Eisspeedway

Talk:Bertrand Clauzel

Peer review

Bertrand Clauzel


I've listed this article for peer review because it looked unloved and I have made significant additions.

I am new to wiki so please do let me know of any substantive errors / non conformity with policies / guidelines so I am aware

Thanks, LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thebiguglyalien

Hello LeChatiliers Pupper! I've read the article and left some comments below.

General:

  • The heading titles are a bit elaborate in this article. Simpler is generally better, and I suggest trying to get them down to as few words as possible (although years can still be helpful).
  • The first time a person is mentioned, their full name should be used in most cases (Napoleon would be an exception since he's known mononymously).
  • General terms like abdication and exile, among others, don't need to be linked.
  • "In (year)" should be followed by a comma. I personally try to limit how many sentences begin with "In (year)" statements because it can get repetitive.
  • Overall there are many places where commas are needed but not included.
  • More context could be provided for some of the locations and events so it's clearer what's going on and where. This is especially the case for a historical article like this where location names don't necessary correspond to present-day locations.
  • I suggest avoiding the word "However" when beginning a sentence, as the sentence almost always still makes sense if it's omitted.
  • Whenever starting a new paragraph, it should say "Clauzel" before saying "he" so the sentence doesn't have an ambiguous subject.
  • Some sentences try to cover a lot at once or are simply run-on sentences. A copyedit of this article should include breaking up sentences when appropriate to make them easier to folow if they have several clauses.
  • Unless there's good reason, links to an article should only appear in the text the first time it's mentioned in the lead and then the first time it's mentioned in the body.
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs when possible.

Lead:

  • Try to make sure the lead covers all the major beats of Clauzel's life. It can be very surface-level, but there shouldn't be any major omissions. Perhaps mention the specific wars and conflicts and his exile in the United States, if they don't crowd the lead too much.

Early life:

  • I'm assuming this is everything that's known about his early life? I'm not a fan of one-sentence sections, but I don't have any immediate suggestions unless there's some way to merge it with another section.

Military career...:

  • Since the subsections cover two distinct periods, and one of them needs to be divided further, it might make more sense to make "Early military career" and "Peninsular campaign" both their own sections and remove the "Military career during" heading altogether.
  • the first campaign of the French Revolutionary Wars – It would help to specify what's meant by "the first campaign".
  • In 1799 Clauzel as he was promoted to général de brigade In this rank – Should be fixed
  • A short peace – This is an Easter egg link, which should be avoided.
  • General LeClerc died to yellow fever in 1803 when Clauzel became disillusioned – This makes it sound like Clauzel's disillusionment caused LeCler's yellow fever. Which would be really funny but probably wasn't the case.
  • he was in almost continuous service in a number of coastal garrisons until 1806 – If the sources elaborate at all, it would be good to provide more detail here.
  • This left other theatres less strongly held – Awkward wording

A tumultuous political life:

  • "the United States" is preferred over "America".
  • not all of them with entirely peaceful and commercial intentions – It's not clear what this is hinting at. If it's relevant to Clauzel, it should be stated outright. If not, then it should be removed.
  • The Algeria section is very long and should be divided up differently.
  • abandoned them on hearing of events in France. – Not clear what events they were or how they were relevant.
  • Clauzel wrote and advised on what policy France should take – Wrote and advised whom?
  • It doesn't say what The disaster of Maqta is or why it provoked outrage.

References:

  • Ideally, every statement in the body of the article should be referenced. There are several paragraphs were some or all of the text isn't followed by a citation. When writing an article, it's best to start with the sources and write based on what they say, as opposed to writing what seems like it should go there and finding sources to back it up afterward.
  • While I haven't checked if this is an issue, I just want to leave a general reminder that when a source appears after several sentences, it's assumed that the source supports all of those sentences. For example, in the first paragraph under "Retirement and legacy", both of those two sentences should be supported by the McDougall source, and then the third sentence should be supported by the Encyclopaedia Britannica source. If you're already aware of this and have been making sure it's maintained in the article, then you're good. I just figured this is an important thing to mention.

The article is coming along pretty nicely so far. Once the structural and referencing aspects are covered, I suggest an in-depth copyedit, perhaps by someone with fresh eyes who hasn't read the article yet. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to peer review I shall do my best implement nearly everything here, certainly it is very welcome to have a fresh pair of eyes rereading the article so often I think I do miss quite a lot.
what I am not so sure about
  • he was in almost continuous service in a number of coastal garrisons until 1806 – If the sources elaborate at all, it would be good to provide more detail here.
So the source for this is George Six and his dictionary of military biographies and essentially the further context would be just the names of the military units as nothing eventful happened while he was stationed there. So it would mess with the paragraph and turn it into a list of 3-4 I think military unit names - none of which are I think even have their own wiki pages.
--
Early life:
Another reviewer suggested adding the one sentence paragraph, I have no strong opinions on the matter but perhaps if more were to be known about his early life, the one sentence paragraph is at least a start for someone to add to.
--
  • not all of them with entirely peaceful and commercial intentions – It's not clear what this is hinting at. If it's relevant to Clauzel, it should be stated outright. If not, then it should be removed.
This is a fair comment but honestly I think you or someone else would have to check out -> Saugera, Eric (2011). Reborn in America: French exiles and refugees in the United States and the vine and olive adventure, 1815-1865
Clauzel is mentioned a lot but very rarely directly; He does directly do certain things such as writing to the US administration enquiring about land purchasing, this potential purchase is then connected to a hairbrained scheme to free napoleon and amass loyalists in America for an intervention into Mexico!
You also have I recall letters from Bourbon ambassadors saying "clauzel is up to no good", you have the historian saying things like "Clauzel was placed in Alabama close to Florida and thus Clauzel would be useful to those other schemers. You have mentioned letters addressed to Clauzel as part of certain schemes.
Honestly it is a period of history that is less than clear I tried my best to summarise.
I will be the first to admit the whole "time in the US" section may need work or at the very least a second opinion. But I think what's there is true to the source material, and if it is unclear the source itself is not clear what exactly on the degree of Clauzel's involvement was.
Again many thanks for your comments on the article and especially for the broad feedback that will help me generally :)) LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Overall the article looks good quality. A little bit more work, and maybe it could get a Good Article status.
  • Wording: In the east poor Clauzel mustered... - The word "poor" there is too casual; the wording in WP articles must be formal, professional, and encyclopedic. I'm not sure what "poor" is intended to mean. But an example wording might be: In the east, Clauzel mustered .... In an unfortunate turn of events, a sudden thunderstorm appeared and ..." Or, it may be best to simply remove the word "poor" and leave the rest of the sentence alone.
  • Sentence WAY TOO LONG: Despite early success such as at the Battle of Habra and the capture of Mascara in both in December 1835, and then Tlemcen in January 1836,[7] these quick victories were spoiled as Clauzel struggled to bring Abd al-Qadir to a pitched battle and also by political missteps with his imposition of a massive indemnity upon Tlemcen, thereby failing to turn his conquests into allies,[7] the French presence in the Algerian hinterland remained extremely limited. It is always safe to have short, simple sentences. It may sound a bit basic, but that is okay. As a guideline, try to have at most one, maybe two commas within the sentence. Of course, some sentences can be long and complex, but if you try that: you must be careful to make sure the average reader can read the sentence smoothly and with flow. Your goal is to NOT slow-down readers and make them do work to understand the sentence.
  • The paragraph that start Despite early success such as at the ... has two citations inside it [7]. That is okay... but if that source [7] describes the whole paragraph, then you should have a single [7] at the end, and remove the two [7] in the middle. You do not need a citation in every sentence .. unless the material in paragraph is a bit controversial. In that paragraph, after the second [7] there is the phrase the French presence in the Algerian hinterland remained extremely limited. .. that latter phrase has no citation (superscript)... so the reader is confused: is there a source for that phrase or not? Better is to have the paragraph ONLY repeat what is in the source, then put the [7] at the end of the paragraph.
  • Grammar: In 1798 Clauzel he became the .. -> In 1798 Clauzel became the .. I fixed that issue (removed "he").
  • Better links: was sent to the army of Naples ... Should be was sent to the army of Naples. For all links: ask yourself: "What will the reader want to learn about". In this example, the army is more important (to the reader) than the city of Naples.
  • Need clarity: The retreat from Salamanca posed significant challenges due to the substantial losses suffered by the French army. Who was challenged? I expect it to read as: The retreat from Salamanca posed significant challenges to Clauzel due to the substantial losses suffered by the French army. ... here I put "to Clauzel" but I'm not sure if that is correct.
  • Lead section: A perfect Lead section is hard to write, but a couple of tips: (a) 100% of the material should also be in the body (below the lead) of the article. (b) the lead should not have any citations (e.g. superscript [1]). There is no rule prohibiting cites in the lead, but it looks cleaner without them, and most great articles in WP have no cites in the lead. So, in this article, you should repeat When asked on Saint Helena which of his generals was the most skilful, Napoleon named Clauzel along with Louis-Gabriel Suchet and Étienne Maurice Gérard. down in the body (probably in the Legacy section), and put the citation down there.
  • In first section Early military career 1791–1809 the frist sentence is about stuff from before 1791: Bertrand Clauzel was born on 12 December 1772 in Mirepoix, in the County of Foix . That is confusing. Maybe try a structure like:
    • Early Life (has only 1 or 2 sentence)
    • Military career during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
    • A turmoilous political life
In other words, create a new section "Early Life" and move that one sentence into it.
  • WOrding: A turmoilous political life ... I think the word you want is "tumultuous"
  • The best articles include "alternate" text for each picture. See WP:ALT. This is 1 or 2 sentences you put in the "File" descriptor that describes the picture to a reader that cannot see well ... so you describe what is in the picture (e.g. "A map of a place in Egypt, showing a river at the top, and locations of troops south of the river"). The readers sometimes have an app that will read that "alt" text to them. "alt" text is required for WP:FA top-quality articles.

@Technopat Hi could you just clarify from your edit note what information you want cited / where copy editing is poor and I can try to give the article a second look

(I also didnt remove the tags btw) LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeChatiliers Pupper. Regarding my comments, please don't feel that I was criticising you. You have done a great job, over some time now, on this biography. Rather than take up space on this article talk page, I'm posting a longer reply on your talk page. Regards, Technopat (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article completeness

Recent edits should make some significant progress on completeness as well as verifiability standards, I think now all information should be cited adequately.

Potentially one area for expansion might be Clauzels commercial endeavours in Algeria and perhaps Alabama the book "The Merchants of Oran : A Jewish Port at the Dawn of Empire" might contain some information about Clauzel he is mentioned in a review as having an especially close relationship.

The comment by Napoleon that Clauzel was one of his best generals might ideally come with some analysis of why he might said it that and of its accuracy. However, I am unsure if such analysis even exists.

Otherwise, I think the article is in a very good state of completeness, more work might be needed to improve the standard of the prose

There is also Vue générale de Tlemcen en janvier 1836 - Louvre Collections literally "the view of [Clauzel] of Tlemcen" LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bertrand_Clauzel