this version,
 * Review by Jappalang

Lead
 * "French military and political leader"
 * I could be totally wrong here... but I am under the impression that he was a Corsican (former Genoan territory which was only annexed into France in 1770, a year after Napolean's birth) who fought for France and became its ruler. Corsican-born or Genoan-born French man?
 * The peace treaty between Genoa and France was signed on 15 May 1768 but as you point-out the annexation process wasn't immediate. As a result I don't think he could be described as Genoan-born but he certainly was Corsican-born which is mentioned near start of lead. In terms of treatment of his Corsican heritage don't know how complicated we can concisely be in opening line though hopefully this isn't over simplification. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, the annexation was delayed and this might be contentious. Nonetheless, I have no big issue with the original statement.  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead failed to mention his death and the controversial analysis that followed it.
 * have now mentioned his death but not sure about including controversy. I understand your point, i think it's potentially false conspiracy theory and potentially wp:undue but have included reference in lead, Tom B (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "''The disastrous French invasion of Russia in 1812 marked a turning point in Napoleon's fortunes."
 * Disastrous to who? Take the adjective away and give a short take on the Grande Armee's fortunes in the campaign in the followup sentence.  "The French invasion of Russia in 1812 marked a turning point in Napoleon's fortunes. His Grande Armee was decimated in the campaign&mdash;only a tenth retreated back to France&mdash;and never fully recovered."
 * Have fixed per your note though left out detail of "only a tenth" as probably too much for lead plus already says "decimated" could potentially link to Decimation_(Roman_army). Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "relatively few military innovations"
 * The word "relatively" invites a standard to compare to. With whom is he to be compared with?
 * I take your point and removed the word. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins and education
 * "Napoleon wrote to Pasquale Paoli—leader of a Corsican revolt against the French—in 1789: "I was born when my country was dying. Thirty thousand French, vomited on our shores, drowning the throne of liberty in waves of blood- such was the horrid sight which first met my view." His heritage earned him popularity among Italians during his Italian campaigns."
 * This sets up an unanswered issue. If Napolean despised the French when he was 20 years old, how did he accept his servitude to them?  Furthermore, the way it is phrased makes it seemingly disconnected from the preceding sentences.  What does his letter have to do with his birth in Corsica?  Nationalistic passion (in which case why serve the French)?
 * Napoleon didn't accept "servitude" of anyone! It's a good point though about raising an issue in an unexplained way, will try and resolve. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He may not accept it, but he did serve them (probably gritting his teeth and murmuring, "I will get back at you for this, wait till I become your Emperor! Hah!  The things I will then do!").  Looking forward to seeing the reasons for his change of attitudes.  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * have added detail to section, politics of France and Corsica quite complicated and mclynn even suggests it was oedipal amongst many other things, Tom B (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Buonaparte-Sarzana, were compelled to leave Florence after the defeat of the Ghibellines"
 * A case of sudden introduction: why should the Buonaparte-Sarzana leave after the Ghibellines were defeated? Moreover, what were the Ghibellines defeated in?
 * I've looked into. In fact I looked into his ancestry before and it is extremely complicated. The Guelphs and Ghibellines faction fighting occured mainly early in the middle ages and on reflection I think it might be wp:undue to treat all the ancestry in detail in a summary biography of Napoleon so i've cut it down.  Much of this fighting occured hundreds of years before Napoleon's birth and he himself dated his ancestry from 'Toulon or Vendemiaire', Tom B (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, sometimes there could be too much detail. The removal is for the best.  Jappalang (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "when the island was still a possession of Genoa. His father Carlo Buonaparte, an attorney, was named Corsica's representative to the court of Louis XVI in 1778, where he remained for a number of years."
 * Likely a case of missing time frames. There is no indication of Corsica being sold to (and later annexed by) France at this stage.  Hence, why should Genoa send Carlo as a representative of its subject island to another country, France?  This would also be the cause of the following.
 * The first sentence of the section indicates Corsica was transferred from Genoa to France in 1768. I think he went as a representative of the island rather than anything to do with formal rep of Genoa which had already sold the island. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. My bad.  I missed the transfer of the island in the first sentence then.  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "to a typical Corsican of the time. On 15 May 1779, at age nine, Napoleon was admitted to a French military academy at Brienne-le-Château, a small town near Troyes."
 * Inherited from above, why should a Corsican, subject of Genoa (without mention of exchange of sovereignty), be sent and admitted to a French military academy?
 * As mentioned above, exchange mentioned in first sentence of early life section, I don't think he was ever a subject of Genoa. A military academy in the closest major European power which Corsica was part of, would give significant opportunities for advancement to a young Corsican and his father was well-connected enough to get him in. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As above. Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Early career
 * "Upon graduation in September 1785, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in La Fere artillery regiment and took up his new duties at the age of 16. Napoleon served on garrison duty in Valence and Auxonne until after the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789, although he took nearly two years of leave in Corsica and Paris during this period. He spent most of the next four years in Corsica, where a complex three-way struggle was playing out between royalists, revolutionaries, and Corsican nationalists."
 * Did Napolean leave the French army at this stage? If not, why was he not censured for participating in a revolution (I presume he took the Anti-French side, judging from his 1789 letter to Paoli)?
 * have added detail, mclynn suggests historians don't know why he wasn't censured after complaints were made, Tom B (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to check, did McLynn directly state something to this effect ("It is not clear how,")? Jappalang (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "whether he was a..manipulator...or just lucky...or convinced them he was the true son of the revolution, the result was the same" Tom B (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First Italian Campaign
 * "His series of military triumphs was a result of his ability to apply his knowledge of conventional military thought to real-world situations"
 * I do not think "was a result of" is a good way to set the tone. How about "His application of conventional military ideas to real-world situations effected many of his military triumphs."?
 * took me while to get this but i think you're pointing-out that the triumphs weren't completely a result of his etc, there were other factors too. how do you mean "set the tone"? haven't seen 'effected' used before, nice to see something new and maybe it's quite cool. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant to say that the passive tone of the message was not quite effective in highlighting his ability to win him battles. "Effect" is a verb with the meaning of "to produce a result" and give more punch (by active phrasing) to the skill that won him battles.  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have fixed, Tom B (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "his creative use of artillery tactics, using it as a mobile force to support his infantry"
 * Tactics is not an object (mobile force), "his creative use of artillery, using it as a mobile force to support his infantry".
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "had a sense of when to strike"
 * -> "knew when to strike"
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "He often won battles by concentrating his forces on an unsuspecting enemy, by using spies to gather information about opposing forces, and by concealing his own troop deployments."
 * Is this statement meant to list the individual strategies used to win a battle he fought (i.e. the battle required only one such strategy to be won), or is it meant to suggest the strategies he use to win the battles? How about "He often won battles by using spies to gather information about enemy forces, concealing his troop deployments, and concentrating his forces on the unsuspecting enemy."
 * Yes, have fixed Tom B (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "A year of campaigning had witnessed breaks with the traditional norms of 18th century warfare and marked a new era in military history."
 * Extraordinary claims require a source.
 * Yes, have researched and changed wording, Tom B (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian expedition
 * "the British Royal Navy managed to win at sea."
 * -> "the British Royal Navy won the sea."
 * "Won the sea" sounds a bit odd, maybe too much like winning the body of water as a competition prize, perhaps just shorten to "the British Royal Navy won control of the sea." Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is even better (the "won control of" statement). I like it.  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Napoleon led 13,000 French soldiers to the conquest of [...]" (seems like it could mean he led from the back)
 * "Napoleon led 13,000 French soldiers in the conquest of [...]" (more in command, perhaps)
 * Fixed, Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Though the French took control of the city within a few hours of the attack beginning, the French soldiers bayoneted approximately 2,000 Turkish soldiers trying to surrender."
 * Ignoring the noun-plus-gerund issues, how is the slaughter of surrendering soldiers supposed to be contradicted ("Though") by the short conquest?
 * maybe was written from a french POV thinking that capture was good but that slaughter was bad. i've removed "though". Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruler of France
 * "Bonaparte stayed informed of European affairs by relying on the irregular delivery of newspapers and dispatches"
 * -> "Bonaparte stayed informed of European affairs through irregular deliveries of newspapers and dispatches"
 * Fixed. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "On 24 August 1799, he set sail for France, taking advantage of the temporary departure of British ships blockading French coastal ports. The Directory had already ordered his and the army's return, as France had suffered a series of military defeats in the War of the Second Coalition, and a possible invasion of French territory loomed. He did not receive these orders due to poor lines of communication and on his return the Directory discussed his 'desertion' though they did not discipline him.   By the time he reached Paris in October, a series of French victories meant an improvement in the previously precarious military situation and discussion of his 'desertion' was brushed aside. The Republic was bankrupt, however, and the ineffective Directory was unpopular with the public."
 * Disconnected sentences. Why should he return to France on 24 August 1799 after keeping up with the news?  Why repeat the "did not discipline" in the later paragraph? Maybe as a single paragraph, "He learnt that France had suffered a series of defeats in the War of the Second Coalition.  On 24 August 1799, he set sail for France, taking advantage of the temporary departure of British ships that were blockading French coastal ports.  Unknown to him, the Directory had earlier sent him orders to return with his army to ward off possible invasions of French soil.  Due to poor lines of communication, the messages failed to reach the French general.   Napolean's belated return aroused the Directory to discuss charges of desertion against him.  By the time he reached Paris in October, France's situation was improved by a series of victories, and the Directory dropped the discussion of Napolean's "desertion".  The Republic was bankrupt, however, and the ineffective Directory was unpopular with the public."
 * repeat of 'did not discipline' clearly an error. have reworked in what you've said referring back to source, Tom B (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The plot included Bonaparte's brother, [...]"
 * Plot is a unit of land, story, or in this case, a plan. It would not include people.  Hence, "The participants in (or leaders of) the plot included..."
 * Okay, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "On 9 November—18 Brumaire—Bonaparte was charged with the safety of the legislative councils and the following day, he led troops to seize control and disperse them, leaving a rump legislature to name Bonaparte, Sieyes, and Ducos as provisional Consuls to administer the government."
 * This does not make sense to me. He is to protect the legislative council to secure their aid but he had his troops seize control and disperse them?
 * You clearly don't have the makings of a Corsican meglomaniacal dictator. More seriously, i've put "Bonaparte was charged with the safety of the legislative councils after a rumour of a Jacobin rebellion was spread as part of the plot. By the following day, the deputies had realized they were facing an attempted coup. Faced with their remonstrances, Napoleon led troops to seize control and disperse them" Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pssshaw. I have dreams of grandeur that exceed the lil emperor's.  I just lack the ability to do so, heh.  Back to topic, I think part of the initial problem was that it was not clear that Napolean was charged by the government to protect the legislative councils.  The way the original paragraph was written, the passive tone seemed to suggest the conspirators charged Napolean with that task.  Even with the changes, it might be better to adopt an active tone here.  As an aside (though I am uncertain as well), is it "remonstrances" or "remonstration"?  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

French Consulate
 * "Though by today's standards"
 * Would "today" be valid to the future reader?
 * Have fixed by removing claim, Tom B (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Second Italian Campaign
 * "spring"
 * -> "Spring"
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "While the campaign began badly, Napoleon's forces eventually routed the Austrians in June at the Battle of Marengo, leading to an armistice."
 * "Although" would be a better choice than "while".
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Napoleon's brother Joseph, who was leading the peace negotiations in Luneville, reported that due to British backing for Austria, Austria would not recognise France's newly gained territory."
 * -> "Napolean's brother Joseph led the peace negotiations in Luneville. He reported that Austria, emboldened by British backing, would not recognise France's newly gained territory."
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Coronation as Emperor
 * "In January 1804, Bonaparte's police uncovered an assassination plot against him, ostensibly sponsored by the Bourbons."
 * In light of the context of the following paragraphs, it might be better to clearly illuminate the role of the Bourbons (who are suddenly mentioned here). "In January 1804, Bonaparte's police uncovered an assassination plot against him, ostensibly sponsored by the former rulers of France, the Bourbons."
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "In retaliation, Bonaparte ordered the arrest of Duke of Enghien, in a violation of the sovereignty of Baden."
 * -> "In retaliation, Bonaparte ordered the arrest of Duke of Enghien, violating the sovereignty of Baden."
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Though Napoleon did not instruct his officers to kidnap the Pope, once Pius was a prisoner, Napoleon did not offer his release."
 * I do not favour this sort of introduction. Kidnap also means a ransom is involved (which is not mentioned).  Suggestion: "The Pope was abducted by Napolean's officers.  Although Napolean did not order their act, he did not order them to release the religious leader either."
 * I don't think kidnapping technically has to mean a ransom, but you're right that it is definitely a sudden introduction of "Though Napoleon did not instruct his officers to kidnap the Pope" and on reflection abduction does potentially sound better, i've used your sentence and made it a little more concise, Tom B (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Peninsular War
 * "several hundred thousand"
 * -> "several hundred thousands"
 * Several hundred thousand sounds better to me and it gets a million google hits while "several hundred thousands" only seventy thousand(s) hits. maybe there's a grammatical rule which is conventionally used less now? Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think we can leave this up for others to enlighten us then. Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

War of the Fifth Coalition
 * "thanks to the popularly dubbed"
 * Besides the POV-ish adjective ("popularly", why not "commonly"?), I am not certain the attribution "thanks to" is formal style.
 * 'thanks to' does sound too informal. 'popularly' can be neutral in the sense that it just means a lot of people call it that. i've amended, Tom B (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundred days
 * "while simultaneously the Prussians arrived"
 * "Simultaneously" is redundant.
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Exile on Saint Helena
 * "The question of the British treatment of Napoleon is a matter of dispute."
 * The question is disputed? Should it not be "The British treatment of Napolean is a matter of dispute."?
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The behaviour of Hudson Lowe exacerbated a difficult situation in the eyes of Napoleon and his supporters"
 * Hudson Lowe is suddenly introduced here. Introduce him as the governor of Saint Helena to establish context.
 * Yes, have now introduced him earlier. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "In 1818 The Times, which Napoleon received in exile, in reporting a false rumour of his escape, said this had been greeted by spontaneous illuminations in London."
 * I have no idea what "spontaneous illuminations" mean.
 * Have started to fix. May need to explain more, I understand it means people put candles in their windows. Perhaps can just put: people put candles in their windows.Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That still requires further explanation. What does it mean when Londoners put candles in their windows?  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have added more detail. it is was to herald good news http://www.hollistonhistoricalsociety.org/18centurydays/CandlemakingPDF.pdf Tom B (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Death
 * It is sudden to start with "Napolean died". Should it not first describe the situation of his death ("On xxx, Napolean's health started to fail and was bedridden for yyy. After confessing his sins and receiving xxxx, he died.") or such. Are there no sources chronicling the events up to his death? What about Louis Marchand's diary?
 * In the footnotes, what is the difference between Lowe's 'Napoleon Bonaparte' and the Imperial title 'Napoleon'? Napoleon was a title?
 * It sounds more regal/imperial: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom "As a titled royal, Her Majesty holds no surname, but, when one is used, it is Windsor." Napoleon Bonaparte would bring him back with the rest of us surnames e.g. John Doe. mclynn 1998 book isn't that enlightening, Tom B (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... in that case, might I suggest "Hudson Lowe insisted the inscription should read 'Napoleon Bonaparte' like a commoner; however, Charles Tristan, marquis de Montholon and Henri Gratien, Comte Bertrand wanted it to be the single word 'Napoleon', symbolising that the deceased was of royalty. Due to the conflict over the inscription, the tomb was left nameless" Jappalang (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i think that might be straying into original research, "imperial title" should hopefully clarify what the main dispute was, Tom B (talk)
 * Hmm, the problem is that it sets up the confusion of "Napoleon" as a title: like as if David was the emperor of France, then he would be "Napoleon David", catch my drift? There is no link (Wikitionary or Wikipedia) to define the context for Imperial title.  If the source stated "Imperial title" and the definition for the phrase is clear in other sources, it is perfectly fine to explain that phrase without going into original research.  (It is OR to redefine the phrase.)  Jappalang (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i thought you meant David Ginola. i've added an explanation on royal titles, Tom B (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Stomach cancer
 * "the credibility of this is enhanced by the fact Antommarchi was unaware Napoleon's father had died of the same cancer class."
 * Why would the credibility of the coroner's conclusion be enhanced by his ignorance of the Bonapartes' medical history?
 * He reached the conclusion independently i.e. wasn't pre-influenced to determine it was stomach cancer, this independence could be said to enhance credibility i.e. found clinical signs of the cancer rather than just labelling what he found as stomach cancer because he knew their was history in Nap's family. ignorance of father's medical history might be more understandable at that time where records not as easily obtainable though you might expect an emperor's doctor to have had access to such records.  i don't know. may have to check back to book ref, Tom B (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, it is not the credibility that is enhanced, rather it could have been an unprejudiced medical evaluation (i.e. Antommarchi could not have jumped to conclusion). Suggestion: "Ignorant of the medical history of Napoleon's family, Antommarchi was not prejudiced by Carlo's death to stomach cancer; he based his conclusion for Napoleon's cause of death soley on his findings."  Jappalang (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * have reworked. mclynn 1998 suggests they did know his father had it but I understand that Johnson 2002 says Antommarchi didn't know. all a bit tricky,Tom B (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriages and children
 * Napolean was baptised Catholic but he could divorce (barring that he did act against the Catholic Church during the Pius VII incident)? Did he renounce his faith at some point, or did he try to justify this transgression (the divorce)?
 * mclynn 1998 uses 'divorce' and 'dissolving', it does mention that 13 cardinals got locked-up for not attending the wedding. when your a dictator, in charge of a continent and can have the pope abducted, then you probably can divorce even if your catholic! he seems to have found a compliant cardinal in Fesch. i can't find anything that says he renounced his faith or attempted to justify the transgression. he was read catholic rights on his death bed which is noted in death section, Tom B (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Henry VIII got around it by establishing the Anglican Church as its own entity to back his divorces (one up for the English! heh) I think the locking up of the 13 cardinals could be mentioned (without judgment) to let readers know that the wedding would have been protested in some form by the church.  Jappalang (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * have added in, Tom B (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Legacy
 * "Today, this caricature of Napoleon sometimes overshadows the real historical figure."
 * Again, beware of "today". The Wiki project aims for relevancy through time.  30 years later, the image of the small petty emperor might be forgotten.  Furthermore "overshadow" in what sense?  Suggestion: "This caricature of Napolean has sometimes become the defining image of the French Emperor in the minds of people." or something.
 * i've changed but may have to change again and will probably have to find a source or remove. there might be repetiton in the paragraph, Tom B (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Autocracy
 * "When other countries offered terms to Napoleon that would have restored France's borders to positions that would have delighted his predecessors"
 * Avoid "that" after "that".
 * Fixed, Tom B (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Warfare
 * "Napoleon's biggest influence came in the conduct of warfare"
 * -> "Napoleon's biggest influence was in the conduct of warfare"
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "placed the generalship of Napoleon as one of the greatest military strategists"
 * Drop "the generalship of". Strategist is a person, not an ability.
 * Yes, have fixed. Tom B (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

General comments
 * Dash consistency (refer to WP:DASH)
 * Fixed with spaced en dashes, Tom B (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, no... there are still several spots of unspaced em dashes (e.g. lead and Autocracy). Jappalang (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * alright have hopefully now fixed, Tom B (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Noun-plus-gerund issues (e.g. French forces besieging Toulon, attack beginning, soldiers trying to), please refer to User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises.
 * i've fixed your examples and others, Tom B (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After going through the text, I think I have fixed what was overlooked and this issue should be gone. Just take care that this is not reintroduced in further edits.  Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is broken up with sub-sections of sub-sections such as Coronation as Emperor, Napoleonic Wars, etc. I find that it is over done.  Some sub-sections could be merged as one for better readability and impact (there are section headers there with only links).
 * Fixed, Tom B (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Much easier to read, thank you. Jappalang (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also recommend getting a copyeditor to look through and correct other grammar and MOS issues. Jappalang (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Images Some images might be superfluous to the article.
 * Image:Carlo_Maria_Bonaparte.jpg &mdash; Perhaps JasonB007's change, in regards to this picture's layout (and not the others), is merited? As your own edit summary stated, pictures face towards the text; hence, as Carlos faces right, he should be placed at the left?
 * Rm'd resolved syntax error digression. I see what you're saying about Carlo, I didn't fully quote MOS, it says eyes and face. in this particular case his body and face, face right but his eyes left and the eyes have it, Tom B (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... but the MOS did not state "eyes and face". It states "eyes or face"; hence, a conundrum: what about a character that faces in one direction but looks in another (like this one)?  Does it then become a subjective issue on aesthetics?  Not a big issue (and I think the current placement can be defended at FAC), but let us leave this up to garner opinions from others.  Jappalang (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:40_lire_1808.jpg &mdash; what does this coin have to do with the Peninsular War?
 * nothing! see explanation below and also I remember there was a coin photo when I got to article for first time and I had not changed it. have now replaced with dos de mayo picture from autocracy section and replaced that with famous execution painting, Tom B (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Peaceatallcosts.JPG &mdash; what does this painting have to do with the Invasion of Russia? Lauriston is not even mentioned anywhere in the main text.
 * On reflection, Lauriston bit of a distraction so have swapped to featured picture, Tom B (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Napoleon's exile to Elba3.jpg &mdash; was the artist a famous cartoonist then? Was this published in a notable paper?  Did it represent the general attitude of the country (Britain) to Napolean's exile?
 * i think it's your last suggestion. very good quality relevant picture. have added detail to caption. Tom B (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Napoleon_a_Cherbourg_bordercropped.jpg &mdash; what does this statue have to do with Napoleonic Code or Legacy?
 * show's a part of his legacy, i.e. all the statues of him but it was mainly because it was a strong image. have moved this to warfare, inserted civil code picture and deleted that whimsical image, boo hoo, Tom B (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The pose suits Warfare, but I think the caption could be beefed up a lil bit further. "A statue, at Cherbourg, of Napoleon on top of his horse, directing his army" or such (in a better prose than my suggestion)...  It could also go into the reasons for the statue's erection or pose.
 * Added detail to caption, Tom B (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Napoleon_sainthelene.jpg &mdash; what does this image have to do with Warfare?
 * Nothing, see explanation below. I thought it was a good whimsical picture on which to end article, have now replaced with warfare picture Tom B (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Napoleon4.jpg &mdash; a curious thing since the text mentions it. Here the charger is white, but as evident in the image space itself, there are paintings (supposedly credited to Jacques-Louis as well) of brown and spotted horses... I am confused... Which is the famous painting?
 * David did 5 versions of Napoleon Crossing the Alps, i've reworded and switched to the more realistic Bonaparte Crossing the Alps particularly as the throne picture follows i.e. another imperial/dominant/propaganda picture like David's. only prob is mule picture probably needs to go left so Nap looks inwards and that breaks into interlude section which I personally don't like. compromises, compromises, Tom B (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:NapoleonSteuben.jpg &mdash; per the MOS (picture should look towards text), should this be on the left? Napoleon (even if dead) is the primary focus.
 * have switched to left, Tom B (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Marie Louise von Österreich Napoleon Zweite.jpg &mdash; similarly, with Marie looking right, should this be on the left?
 * have switched to left, Tom B (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Images could be made relevant with appropriate captions, explaining or supporting the relevance of the image to the text. Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I included some of the images as they were different/added colour/strong images e.g. coin image different from all the battle pictures. I'll try and tie them in. btw you keep referring to Napoleon as Napolean! Perhaps us striking through or removing comments and responses that have been resolved may help to speed up resolving everything?

Thanks very much for loads of relevant points, will continue to resolve, Tom B (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments I have a few points to add to Jappalang's review.
 * It seems to me that one sentence on meeting and courting and marrying Josephine is a bit brief.
 * i've added a bit more on their relationship, Tom B (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although it is mentioned in the Infobox, there is no mention in the article of Napoleon's sarcophagus being in Les Invalides.
 * have now added this back in, including bringing detail up from notes section, Tom B (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This picture of Napoleon's sarcophagus Image:Napoleon Tomb.JPG might be a useful image
 * yes, this picture did used to be in article though Image:Tumba de Napoleon Bonaparte.jpg has better light so i've worked that in, Tom B (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think WP:Summary style would call for some mention of the many portrayals of Napoleon in film, novels, etc. for Further information: Napoleon in popular culture
 * have added a little on this, Tom B (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps, my advice is to get everything right before FAC as Napoleon is so well known that any errors or omissions will be noted there quickly. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ruhrfisch's concerns above. Jappalang (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.histofig.com/empire/bio_france_clary_en.php
 * http://www.napoleonicsociety.com/english/13vendangl.htm
 * http://ia311532.us.archive.org/0/items/memoirsofempress01joseiala/memoirsofempress01joseiala_djvu.txt
 * http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/index.html
 * http://www.napoleon-series.org/index.html
 * http://www.fsmitha.com/index.html
 * http://www.napoleon.org/en/fondation/index.asp
 * http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~jrubarth/gslis/lis385t.16/Napoleon/index.html
 * http://travellinghistorian.com/index.html
 * http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/Facts.html#Nap.%202nd%20Burial
 * http://www.paris.org/Musees/Invalides/
 * http://www.theroyalarticles.com/
 * http://www.historydata.com/index.html
 * http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyA3.html
 * Google book searches are not the best way to source an article, as they don't give you the full context of the statement, this would likely be challenged at FAC.
 * Current ref 39 is lacking a last access date.
 * Please note non-English languages that any sources might be in.
 * The stuff from Project Gutenburg, they are not published in 2006 or etc. You need to format these as if you were referring to the original book, and just give the url as a courtesy link.
 * You are using a number of OLD references, and quite frankly, using the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't the best idea. It was originally published in 1913 or so, and would be considered outdated. Others are the stuff from Gutenburg, etc.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks, I've replaced all the sources you listed except the Napoleon Foundation which is backed by the French government with government ministers on its board. I've also replaced the old sources, Tom B (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)