Talk:Battle of the Gebora

message: :*removed repetitive wiki-links, copyedit of language and punctuation, in the process of turning European date format into US format (despite how much I like the European "day month year," the US format flows a little better IMO when read in prose. Have only copyedited up to the second/third paragraph of "Background." It seems to me that more sources are needed, at least in the lead part that I read (the 1000 casualties/4000 prisoners line, for example). Also, perhaps, a clarification of what takes place in Portugal--Line of Torre Vedras, Army of Portugal, Battle of "B..."--and what takes place in Spain (the transitions b/t Spain and Portugal events seem underemphasized/abrupt, and I found myself wondering at several points. Especially since the entire lead is devoted to Spanish events, I think the obvious needs to be stated when the article begins talking about the activities of Massena's Army of Portugal). Just a few thoughts; comments welcome. --Malachirality (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for this.  Changing the dates around doesn't affect me, thanks to user preferences, but some people might wonder why an article on a European subject uses US style dates.  Regarding the citations in the lead - I never put citations in the lead.  All information in there is cited elsewhere in the body, where the facts are stated in full and cited (the 1000/4000 figure is in Consequences).  Remember that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and shouldn't contain any information not in the body.  The transitions between Spain and Portugal occur throughout the article, since Badajoz is on the border between the two countries.  The bit about Masséna's Army of Portugal, though, is only there to explain why Soult went into Extremadura in the first place, to provide some context. Carre (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: I think the words "extricate" and "mired" better convey the situation you are describing. An alternate, shorter, but similar version would be In a bid to extricate Marshal Andre Massena from a quagmire in front of Lisbon's defensive Lines of Torres Vedras... (quagmire is, admittedly, a charged word, but appropriate here I think). Anyways, let me know what you think, or just make the changes yourself. And I hope your Thanksgiving was also awesome! --Malachirality (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Strike that, I like better the sentence that's in the article right now. --Malachirality (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like it too - I just changed it to "help extricate", rather than "extricate".  Thanksgiving isn't celebrated on this side of the pond, unfortunately, so another month to wait before we can overdo it on the food and booze front :) Carre (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical nuance correction 

message: There are broken links to the first and second sieges of Badajoz. I'm proofreading -- any way to fix those links, or should they be removed? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There are also broken links in the infobox. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wow, you've been busy!  The 1st and 2nd Badajoz sieges are next on my list of articles to work on, so they're red-links deliberately;  if they're removed, I'm bound to forget to come back and re-link!  The campaign-box is kinda a Peninsular War thing:  those are the important battles of each campaign, and hence should stay (there'll be articles for them eventually) Carre (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: "Soult was now in a difficult position: deploying two battalions to escort the prisoners taken at Olivenza back to French-held Seville left him only 5,500 infantry and a large (4,000-strong) contingent of cavalry with which to continue his campaign.". The last part, describing his cavalry as "large", seems to contradict the thrust of the first part, which is that his force is inadequate and his position difficult. If I'm understanding this correctly, one way to describe the contrast while maintaining the overall meaning of difficulty would be: 
"Soult was now in a difficult position: although he had a large (4,000-strong) contingent of cavalry, deploying two battalions to escort the prisoners taken at Olivenza back to French-held Seville left him only 5,500 infantry with which to continue his campaign.". Does this correctly describe the situation? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good way of rephrasing.  The cavalry was inordinately large, even at the start when he had his full infantry strength,  because the landscape in the region lent itself to cavalry operations.  However, by the point you refer to, his infantry was too small to really achieve his goal of capturing Badajoz, but he resolved to do so anyway. Carre (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording re: Soult's position 

message: I need some information to proofread this clause:<BR>
"between 11–18 February, the French were only able to shell the southern end of the Spanish line,"<BR>
As written, it means that (because of the flooding) the French could only shell the Spanish - they couldn't attack on foot or on horse, they could only lob shells at them. If that is what was intended, then the sentence is correct as written. However, sometimes in this situation, what is intended is "the French could shell nothing but the southern end of the Spanish line, not the northern end or the city of Badajoz or anything else". If so, then the revision would be:<BR>
"between 11–18 February, the French were able to shell only the southern end of the Spanish line..."
A fine distinction of meaning - let me know which. Thanks, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The former, so looks like wording is correct as it stands Carre (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only all authors could be relied upon to place "only" so accurately! -- then copy-editors wouldn't have to ask. Unfortunately, the careless use is widespread, e. g. the actual WP Protected Template had to be corrected for this. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning and placement of "only" (11-18 Feb) 

message: In the article he's refered as Sir Arthur Wellesley, Viscount of Wellington. Is that correct, since he was member of the peerage and would have the higher honorific "Lord" instead of "Sir"? Demophon (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking at Wellington's article, it should probably be "The Viscount Wellington" rather than either "Sir Arthur" or "Lord Wellington".  I'll change the couple of occurrences once this main-page mess is over and done with. Thanks for pointing it out.  Carré (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Sir''? Arthur Wellesley, Viscount of Wellington

message: About the spanish flag in the infobox, I think in that period of time the spanish flag looks like a red X with a white background.   A M M A R  22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no: . The flag seems to have come under effect in 1787 as a Naval War ensign. Flag of Spain article concurs on that too. 128.227.99.204 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Flag 

message: The following source is mentioned in the references-part: "Fortescue, Sir John (1917), A History of the British Army, vol. VIII, Macmillan, <http://www.archive.org/details/historyofbritish08fortuoft>. Retrieved on 13 September 2007". However, it's not used in any of the notes... Is it a general source or what? Is it really needed? Jopparn (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spot - it was a Cut & Paste thing, from a couple of other articles I'd written around the same time.  Must have just forgotten to remove it, but it's gone now.  Fortescue had stuff all to say about the Gebora, since it didn't involve the British army.  Carré (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the source needed for? 

message: The text says: "Additionally, about 6,000 troops were sent forward from the Lines of Torres Vedras on 19 January, arriving at Elvas on 29 January. When these forces joined with Mendizabal's remaining 3,000 men, a Spanish cavalry division, and a brigade of Portuguese horse, the Allies had an army almost 15,000 strong, under the command of La Romana, with which to hold Soult in check.[17] La Romana, however, died of an aneurysm on 23 January, and command of the army then fell to Mendizabal.[18]"
If the forces arrived the 29th and La Romana died the 23, where they then really under his command? Jopparn (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed;  the intention was for La Romana to be in command.  Thanks. Carré (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! I have now translated the entire article into Swedish:). Jopparn (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error?