Talk:Battle of San Lorenzo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

One of my favourite periods, so it's nice to be able to review the article! I've taken a first cut through below. I'll have a proper look at the copy-editing later and finish the review then. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, have gone through in some detail below. With a bit of copy-editing done, it should be good at GA. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• There is still a little bit of copy-editing required - I'll work through that later today.

Lead:

• " the baptism of fire of this military unit" - "for this military unit"?
• "The city raided population centres next to the nearby rivers for supplies" - read oddly. How about: "raided population centres along the nearby rivers for supplies"?
• " José de San Martín, who had arrived to Buenos Aires and created the regiment a short time beforehand, followed their ships to San Lorenzo." - how about: "José de San Martín, who shortly before had arrived in Buenos Aires and formed the regiment, followed the royalist ships to San Lorenzo." ?
• "Besides the San Carlos convent the area was a large empty plain. The regiment hid inside the convent during the night..." How about "The area around San Lorenzo formed a large empty plain; the regiment hid inside a local convent over night..."?

Prelude:

• "The military perspectives of Buenos Aires in 1812 were improving from previously difficult times." - Reads oddly. How about "Although Buenos Aires had suffered a difficult period in its war for independence, its prospects were improving by 1812."?
• "...Belgrano gave a new advantage to the revolution with the battle of Tucumán before heading to Salta." Confused me a little. Perhaps: "...Belgrano's victories at Tucuman and Salta had given new fresh hope to the revolution." or something like that?
• "The city, however, kept its naval supremacy over Buenos Aires and their ships raided the coasts of the Paraná and Uruguay rivers to endure the siege." "maintained its naval supremacy". You might want to go for "to gather supplies, despite the siege".
• "Montevideo organized a navy to destroy the gun batteries at Rosario and Diamante but were prevented from doing so as Buenos Aires dismantled them knowing that they could not defend them" - it wasn't clear to me why the Royalists did this, or where Rosario and Diamante were, or how it linked to the next bit.
• "They moved into the Paraná through its tributary" - you'll probably need to clarify what the royalist navy is trying to do here. Was it conducting another raid for supplies, or was this linked to its attempts to destroy the gun batteries?
• "the then most recent military techniques" - I suspect you could safely lose the "then" here.
• "Antonio Zabala" - I think you've forgotten to mention the Royalist commander in the Prelude (although he is in the lead)

Battlefield:

• "The west gully was high-sided, and a natural fortification, and ships could only land troops and materials through man-made paths. The battlefield was near one of these paths, shaped like a ladder, after which the terrain was a big plain with scattered bushes" There's something wrong here - are you sure that "gully" is the right word? I'm wondering if you meant something like "The west bank of the river was tall and steep, forming a natural obstacle, and ships could only land troops and materials on that side of the river using man-made paths cut into the side."? NB: there might be a gully as well, leading into the river perhaps?
• "The location was not an easy place to defend as the plains made surprise attacks difficult" This didn't make sense to me. Wouldn't the absence of surprise attacks make it easier to defend?
• "San Martín studied the battlefield and readied the plan for the operation during the night, when the grenadiers were hidden inside the convent." - do the sources say what the Royalists were doing at this point?

Battle:

• "San Martín moved the regiment from Retiro to Rosario" Initially I wasn't sure if was this before they reached the convent, or before. It might be worth moving this first paragraph up into the end of the Prelude section. You'd then have him stopping at the convent; the Battlefield bit would then describe the field, and this Battle section would begin nicely on "The grenadiers left the convent at dawn..." That would avoid the repetition and potential confusion.
• "harangue" - are you sure you mean "harangue"? ("to speak to someone or a group of people, often for a long time, in a forceful and sometimes angry way, especially to persuade them") I was wondering if you meant "speech", or perhaps "motivational speech"?
• "The cavalry would not shoot" - its grammatically correct, but "The cavalry would not use their guns..." might sound better.

Cabral's intervention:

• "Regardless of the victory the royalist forces could not be finished off..." Sounded odd. How about "Despite the victory, the remaining royalist forces could not be pursued..."?
• "A royalist, probably Zabala himself..." I wasn't sure how this bit linked into the beginning of the paragraph - was it happening as the pursuit occurred?
• "Juan Bautista Cabral is known as "Sergeant Cabral", but he was a private at the time of the battle. San Martín's report mentions him as "the grenadier Juan B. Cabral", and historians like Bartolomé Mitre, Herminio Gaitán, Gerardo Bra or Norberto Galasso support the idea. Mitre considers that Cabral was promoted posthumously, but there are no documents confirming that." - it felt like this should have been in a note section at the bottom. Alternatively, it needs an opening sentence explaining the significance of the point.

Aftermath:

• " its military value was relative." - this read oddly to me. How about "...its value was more symbolic than military."?
• "is because" - "was because"?
• "the size of the forces" - a missing "as" - "as the size of the forces"
• " to share a great breakfast" - "great" as in "large", "grand" or as in "excellent"?
• "San Martín was aware that these new enlightened ideas influenced many of the Spanish military" - which new enlightened ideas? I'm not sure you've mentioned these before in the article.
• " during the time the emancipator ruled" - I'd avoid using the term "emancipator" in this way as an alternative to a pronoun, as it felt a bit POV.
• " who would inform Britain about the battle" - "who informed Britain about the battle"?

Legacy:

• "Field of glory" - I'd expect either "Field of Glory" or "field of glory"?
• "sixteen soldiers who died" - "sixteen patriot soldiers who died"?
• "Historic pine" - ditto, I'd usually expect either "historic pine" or "Historic Pine"
• "a "Historic tree"" - - ditto, and "an" rather than "a"

Songs:

• "The battle of San Lorenzo is the theme for the San Lorenzo march" - "theme of the"
• "has been considered to be one of the five best military marches ever written" - considered by who? NB: I'm just suggesting that you name who considers it this - I'm sure it's a great military march! :)
• "A pair of lines of the march about the royalists say "To the wind deployed, their red banner..." although the Spanish flags are both red and weld-yellow, not completely red" I couldn't see the significant of this bit to be honest.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Looks good at this point.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• I'd expect the Camogli and Privitellio book to be cited as being by joint authors (the article says "Camogli, p.x"; I suspect this should be Camogli and Privitellio, p.x").

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• There are only three books referenced in the article, but they appear solid. Galasso's volume is available on-line and is a professional academic work; Mitre is a classic Argentinian historian to cite for this period.

(c) it contains no original research.

• Pass.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Pass.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Pass.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• The article has a slight leaning towards José de San Martín, in terms of weight of description and viewpoint, but this is a result of the historiography and copy-editing. The article is broadly neutral and fair.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• The article is stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Checked and passed.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Pass

Ready, and thanks fr the review. Some comments and clarifications.

• I shouldn't mention "Tucuman and Salta", because the battle of Salta took place two weeks after this one. The new hope in Buenos Aires by this point was only because of Tucuman.
• I included a mention that Diamante and Rosario are next to the Parana River. Clarifing this, I hope the rest is implicit: they made batteries to protect the river, and Montevideo would destroy them to secure their naval operations. I don't think it's needed to pont them in the minimap, as no military conflict actually took place in there.
• As those batteries were dismantled because they could not be defended (and it may be useful to keep the weapons and ammo for some other use), there was no military attempt to destroy them, Montevideans did nothing. I think that this should be clear, and thus the journey to Obligado was for more raids, but I can add a moe important clarification if needed.
• Unfortunately, I had already search it when I wrote the article, but I found no personal info about Antonio Zabala, such as why or how did he move from Spain to Montevideo, or how did he come to be in charge of this operation. All the information I found about him is about this battle. It seems that, from a historical point of view, Zabala is inconsequential, his only action of notice was this battle. Which, as described, is actually a minor operation, taken to higher recognition because San Martín fought in it, so I shouldn't expect Spanish historiography to give more answers either.
• I accept that "gully" may not be the best word. The idea is that the plain is up there, it ends suddenly, there's a vertical distance to the ground, and the river is down there. I had the idea in my mind, but I didn't knowthe name for it in either Spanish or English, and Mitre certainly does not help, he was very given to unnecesary wordiness and said in three or four very long sentences what could be said in just one.
• to "harangue" is (unless I got it wrong when I searched for it) when a general adresses the army right before the battle, in order to encourage them (and yes, military men are always "forceful" and "angry", surely a real harangue won't be as friendly as Aragorn's at the Black Gates in the "Return of the king" movie).
• As for Cabral's real rank, the importance lies in that this is one of those cases when something is populary thought to be some way, but all scholars agree in that this is incorrect (people thinks that Cabral was a sergeant, but, besides the details, all historians agree that he was a private). I thought that this info should stay at that section, as it already talks about Cabral, and neither "Aftermath" nor "Legacy" seem the right places. MBelgrano (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cheers. I've made two final changes by hand (the Camogli double author point, and one bit of capitalisation). Very happy to pass it at review. Yours, Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC).