Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/archive1


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed, no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

 * Nominator(s): Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '  (talk)''

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... article has undergone expansion, improved lead section, new support sections, higher amount of citation added, with detailed referencing. Following PR article attained B-class. Pushing for more feedback to attain A or FL quality. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh ''' (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone could please conclude this ACR it would be appreciated; I am confident that it sufficiently meets all A1–A5 requirements. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello MarcusBritish. Under the relevant policy ACRs need a minimum of three reviewers to support promotion if they are going to be successful. It appears from reading the reviews below that currently there is one oppose (AustralianRupert), while a couple of reviewers have left comments but not explicitly stated whether they support or not (Fifelfoo and Intothatdarkness). As such you might consider 'pinging' Fifelfoo and Intothatdarkness to confirm if they have any outstanding comments. Anotherclown (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have contacted the first two reviewers, and a third potential reviewer for reassessment. AussieRupert has stated that he is no longer participating in the review, based on petty disagreements — therefore his "opposition" is neither here nor there, and should be ignored — red tape would not serve the Project (or Wiki) well given it's considerable backlog, at this time. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be fairly careful how you proceed here. AustralianRupert's opinions are rightly well respected at ACR and I seriously doubt his "oppose" is based on anything petty at all. You may wish to ignore his comments but I would be surprised if other editors will discount them quite as readily as you have requested. From my point of view the concerns he raised in his review seem purfectly valid and in keeping with current ACR and WP policy. Remember we are all volunteers who give our time for free in order to improve the encyclopaedia, and that includes reviewers. With this in mind, perhaps you might reconsider your own conduct as this would likely be more helpful. Anotherclown (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied that my.. "conduct" is within reason and need no rebukes, thanks. Your concern is noted, but unnecessary - I fail to see your interest in the matter, unless you intend to review the article yourself there is little point in your late intervention. The article has been under development for a long time, and the concerns which AussieRupert raised have long since become moot points, because I have taken alternative measures to reorganise the content as I saw fit. Please do not proceed to insult my intelligence with bureaucratic remarks regarding policy, when this matter was a difference in opinion, and a reviewer becoming over-demanding towards—as you say—a volunteer, and had nothing to do with any specific policy. Your POV is noted, but is not entirely neutral, nor of interest to me 3 weeks later. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be more clear then. I was attempting to explain the requirements of ACR to as you seem to be new here (at least I had not come accross you before) and you seemed unclear of said requirements from your first comment (about the review being ready to close, which as I pointed out it is not). My point is that in its current state there is not yet enough support to close and that remains the case. However, under ACR policy the review will stay open for 28 days (so until 5 July) in which time there may be additional reviews. Yes my POV is that the comments raised by the other reviewer were valid, and if as you say they have become moot points because you have now "reorganised the content" then perhaps you too recognise that they were issues after all. I note that you seem to have commented out at least some of the unreferenced content which AustralianRupert requested a citation for, so I guess that that issue might also have been resolved to a point. Anotherclown (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since AussieRupert's review there have been dozens of extra citations added - in fact EVERY battle listed is now cited, sometimes more than once. As is every paragraph and key point, date or quote in the text. I consider the article over-cited, as is sometimes necessary - the article more than meets A1, imo, and his review is now out-dated and no longer accurate - if he does not care to continue his review, that's his choice - however, one does not take a 3 week old review as "fact" without taking into account edits in the interim - that would be a flawed and impractical assessment. The part I commented out, which he disapproved of was a hard choice to even add in the first place - if you look at the archived BCR/peer review you will see I made an entry expressing my concerns than this article might become subject to war editing due to the fact that some battle results are frequently debated and subjective - especially by people with national/racial bias - most of the battle articles and stubs on Wiki have to go into great detail regarding Tactical, Strategic and Decisive outcomes to avoid similar debates, and even then some results are by consensus and not really supported by historians (see Talk:Battle of Toulouse (1814) for example; probably one of the reasons many people see Wiki as "bad for research" - because some articles are written in a way that keeps the peace amongst editors than expresses a controversial truth - something I consider detrimental - rewriting history to please objectors annoys me). This is only a table though, and therefore space is limited - if I had a column for every possible outcome it would be too complicated and probably unfriendly to read and understand. Hence my decision to boil it down to the simple Tactical outcome - which is the result that matters "there and then", irrespective of the campaign and other events - I often see strategic results as being determined in retrospect based on the bigger picture, whilst Tactical results are known as soon as a battle ends. A commanders "battle resumé", as such, should reflect his immediate successes, not interpretations of those results. Having to explain that, though, was a problem - I opted to use a Footnote grudgingly and did ask for alternative suggestions pre-ACR - and got no response. I therefore found it obnoxious of AussieRupert to suggest that every battle outcome came across as "my own opinion" and to cite every one. I also found it arrogant that he could not accept that in a table results are relational (hence their design) and that the cited source in the Action column would be the same for the outcome - that's logic, and wasn't even worth arguing - any school kid with a spreadsheet knows tables contain relational data, hence why I considered his disregard for this as "petty". His over-reaction to my refusal to cite every single result, which would simply have been reiteration and cluttering, was not appropriate. The choice to remove the footnote was my own - I reverted to the original table heading I used in Sandbox stages and simply headed that column "Tactical outcome" without a verbose footnote explanation. This should suffice to prevent major disputes - and also negates the need to cite each result further. I hope that is more than clear. I don't consider myself prone to undue hostility, but I don't tolerate unreasonable requests either - and when I explained the table design to AussieRupert, he was clearly uninterested or unwilling to accept that tables work that way - that's my POV. The table is organised, logical and considerably well cited - it only makes sense that if a citation in the Action column is going to be about the battle named, then it covers the entire row - date, location, AND outcome. Yet he failed to adequately explain why he only wanted me to cite the "outcome". Why not the other columns as well? The date or location s just as questionable as the outcome, is it not? He was splitting hairs, as far as I'm concerned - might as well say Waterloo wasn't even fought at Waterloo but at Mont St. Jean. Regardless, the table is now as it is due to reconsideration of the complications of a footnote and my inability to explain the Outcome without sounding trivial, biased or like I was using "original research" methods - a 2 word heading does the job far better than a 50 word footnote - just as it suffices in a battle article - less is sometimes more. On that note, that's all I need say. Cheers. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo


 * Sourcing and citations not ready for A-class yet (if all the below are resolved for all citations with that kind of error, it would be), but first:
 * You had said, " it would be easy enough to pick up one concise book of battles and reference that, but it stinks of bias in favour of one authors opinions to do so, hence why I have taken references from several good military historians, in some cases battles have more than one reference"
 * What's wrong with citing things from a major work of scholarship? You need to be aware of other authors opinions, particularly if they disagree with the major work you're relying upon, but it doesn't present a problem when you cite from a magisterial study where all other authors agree.
 * Also, I think your citation to "Morgan, pp. 95–116." is your notability hook. Good job finding it!  It indicates clearly that Wellington's battle record is notable by itself.
 * I can't find this source, "Timeline: Wellington and British Campaigns." Is this the name of the section of the book? Is it a formal chapter name?  If so, See chapter, "Timeline:…" ❌
 * See peer review for how to cite this fully: "The Duke of Wellington". Retrieved 28 April 2011. ✅
 * Same and the company: ""History of War: Combat of Casa de Salinas". Retrieved 14 April 2011." ✅
 * "Fletcher, p. 15. (1994)" is normally rendered as "Fletcher (1994), p. 15." as we use Fletcher and 1994 to identify which source you're referring to. ✅ Also, uh, the work you consulted was Fletcher (2005)... see your bibliography. ✅
 * "Fletcher, pp. 16–19." &tc... which Fletcher? ✅
 * "Fletcher, p. 22. (1997)" you mean "Fletcher (1997), p. 22.". When there is more than one author you either use both names "Fletcher and Youngblood, p. 22." or as you've done use the first author and the date discriminator. ✅
 * "Fremont-Barnes, pp. 103–104." and such other citations: was the article in Fremont-Barnes (ed.) written by Fremont-Barnes? What was the article title?  ❌
 * "Adkin (2001)" and "Howarth (1997)" at what page? ❌
 * In the Bibliography:
 * "  ; Younghusband, Tony (1997). Salamanca 1812. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1855326040." shouldn't use the bar if the authors are different. Ie:  1) Fred, 2) ———, 3) Fred and John, 4) ———.  Where 1 and 2 are authored by Fred, and 3 and 4 are authored by Fred and John. ✅
 * Also there's a known issue with |authormask=, you need to manually set it to |authormask=—— ✅
 * What is Rothenberg's chapter called? "Rothenberg, Gunther E. (1999). Keegan, John. ed. The Napoleonic Wars."? When citing chapters from a work edited by someone else, (and even when they're the editor) we normally name the chapter.  ie:  "Fifelfoo, (1999) "Introduction"  Fifelfoo ed. Citing stuff……… ❌
 * Where's Ware? ("Ware, United Kingdom") ✅
 * Where are various presses located ("Aurum Press") etc. ✅
 * "CA, USA" normally we put the city and US state, or with non-US locations the city and country. Some examples, "Oxford" "London" "New York" (everyone knows them, and they ) "Ware, United Kingdom" "Santa Monica, California" "Newcastle, NSW, Australia" etc. ✅
 * Further reading is well presented. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again - almost all ✅ with the following exceptions where further explanation is required:
 * "Morgan, pp. 95–116. Timeline: Wellington and British Campaigns." Anyone turning to page 95 thru 116 would see instantly that that page range is a chapter called Timeline: Wellington and British Campaigns and that it is just a Timeline, not a standard block text chapter. I would have thought noting that this reference is a Timeline by giving its name would make sense to anyone picking up that book without being specific. If I add "See chapter" its exactly the same as 95–116 - doesn't that seem daft - like telling someone "Take a right turn here. Go down Main Street now you're on it" when both things are the same? I mean, you say "I can't find this source" does that mean you don't have the book in hand - I'd assume any page numbers or chapter titles are pointless to anyone without a copy of the material being referenced so I'm unsure how adding "See chapter" helps anyone?
 * These refer to entire books because they are dedicated a single battle eg "Waterloo", I looked into how to reference an entire book and determined that one should simply reference Surname (year) to reference a book in its entirety. Unless you can tell me that's wrong, and what style for these entries I don't know another way - except 1–last.
 * The book actually has him as "General Editor", maybe Rothenber's first language isn't English and he just cleans it up, not sure. But there are four references to his book, taken from three different chapters not just one sample. Is it practice to name each chapter in the inline ref to result in:

1. Rothenberg, pp. 24–30. Peninsular War. 2. Rothenberg, pp. 47–50. Battle of Waterloo.

Might just be me who thinks that looks over-indulgent especially amongst other texts without editors/chapter titles - but if it is practice I'll go with the flow. Would be interested in knowing the theory behind how adding the chapter title just for edited texts helps anyone, though - the page number is still a fixed place in the book, regardless of chapter number or name.
 * As with C - various chapters referenced, from Fremont-Barnes book, so is the chapter name of any material relevance per citation or simply excessive once more than one reference is given? What if a ref to a particular thing resulted in "Brown, John ed. pp. xvi, 29, 64–69, 145." and those pages were in several different chapters - how then would you expect to cite the text?

In your final point, are you saying "London" does or does not need to be displayed as "London, UK" or "New York" as "New York, USA", or is it good either way as long as it's consistent?

NB: This is my curious morbidity, for future practice, more than anything not an attack on your review - it helps my accuracy if I know the theory behind things rather than thinking "oh, just do it". Once you settle my minor conflictions per note, I can complete the clean-up better understanding the purpose behind them.

Thanks in advance for your time and patience! Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh ''' (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Intothatdarkness

Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a little concerned that the section on "Generalship" is a touch too POV, especially in the third paragraph. Granted I'm not a Napoleonic expert, but it was my understanding that at least for a time the Iberian Peninsula was considered something of a backwater by Napoleon and thus not a high priority for his top-line troops. It might be better to cite a source dealing with the state of the Grande Armee and its training during this time in addition to Holmes. ✅
 * Ooh, interesting. I'll look into the French Army deployed in Spain a little more - haven't done that much with it being more British based. I hope you're wrong though - it's awful to think a British Army would take 6 years to deal with second-rate troops. :) But it is more or less fact that all French troops were simply recruited and thrown in at the deep end, learning from veterans on the march. Even the Old Guard were hand picked veterans who served Napoleon in his earlier victories and formed an elite division and received better treatment. But the inexperienced youth of the French Ary shows in this figure: 860,000 Frenchmen died in the Napoleonic Wars - half of them were no older than 28 year old; many were conscripts. Shame really. (I'd cite that but I forget which book I read it in recently.)
 * Thanks, Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd point out, when I picked up on the term "Grande Armée" I searched for it on wiki and noticed:
 * Peninsular War:
 * Battle of Bailén, Battle of Somosierra,
 * Battle of Talavera, Battle of Vitoria


 * under Engagements in the info box - so I simply used the term again, instead of "French Army" again. Thos battles range between 1808 and 1813, and although there are not many, it suggests their presence in Spain for a long time. Although I will still look into this anyway, to verify it and determine their exact deployments if possible.
 * Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh ''' (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I found a bit that touched on this matter - have updated the paragraph and cited it. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That reads much better. And take heart...Wellington came in at a rough time and had to train up an army as he went. Never an easy task. The French did have a training regimen for their mounted troops if memory serves, and they did station the bulk of their dragoons in Spain (again, working from memory...and they were often kept busy with what we'd now call rear-area security taskings).Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good now.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * AustralianRupert


 * Oppose Comments : very interesting article, but I have a few concerns:
 * there is one dab link, although to be honest, I'm not sure that it can be fixed (probably no action required);
 *  What's a "dab link"? Expeditionary forces? Is so, yes, there is no alternative apart from "expeditionary warfare" which doesn't cover it as well as I'd like - only covers a few examples, but not Napoleonic. I may update it and then switch the link to there, in the near future, however. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the external links all work (no action required);
 * the images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations: (no action required);
 * the images lack alt text. It is not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);✅
 * if possible, you might consider adding an image to the Generalship section to break up the text a little (suggestion only);
 * Is on my "to-do", but I have yet to find a suitable image on Commons - despite a long search - that suitably expresses his role as a force commander, rather than another typical solo Wellington pose. But I'm avoiding a repeat of the main picture, with him on a horse in some battle - they all represent the same idea. If I have any luck, or come across one I'll pop one in there. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * are all the items in the See also section necessary? The first one probably is, but the others I'm not so sure about and I would suggest removing them (suggestion only);
 * I believe they are - medals often arise as a result of successful battles and campaigns. They serve to credit those who fought and their success. I think Wellington is highly under-rated, especially here on Wiki (considering Napoleon has an A-class article, and Wellington barely scratches a lowly C-class) is seems fair to say without a Battle Record there would not be corresponding medals to read about. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but be advised that you might be asked to remove most of them at FL. Its not a big issue for me, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't understand why anyone would want related links removed at any level, whether Stub or FL.. I'd hope they can provide a WP policy which gives a good reason why it should be a bad thing. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument would probably be that they are not "directly-related", which IMO they aren't. They are related to the individual battles for which they are awarded, but not to Wellington's battle record. If he received them, then by all means his article should probably link to them (in prose), but it is probably over kill to add them in a See also section in this article. That is, however, just my opinion (albeit one based on experience in my involvement in many ACRs, FACs and FLCs). It's your call, nonetheless, as I said. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "having lead a successful military career during the Napoleonic Wars" probably should be "having led a successful"; ✅
 * the last part of the first paragtaph in the Military career section needs a citation as it appears to be uncited;
 * The wording is based on my conclusion drawn as a result of producing the table that follows. I have no source, simply because no one else has produced a table of similar content, to the best of my knowledge (hence the reason why I have done so). Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but at A class you need to be able to provide a citation for this sort of information. At the very least, it should be possible to provide a citation for the assertion that "Britain played a major role in securing Europe against French occupation between 1803 and 1815". If you could add a citation for that, I would be happy with that. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * same as above for the last part of the second the third paragraphs of the Military career section; ✅
 * To do. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * same as above for the last part of the second and fourth paragraphs of the Generalship section;✅ 2nd para
 * 4th para, or rather sentence as it stands, is again a conclusion drawn from the battle record table - no source. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable at A-class, IMO. It either needs a source, or it should be removed. Is there some work that paints a general picture of the campaign, showing the span of six years between the first and last battles that could be cited? Even if it were just a book with a map that depicted the progression of the campaign. You could then cite the page number of the map. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * irregular capitalisation: "only faced Napoleon's Marshals" should probably be "only faced Napoleon's marshals" (as it is an improper noun, I believe)
 * As it's a title, like "Captain" or "General", it looks incorrect with small case 'm'. Not sure if it's a proper noun, or whether using a small case for ranks is another wacky Americanised.. sorry, I mean -ized.. cock-up of the English language. :) I think most British authored books I read use upper case for Marshal. I do, habitually, because it's a rank, title, role of honour and distinctive position, all in one. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy link is Manual of Style (capital letters). I wouldn't oppose for A-class on this alone, however, if you wish to take this to FL, you probably need to follow the MOS. In this case it is not a proper noun, so it should be in lower case. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * irregular capitalisation: "Indicates a Decisive Victory" should probably just be "Indicates a Decisive victory"; ✅
 * there is information in the lead, which is not presented in the body of the article. For instance, in the lead "Between 1794 and 1815 Wellesley participated in a number of military campaigns" and "rose in rank by purchasing his first four commissions". These should be covered in the Military career section. Currently that section, however, does not provide the reader with information on when Wellington's military career began. Also did he receive any formal military training. It probably only needs a short sentence explaining these things. His service in India should also be briefly mentioned in this section, IMO (would probably only need a sentence again);
 * Or I could link Arthur Wellesley's article as the "Main" which contains this information in full? Unfortunately his first 4 commissions involved him moving through about 5 or 6 different units, infantry and cavalry, taking on administrative duties but never training formally as a soldier. It would take a little more detailed text to cover these non-combative years, but would just be a duplicate of the Main article. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A sentence or two in general terms in the Military career section would provide enough information, IMO. For instance (without having the specific knowledge to make it accurate, here is something I've written): "Wellington's military career began in ? when, at the age of ?, he purchased a commission as a ? in the ? regiment. He received no formal military training, although this was the norm at the time, and following this his career progressed as he purchased promotions up to the rank of ? His first battle came at ? in ?". That is pretty much all you would need to add, IMO. I will leave it up to you, though, but currently I don't believe that the article provides the reader with enough of a background understanding of the Duke's military career to put the list in context. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * a great number of the lines in the Battle record list are cited in the Action column, which is great, but there are a few that are not. For instance the Duke's presence at the battles of Mallavelly,✅, Seringapatam,✅, Sultanpet Tope,✅, Argaon,✅, Gawilghur,✅, Grijo, Pombal,✅, Redinha,✅, Sabugal,✅, and Garris.✅ For A-class, these probably also need to be cited (remember A class is just below FL);
 * Correct. I have a dozen books on Wellington that I can personally read, and cite. As well as a few scanned books. Unfortunately they are all primarily focused on the Napoleonic Wars. I have yet to acquire a comprehensive text on his career in India worth citing. It's something I had intended to do when looking to boost the article from A to FL. At the moment I simply lack a good book on those Indian wars.. and I don't think the Sharpe books are citable.. ;) Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the Sharpe books couldn't be used. Have you searched on Credo Reference? I believe that they have a Who's who at Waterloo that might help. The link is here: (if you can't access it, send me a message and I will see if I can. I think I have access through my local library). Also, have you looked for journal articles or dictionaries of biography? Sometimes, these can be a gold mine of information. I'm afraid that without citations, however, it does not meet A1 of the A-class criteria at WP:MHA. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * to be honest, I'm not sure that Footnote A is acceptable to act as a citation for the outcome of the battles. It would probably be best to provide a citation for each entry, unless there is a general citation that can cover all these results. As it stands, Footnote A looks like it could just be your own analysis;
 * I left a request for alternative suggestions to a footnote, on the original PR/BCR page. There were none. I see no other alternative either. By not explaining that the column is for Tactical outcome, and not Strategic outcome, it leaves an invite for war editing over some of these battles, such as Quatre Bra. By giving a footnote, it is more clear what the intention of that column is. I am not aware that footnotes have to be considered part of the article, but rather act in support of it, to explain/clarify an authors intentions as is the case here. I believe that's what makes footnotes distinct from notes - footnotes are general comments to support the authoring, whilst notes support the content with remarks that would seem out of context in the main body, but relevant to a researcher. Those outcomes come from the cited sources, and are not my analysis, btw. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the outcomes come from cited sources, please provide the inline citation. Currently it appears uncited and given that it appears to be drawing conclusions, it should be cited even if it is in a Footnote. You can include an inline citation in a Footnote. For instance, look at the example in this article: Operation Kita (which is a GA/A class article) and USS Chesapeake (1799) (which is an FA). If necessary, a citation per individual line item in the outcome column could be added if there is no general source that encompasses all, by simply adding the citations into the table beside each item. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to disagree with you on this point. If a battle is cited in the Action column, then that citation obviously covers the date, war, location, possibly his rank, and the outcome for that battle - so it's common sense that it extends across the full row - there's no benefit to citing the Result column of every battle, when the cite would just be the same as the one used already. I'd consider it WP:CITECLUTTER, and I think that the Footnote is clearly worded explaining that there are no conclusions being drawn. Anyone could reasonably argue that all battle results are drawn conclusions - especially Strategic analysis - hence why I stuck with Tactical results - because they are usually very clear to determine, whereas Strategic results are often argued about. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it is not obvious to me that a citation in one column relates to another. If you wish to get around repeating the citations, you could probably include an explanatory Footnote in the columns that says something like: "Unless specifically cited, the information in this column comes from the citation provided in the Action column". That would be acceptable, IMO, and would then only require one note. Regarding the Footnote, I cannot agree with you about the lack of in line citations, as from my perspective, it is written in a manner that indicates that conclusions are being drawn and that facts are being presented. As such, IMO, you need to cite it per WP:NOR. You say that the analysis is not your own but comes from cited sources, as such you need to identify what those sources are and adding it directly to the footnote would seem to me to be the best way of making it clear that it is not your own analysis. I am unsure why you seem reluctant to do this as it would only require one or two inline citations and I have provided you with a couple of examples of methods that you could use to achieve this. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply because the examples you give don't appear relevant to this List format. They're using the "for the purposes of this article" method of footnoting, whilst I'm using the "explain authors intentions" method to describe the purpose of the table and remove any doubt as to its design to the reader without over-citing it with duplicated links. Again, how can anyone be reading the article and not understand the purposes of a footnote basically saying "Outcome is the Tactical result only" and a short example? Perhaps that example infers Original Research, and should be removed to simply state the fact. Regardless, I don't know how you cannot translate one column in a row to another when they are related - hence the purpose of tables in the first place - to correlate date and make it relate to its fellow rows and columns. It is only natural to assume that if a citation has been given regarding the battle event, then it must be relevant to the full row. Why is it you don't expect me to cite the date? Answer: because the citation in the Action column will confirm it, and the location, and everything across the row. Why would the result be any exception? So again, I think you're mistaken in your beliefs, or you're simply not accpting the table as providing relational data. You're asking me to cite one or two inline citations, but that does not make sense when there are ~60 rows and each battle has different sources. How does one citation cover all of them if this is the first example of such a battle record? Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it is acceptable to cite a Wikipedia page as an inline citation as you have for Note # 3. I suggest replacing this with citations to books or reliable websites, even if this means a citation for each entry (although one general citation that encompassed all entries in the column would be the best solution if possible).AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know of no books that completely detail Wellington's ranks and dates of commission, in one or two pages, as completely as the Wiki article given. But it also unlikely that the Rank he held per battle is going to be disputed. Few books give his rank on each battle either, so you're asking the near-impossible. It's merely a "see also" for those who want to know his commission dates, although I have yet to see anything that disapproves of it in the WP:MOS. I could be wrong. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you cannot include something in the article if you can't cite a reliable source. Per the guidance at RS "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose". As such I would suggest simply removing the ranks if they can't be cited, or only include those that can be cited and leave the rest as "unknown". AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please check the new info under "Military Career", although its all a load of bollox to me, adding this bloated info is unprofessional - anyone daft enough to question Wellington's rank for each and every battle is daft enough to ask whether London was still the capital during Dunkirk, or the Somme, or D-Day and deserves a slap. Or as wiki puts it: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue! Either way, there's a lot of citations in that new sub-section - thanks to Holmes.. again.. but over-kill is still a bad thing. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't respect my opinion or time enough to respond in civil manner. I've undertaken many A class reviews of other editors' work over the past two years so I at least feel I know a little bit about the requirements (whether that is true in reality is, of course, arguable). I have a pretty thick skin, however, I do not respond well to implications that I'm being "daft" or asking you to add "bollox" when I am trying to help you. I have no other motive than to try to get your article promoted to A-class and maybe FL. I'm insulted by your remarks and as such, from my perspective, we are done here. Personally, I feel that the article is close to the standard, however, using a Wikipedia entry as a citation as you have done and continuing to refuse to add citations to factual assertions in the Footnote is a war stopper for me. BTW, the information you've added in the Military career section is good, although it is more than what I was asking you for (I was not asking for that level of detail – I said a sentence or two at the most) and it is out of chronological order (the Allied commander section should be after the information about promotions, IMO). Additionally, I would suggest moving the first paragraph to the Battle record section as it relates more to that section (culling any repetition) and making the Military career section a short overview of the Duke's career consisting of a brief chronology of promotions/first battle experience and then the Allied commander subsection. The reason for this is to provide the casual reader with enough context for the list. Overall, my assessment of the article is that it meets A2, A3, A4 and A5 but fails on A1. You are more than welcome to ask others to provide their opinion (and I encourage you to do so). I will not be continuing to take part in this review, however. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there was nothing "uncivil" about my response - I was being frank, and my comments neither imply nor suggest anything regarding yourself, please don't bite off more than you can chew; I referred to general readers in terms of questioning his rank, and whatever policies you claim require re-entry of information rather than cross-referencing are bollox. If you feel I don't respect your opinion you might ask yourself why I took the time to query your concerns, make alterations, additions and such - before Lording it up - there's a review and there's "do it my way, or not at all" - PR's are subjective, and you certainly subject yourself to excessive demands IMO. And the new section added last night is self-referring. By dating his promotions they now match the dates around which the battles took place, and those in between - we know ranks are something someone maintains, unless demoted, which Wellington was not. So that solves that. Thanks for your time, however much you begrudge giving it. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Woody
 * (Please don't hide my comments under a collapsible header, they get on my nerves)
 * Sorry, did this because the assessment was getting very lengthy with review comments and discussion - and as it copies itself onto the Projects current ACR Assessments page also, amongst other ACRs, I didn't want it imposing. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh ''' (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments (near support)  First off, you can see a lot of effort has gone into this article, particularly as there isn't any precedence for an article of this kind at FL or above. It is a trail-blazer in that sense as there is no article to compare it to. I think it is A and almost FL ready bar a couple of minor issues I have.
 * I know that the standard rule of thumb is to link only on first instance, but in sortable tables this can be ignored as the first instance can be any number of variations. The tables I have worked on wikilink all instances in the tables but that is a personal preference. Some reviewers at FLC like to see all linked, some don't like "seas of blue" so as long as you have a reasoning for how you have you done it, you will be fine.
 * Yes, I noticed your VC table had all the ranks linked - personally, I did not like the "sea of blue" either - I prefer first instance linking as this is what will show first during default sorting, and shouldn't really bother anyone.


 * To avoid the citation/covers whole row issue, you can have a notes column with the citation inside. This is the convention at FL. Personally, my first instinct when I see the table as is, is that the citation only relates to contents of that particular box and not the column.
 * Funnily enough I tried this in my Sandbox a couple of weeks ago, to see if a separate Citations column would work, but decided against using it as I was worried it would be less acceptable due to the citations not being inline. It also caused some problems cramping the table width (one reason I use "aka" instead of "also known as" in alt. battle names was to reduce Action column width considerably after the Sandbox test). Do you think I should apply it again with the live article table?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added a Citation column whilst awaiting your response to my comments on your review. Let me know if you think it works - if not, I'll revert this edit back to the previous inline citation version before any other edits are required. I've used this method before in lists, but normally the citied column contains links to external Maps and/or PDFs rather than referenced sources (SSSI articles). Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some wording issues/tweaks from me:
 * The sentence in the second paragraph of "Military career" (beginning with "Although this is easily contested...") is far too long (88 words, 5 lines on my screen). It isn't very easy to read and digest, it needs to be broken down. ✅ - edited.
 * "Wellington was gazetted an Ensign" Is that right grammatically? Should it not be "Wellington was gazetted as an Ensign?" ✅ - changed to Holmes wording "was gazetted Ensign" with no word in between.
 * "In September 1794, Wesley" Who is Wesley? Is he related to Ron Weasley? ✅ - Wesley was the family name at this time, but it is not appropriate to to into depths regarding family history in this article, so have used the popular name they adopted to avoid confusion.
 * I don't like the WP:EASTEREGG link in the third para of "commissions..." You should say "...supported by government and the Prince Regent George IV. I would expect Prince regent to link to an article describing what a Prince Regent is, not to a particular example of a Prince Regent.
 * ✅ - Sorry, I wasn't aware of the "Easter Egg" policy until now, as I have seen many on Wiki.
 * A few areas, particularly DYK, actively encourage them but EASTEREGG is there for a reason and will be picked up on at Featured content reviews. Woody (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So, a few issues from me, but I think it is nearly there. Regards,Woody (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, I'm happy that it meets the A-Class criteria now. Woody (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.