Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military history of France/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 01:19, 1 May 2010 [1].

---

Military history of France

Review commentary

Military history of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Military history of France

• Featured article review/Military history of France/archive1

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France, User talk:UberCryxic,User talk:DITWIN GRIM, User talk:Carl Logan, User talk:FFMG (ie everybody with 10+ edits who has edited it since 2006)

I am nominating this featured article for review because tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of the FAC nom. Since then the article has not been reviewed, and seems to have had little attention. The talk page has only had 4 minor threads since 2007. Standards have changed a lot since early 2006, and a review is badly needed.

• Comprehensiveness/well researched 1:The article in fact contains little military history, other than sports report lists of wars and battles. A large amount of it is political history explaining the causes of wars France has been in, followed by a couple of battles and a result. Except for the Revolutionary/Napoleonic period, the main author's speciality, there is very little on how wars were fought, and by what forces, areas where French developments often led Europe. I would estimate about 30% or more of the article should be removed as not really military history, leaving plenty of room for a more coherent account of the subject. Two examples, both all there is on the subjects:

Following Clovis, territorial divisions in the Frankish domain sparked intense rivalry between the western part of the kingdom, Neustria, and the eastern part, Austrasia. The two were sometimes united under one king, but from the sixth to the eighth centuries they often warred against each other. Early in the eighth century, the Franks were preoccupied with Islamic invasions across the Pyrenees and up the Rhone Valley. Two key battles during this period were the Battle of Toulouse and the Battle of Tours, both won by the Franks, and both instrumental in slowing Islamic incursions. Claims that these victories permitted the independent development of European civilization seem exaggerated,^[2] but nonetheless they were major symbolic triumphs over the "Islamic hordes."^[3]

The eighteenth century saw France remain the dominant power in Europe, but begin to falter largely because of internal problems. The country engaged in a long series of wars, such as the War of the Quadruple Alliance, the War of the Polish Succession, and the War of the Austrian Succession, but these conflicts gained France little. Meanwhile, Britain's power steadily increased, and a new force, Prussia, became a major threat. This change in the balance of power led to the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, when France and the Habsburgs forged an alliance after centuries of animosity. This alliance proved less than effective in the Seven Years' War, but in the American Revolution, the French helped inflict a major defeat on the British. (nb NO refs in this para)

• Comprehensiveness/well researched 2:The article treats France from the early Middle Ages on as though it was a 19th or 20th century state with total control over its territory and people; the wars discussed are therefore international ones, treated as though taking place in the modern era. This is fundamentally misleading. In fact the story of French history up to say Richelieu is notoriously mainly the struggle to define and control its own territory, which the French tradition of inheritances was always dividing; the excellent French graphic just below the lead shows one aspect of this well, but there is little echo of this in the text.

• Comprehensiveness/well researched 3: Major persistent themes of French military history are totally ignored: the French invented the castle, and fortified lines continued to be given huge emphasis by French military thinking from the 17th century until WW2. The Fortifications of Vauban are not linked, and the Maginot Line is the only mention of this theme. "Hapsburg encirclement" is just about mentioned, with no link to France–Habsburg rivalry. The article uses the phrase French-German enmity several times, but I can't see a link. The obsession with "natural frontiers" is mentioned, but the list just omits the most troublesome of all, the northern one. The perennial French dilemma of not being able, in the Early Modern period, to compete properly with either the British Navy or the Hapsburg or Prussian armies is not properly explained, and the issue of using galleys in the Med and different ships in the Atlantic not touched on at all. The twisting history of the French cavalry, and their perpetual difficulty in getting decent horses, is pretty much ignored - no links to Gendarme (historical) or Chevau-légers for example, and no mention that the Franks used cavalry as their strongest arm. The point that the Battle of Hastings was Norman cavalry v English foot is not made clear - this whole passage is very unclear. There is little on the unusually intense politicization of French military issues, no Dragonnade for example. The French had near-universal male military conscription between 1793 and 2001, which one would think worth a mention. The Dreyfus affair needs coverage and a link. Generally the whole article is just too superficial.

• Well researched 4: Detailed examination of the text does not inspire confidence in the account. The article gets off to a bad start with:

"Gallo-Roman conflict predominated from 400 BC to 50 BC, with the Romans emerging victorious in the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar."

- This is not referenced, and I rather doubt it is true. Gallo-Roman is the wrong link - that is about life in Gaul after the Roman conquest. The good Celtic warfare is not linked, but then I don't think it would support this dubious proposition. Most Gallo-Roman wars were with tribes in modern Northern Italy or Switzerland, and I think most scholars would say that the probability is that people in modern French territory spent most of their time in unrecorded wars between each other.

"...with modern-day France lacking only about two-thirds of the Rhine, which is in Germany." Oh, really?!

At Alesia: "Caesar's unique defensive earthworks, protruding towards the city and away from it in order to stop a massive Gallic relief force" - "protruding" suggests a misunderstanding. There were two rings encircling the town, with the Romans in between. There are many such misphrasings; I won't attempt to list them all, but they add to the impression of a lack of real knowledge of the subject, especially before the French Revolution.

• Well researched 5: There are far too few references. For example the second para of "Themes", covering huge issues, is completely unrefed, which helps explain why it is poor. The article gets from 400 BC to 1789 with only 28 refs! Many refs seem only to cover the immediate preceding point. The books used have many solid-looking works on 1790-1815, but otherwise seem a rather lightweight rag-bag, with none of the major historians who have written on this subject.

• Images: Up to the Napoleonic period and modern photographic period the images are pretty terrible, a whole series of later romanticised paintings, few actually showing action. There are tons of lively Roman and medieval images on Commons that could be used. I'm dubious the picture said to be of Rocroi actually is - from the costumes it was clearly painted about 60 years later, & I'm dubious they would by then just use contemporary fashion in a historical painting. The Commons image gives no decent source. I haven't looked at the status of other images. Alt text has been added, but not correctly - the subject of the image is given but little or no description of what is seen.

• Links: I'm not very familiar with WP coverage of this area, but looking around it was disappointing to see how few articles have good material that rises above historical narrative. Nonetheless, there are a lot of articles to which no link is given - I'll end with a list of those I don't mention otherwise - I'm not saying all are vital, but several are. I may have overlooked some that are piped in the article etc.

• Huguenot rebellions
• Burgundian Wars
• Fronde
• France in the Seven Years War
• France in the American Revolutionary War
• Tirailleur
• War in the Vendée
• Manstein Plan
• Franco-Austrian Alliance
• Jeune École,

• Criteria summary: The article badly fails 1b, the comprehensiveness requirement; this is certainly the main problem. 1c is well below par too. Criteria 1a and 3 are doubtful; most of the prose is serviceable, except where a certain confusion seems betrayed, but the article lacks all brilliance and excitement on what should be a gripping subject. For such a huge subject the article is too short, especially as so much of it is not really on the subject, so 4 is in question too. I have to say that the work required is so root and branch that the article should imo receive a full new FAC whatever happens. But in its current state it would suffer the same fate as the French at Agincourt.

Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Since UberCryxic has started work, I'll link the exact version I was reviewing, in place 9-13 March. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your nomination. I am the nominator and I look forward to addressing all of your concerns. I am starting right now actually. Just give me a few moments. Before I announce my corrections, however, I also want to say that the article has, in fact, received some badly needed attention from me lately (in February). I added alt text, corrected references, improved the prose, etc. You can all see this in the article's edit history. Anyway, thank you again for your nomination!UBER ^(talk) 17:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank Johnbod for many wonderful suggestions. In response to the above criticism, I have done the following:

• The article definitely needed more references, and to that end I have added about 20 citations to critical claims throughout the article, including in places mentioned above (particularly Themes, Ancien Regime). If needed, I can cite this article to death from the first letter to the last, but because this topic is so broad and general, I wrote it with the idea that only potentially controversial claims should receive citations. It hardly seems fitting to cite things like "In this year, France went to war with this country" or "France conquered this territory at this time."
• I have lightened the TOC by merging Franks and Carolingians with the Gauls section into Early period and by retitling Major themes in French military history to Dominant themes and getting rid of the subsections. As part of this process, I have removed the paragraph about Gallo-Roman conflict before Caesar. The lead now says "60 to 50 BC" and the link to Gallo-Roman culture has been removed. The reason I did this is because that paragraph conflated the history of Cisalpine Gaul with Transalpine Gaul, and only the latter falls under modern French boundaries. This was brought up before repeatedly, but there was always uncertainty about whether it should or should not be a part of this article. It's much safer historical ground just to begin the account from Caesar's encounters with the Gauls, which is traditionally where it starts.
• Several previously uncovered or confusing topics mentioned above are now covered and clarified: Vauban gets coverage, the rise and importance of castles gets coverage, France in the Middle Ages is treated less as a nation and more as an emerging kingdom, the Dreyfus Affair is now mentioned explicitly in readable prose (although already was mentioned as a visible part of a citation), the part about most of the Rhine being in Germany has been removed, the sentence on Alesia has been rephrased, France-Habsburg rivalry is now linked, France in the Seven Years War is now linked, Manstein Plan is now linked, France in the American Revolutionary War was already linked. The article never uses the phrase "French-German enmity." It uses "French-Germany rivalry" and that is linked to French-Germany enmity.
• I have given some parts of the article a copyedit to correct minor consistency issues and prose problems, but I wholeheartedly encourage outside parties to go through the article and conduct an independent copyedit.

I gladly welcomed what I read as it related to the above changes. Beyond this point, it becomes difficult for me to delineate between legitimate criticism and fundamental misconceptions. The user suggests that the article has "root and branch" problems and brings up, as part of the evidence, that it's not comprehensive or focused because it covers political history as well. That decision was deliberate and fully warranted: since Clausewitz, it's a quasi-biblical tenet in all military historiography that you never ever separate military history from political history. The two are fundamentally connected and they don't make sense without one another. What's more embarrassing, however, is that the article actually explains this in detail (although now it's cited; before it wasn't). In American military history, for example, the canonical case is the Vietnam War, which was ultimately seen as a failure because of increasing public frustration with its course, not because the Vietnamese defeated the Americans militarily. The French also have their own Vietnam: the Algerian War. In Atlas of World Military History, historian David Isby writes: The French military was never defeated and was winning on the battlefield until the day it lost the war. Politically, the war brought down the Fourth Republic. I could keep listing examples of the fundamental connection between political will and military success on the battlefield until we're old and gray, but that should suffice. In recent times, historians have also added social history as part of the narrative on military history, so if anything, the article should be criticized for leaving those parts out, not for including political history.

French military history is extremely long and complicated. I wanted to give readers a brief and comprehensive overview without getting bogged down with unnecessary and trivial details. Where I left important things out, I was happy to make changes as I explained above. The user mentions cavalry. Well, the knight is almost the central motif of the Middle Ages section, but variations in horse-procurement by the French cavalry hardly seems like a salient topic. The French have long been renowned for having spectacular cavalry forces; sometimes they had difficulties procuring horses, and at other times they didn't. I just fundamentally see this suggestion as totally irrelevant to the larger context that the rest of the article tries to provide, although I have no problem mentioning it if there's overwhelming consensus to do so.

The natural frontiers are mentioned as part of the source that I was using, and that source does not mention the "northern one," whatever the user is referring to. In the context of modern French strategy, "natural frontiers" is a very specific term that explicitly refers to the Pyrenees, the Rhine, and the Alps.

The user seems to be confused on some history. The early modern period is typically dated as 1500 until c. 1800 (or French Revolution). The French did not have a "perennial problem" in competing with Britain or Prussia. First of all, there was no such thing as "Britain" for most of the early modern period (presumably the user refers to the Kingdom of England, making some of the same mistakes with nationalization that I made under Middle Ages) and the Kingdom of Prussia doesn't come along until the early 18th century, nor does it become a main French rival until the Seven Years War. The Habsburgs, on the other hand, were definitely a rival to the French crown throughout the early modern period and that rivalry is mentioned in detail throughout the Ancien Regime section (and now linked too). But even taking the (assumed) point about France having difficulties against England at sea (which is true), there is somewhat of an omission from the user because the article does cover the growing strength of the English/British navy during the early modern period under Topical subjects (French Navy), and also explains that the British navy ultimately secured domination of the seas with Trafalgar. I don't think anything substantial has been left out. On land, from Louis XIV until Napoleon, France was generally recognized as the most powerful force on the European continent, and certainly Prussia was not a "perennial problem." It did become a problem for France during and after the Seven Years War, but under the time period we're considering, it's not an accurate characterization.

I look forward to hearing more comments and suggestions about how to improve the article. Thank you very much for your time.UBER ^(talk) 21:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to address your points about images and sources. The image for Rocroi is, don't worry, meant to depict Conde at Rocroi. This is one of the most famous images in French military history, and it's somewhat frightening that you're doubting its authenticity. Just so we are all clear, since outdated costumes were brought up, many famous paintings depicting battles are painted long after the actual event, so it's absolutely expected that the painter would make silly mistakes like showing the wrong dress. This is especially true for the French, who produced scores of heroic and promethean war paintings in the 19th century as an emotional catharsis after their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. That's regrettable, I agree, but it's not the article's fault. Before the French Revolution, the Malplaquet engraving shows action (now removed, see below), as does the Rocroi painting in the background. Not all images have to involve an explicit depiction of fighting; sometimes readers get a better feel for the subject by seeing certain key moments in the midst of fighting. I'm willing to work on alt text, definitely, but I was hoping for some more specific suggestions. Can you please tell me what you think the alt text for the images should be? (see below)

Besides images, you also mention that—outside the revolutionary and Napoleonic era—the article does not use major historians. This statement was false before FAR—since the article featured heavyweights like John Lynn (specialist on wars of Louis XIV), John Keegan (pretty much the greatest military historian of the 20th century), and Barbara Tuchman—but it's even more false now as I have added legends like Parker and Paret. The sources are solid in terms of the reputation of the scholars who wrote them.UBER ^(talk) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update On second reflection, I've grown to appreciate Johnbod's arguments about the images a little bit more, so I have removed three (Vercingetorix surrendering to Caesar, the French at Fontenoy, and the Bayeux Tapestry) that did little else but show some heroic-looking people standing on horses.UBER ^(talk) 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but needs some work.
  • Many of the images contain proper names when these are not obvious from the images themselves. For example, the first image's alt text says "Napoleon", "Austrian generals", and "Ulm" but none of these names are obvious from the image itself. Names like this should be in the caption, not the image; see WP:ALT#Proper names. (Napoleon would be an exception, since he's iconic, but in this image he's so far away that you can't tell who he is, just by looking at him.) Please make a sweep through the alt text and remove all proper names that aren't obvious to an average reader who is looking only at the image.
  • The alt text for the maps don't convey the gist of the information. For example, the alt text for File:Frontiere francaise 985 1947.gif doesn't briefly describe the overall pattern of how France's borders changed. Please see WP:ALT#Maps and WP:ALT#Videos and animations for guidance. "A map of France" and "Map of Frankish lands" don't suffice to convey the gist of those maps.
  • Please omit phrases like "Colored painting showing" and "black and white engraving showing" unless the colors or the paint or the printing style are important, which they aren't here. See WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
  • Also, please move details such as "receiving the spoils of war" from the alt text to the caption, when these details are not obvious to a non-expert who sees only the image. See WP:ALT#Verifiability.
  • Also, if there is nontrivial duplication between the alt text and the caption, please fix the duplication, as per WP:ALT#Repetition. For example, the alt text "Photograph of a nuclear strike fighter" duplicates the caption "Mirage 2000N designed for nuclear strike." (not to mention also running afoul of words-to-avoid and verifiability).

Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the entire article and modified the alt text significantly per your suggestions. I got rid of some images entirely per concerns raised above. I absolutely suck at writing alt text, I'll admit it, even though I know what the policies say alt text should be like. Don't hesitate to go through it on your own if you can improve on my effort.UBER ^(talk) 01:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good now. It absolutely does not suck. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• As Uber & I have written a lot here, I was holding off coming back in the hope that others would comment, but as this has not happened, except for Eubilides, and Uber's work seems to have stopped, I will just give a brief update. While he has addressed many of my specific points, which is very welcome, and disagreed with others (not generally very convincingly imo), many of the problems I outlined above remain. I still think the article would fail FAC today & should be delisted for improvement. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you be specific in what else you want me to do? I'm willing to work with you until you are satisfied, within reasonable limits, but more guidance would help. Thank you.UBER ^(talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, give me a day or two to re-review. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

I'll revisit my earlier points later, but these are some further points thrown up by a reading of the current version. I haven't checked if they relate to new or old material:

"French strategic thinking has often been driven by the need to attain or preserve the so-called "natural frontiers," which are the Pyrenees to the southwest, the Alps to the southeast, and the Rhine River to the east.[2] Starting with Clovis, 1,500 years of warfare and diplomacy has witnessed the accomplishment of most of these objectives." - Now I have looked into this, I find that recent historians seem universally to dismiss this line, in terms of French thinking before the late 18th century. This was what 19th century Revanchists managed to brainwash into the world, but actually the evidence for this in French strategic thinking before then isn't there, and in fact the well-documented territorial ambitions of Louis IX et al were the completely different "Four Rivers": the Rhone, Saône, Scheldt (aka Escaut in French) and Meuse. These links give good and authoritative descriptions of the modern view. "Four Rivers" and another Unfortunately we have nothing else I can see on the Natural frontiers of France.

"and often rulers of France extended their continental authority far beyond these barriers, most notably under Charlemagne, Louis XIV, and Napoleon." - Not really, except for Napoleon. See the last point also. Charlemagne's concept, and inherited territory, of Francia included North-west Germany just as much as parts of France. The Rhine was no "barrier" to him, as it ran right through the middle of his territory. Apart from a brief and thoroughly unsuccessful expedition to Ireland, I can't think that Louis XIV's armies ever "extended their continental authority far beyond these barriers" either more than ?what 20-40 miles & for brief periods.

"These periods of heavy militaristic activity were characterized by their own peculiar conventions, but all required strong central leadership in order to permit the extension of French rule." - isn't this just waffle?

"Important military rivalries in human history have come about as a result of conflict between French peoples and other European powers. Anglo-French rivalry, for prestige in Europe and around the world, continued for centuries, while the more recent Franco-German rivalry required two world wars to stabilize.[5] French involvement in these protracted geostrategic clashes was at times both successful and unsuccessful. The wars themselves had complex political dimensions, often involving alliance systems that rarely remained static and that yielded dynamic solutions on the battlefield." The first part is more accurately explained elsewhere, and the second bit is more waffle.

"This threat to France became alarming in 1516 when Charles V became the king of Spain, and grew worse when Charles was also elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1519." - Not really. Much more to the point are the complicated marital and military moves of Charles's grandfather and predecessor as HRE, Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, which really established the "Habsburg encirclement". Charles becoming HRE was a foregone conclusion.

"During Louis' long reign, the English reemerged as France's great rivals, allied to the Habsburgs. While they could not stand up to France on land, the British Royal Navy dominated the seas, and France lost many of its colonial holdings." - Standing up to France on land was exactly what the English (with allies) were able to do very successfully once they finally took the field. Nor did "the British Royal Navy dominate the seas" yet in Louis's time, especially not the Mediterranean, where the French were still much more powerful, but also in the Atlantic where the two powers were still pretty evenly matched. "Some" would be better than "many" of its colonial holdings - the losses weren't huge.

"The west bank of the Rhine, much of the Spanish Netherlands, and a good deal of Luxembourg were annexed while the War of the Spanish Succession saw a fellow Bourbon placed on the throne of Spain." - "a fellow Bourbon" is an odd way to describe his grandson. Not much of "The west bank of the Rhine" was held at the end of the day. Despite success in terms of the actual succession, the exhausted and bankrupt state of France at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, and the first major English successes on the Continent for nearly three centuries marked the end of French miliary dominance.

"For most of the period from 1870 to 1945, France was territorially the third largest nation on Earth, after Britain and Russia (later the Soviet Union), and had the most overseas possessions following Britain" - this is very confused. Clearly France wasn't bigger than the US, China, Turkey, unless you are counting the whole Empire for the British and French, but the second part implies you are not. "Most" in "the most overseas possessions" is very vague. I'm sure there is a point to be made here, but it needs to be clear what is being said.

"The Mirage repeatedly demonstrated its deadly abilities in the Six-Day War and the Gulf War, becoming one of the most popular and well-sold aircraft in the history of military aviation along the way" - is "well-sold" a word? Should not be used anyway.

The section on the Foreign Legion doesn't explan what's "foreign" about them, which is needed.

"Additionally, developments in artillery made it a crucial part of the French army, and the resounding victories over the English at the battles of Formigny and Castillon, both significantly attributable to artillery,[33] were so decisive that the war ended right then and there." - style: "right then and there".

More links that prbably should be included:

Appanage

Glorious Revolution - in England. Fatal for Louis XIV's ambitions.

Some good part-online books with the kind of stuff on the composition of forces that the article is still missing for most periods:

gendarmes etc

standing army, all cavalry

17th century army

Pavia

More later Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for more great suggestions! In response to the above criticism, I have done the following:

• In Dominant themes, the natural frontiers are now explained in the context of modern French strategy (this was a major oversight indeed). Charlemagne and Louis XIV have been removed from that paragraph, as have several useless phrases ("characterized by their own peculiar conventions" and the sentence about how the wars ended for France) identified above.

• The sentence about Charles V has been removed as suggested, and I've given the paragraph a copyedit to make the ideas flow better.

• Corrected the parts about Louis XIV and the War of the Spanish Succession identified above. English/British importance and involvement made slightly more explicit, although it's already clear enough I'd say.

• Size of France in late 19th century and early 20th is now characterized in the context of its colonial empire, clarifying some of the confusion above.

• "Well-sold" removed from Mirage sentence.

• French Foreign Legion section now explains what was foreign about them.

• Sentence about Castillon and Formigny slightly rephrased.

On the Glorious Revolution: it contains more importance for English political history and I don't see how you can justify its inclusion given what you said above about mixing political history with military history. It was a huge political blow for the French, but French military forces were not involved. You can probably see a better way to integrate it into the article than I can, so I urge you to go ahead and do it if you feel it's really that important.UBER ^(talk) 18:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Part 3

Turning to Uber's comments on my first set of points, I won't go into arguments on specific points for now, but stick to wider themes:

The politics issue. Of course I'm not denying the importance of politics at all, but despite the improvements, the balance of the article still has far too much on them & too little on the make-up and tactics of the military. If I was doing the article, I would be tempted to greatly shorten or just remove the "unified" chronological scheme, and add more on thematic sections: Enemies of the French government (including internal ones), Fortification, Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery, The military in a democratic state, perhaps The nobility also. Personally I think it is easier to describe the developments of each of these themes when they are taken separately. But of course the same information can be worked into any scheme; however if the current material were reworked in this way it would brutally expose the current shortcomings. The lack of information of how armies (+ navies etc) were made-up and how, not who, they fought remains my main issue with the article. I realize that all the other "Military history of foo-nation" articles I've looked at follow similar patterns, but I would make the same comment on them. In the case of France, so often a leader in developments, the issue is especially important.

Improvements. The article has been improved on many of my specific points, with references and links added, and sentences changed. This is very welcome, but my basic concern remains. It was much too easy for me, as no sort of expert on the subject, to pick up another set of points on a re-read, most of which I'm glad to see Uber has agreed to change. But I expect I could still find others, and an expert far more.

Images. Some have been removed, including unfortunately the Bayeux Tapestry one, the only contemporary image that was in the earlier part of the article. The earliest image (not subject of an image) is now the "Rocroi" one, which I date to about 1690. I'm not stuck on that particular Bayeux image - there are plenty of others, but we definitely need more authenticity in the images, and there are loads from manuscripts etc that could be used. After Napoleon in the lead, and three maps, we still have three cheesy Victorian efforts covering the rest of Middle Ages and Renaissance. On the "Rocroi" one, if it is so famous, please add the usual details (location, painter, date etc) & source to the Commons file - on Google images I can't find it except on blogs, which also give no good details. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

On 1689, I won't add anything myself now, as once I start that there won't be too much left of the present article, but something alone the lines of the following should be easy enough to reference from sources already used (for insertion perhaps after "...but French borders expanded steadily anyway.)" : "France's strategic situation changed decisively with the English Glorious Revolution of 1689, which replaced a pro-French king with Louis's enemy, the Dutch William of Orange. After a period of two centuries seeing only rare hostilities with France, England now became again a consistent enemy, and remained so into the 19th century." Ideally I would summarize these major shifts in the early sections though. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Early period section, there is strong coverage about the major components of Carolingian armies and their operational style. In the Middle Ages section, there is detailed and almost nauseating coverage of military trends and developments, from size and tactics to armor and siege warfare. In the Ancien Regime section, it's mostly political and military events, but there is still strong coverage on trends during the reign of Louis XIV and the significance of his armies in military history. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France feature heavy coverage of military trends and developments as well. The Modern Period contains a healthy balance between political history and military developments, and it also covers the military's relationship to the republic. I think we just have an honest disagreement here. The article already contains (most of) the claims you say it needs regarding broad themes, and that's one of the achievements for which it was widely praised as it became featured and went on the Main Page.

I really don't want to have a hullabaloo over images, so I've removed Rocroi and the "cheesy Victorian efforts" while reinstating the Bayeux tapestry. I've also included your proposed comment about the Glorious Revolution, with minor modifications for style.UBER ^(talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I think we have an honest "disagreement" on what constitutes FA standards, and should probably leave it now for others to comment. The entire coverage of anything to do with cavalry amounts to one sentence on Carolingian cavalry (your "strong coverage"), only added in response to one of my earlier points, and a passage about "knights" (no link), who the reader can probably work out were fighting on horses, though this is never said, and of course for much of the time they fought on foot (your "detailed and almost nauseating coverage"). After that, nothing. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We must be reading different articles apparently. The Carolingian part about cavalry was there before you brought up this FAR. One passage about knights? That's strange of you to say. The following is what I see:

On the Middle Ages:

Military history during this period paralleled the rise and eventual fall of the armored knight. Following Charlemagne, there was a great increase in the proportion of cavalry supplemented by improvement in armor: leather and steel, steel helmets, coats of mail, and even full armor added to the defensive capabilities of mounted forces. Cavalry eventually grew to be the most important component of armies from French territories, with the shock charge they provided becoming the standard tactic on the battlefield when it was invented in the eleventh century. At the same time, the development of agricultural techniques allowed the nations of Western Europe to radically increase food production, facilitating the growth of a particularly large aristocracy under Capetian France. The rise of castles, which began in France during the tenth century, was partly caused by the inability of centralized authorities to control these emerging dukes and aristocrats. After campaigns designed for plundering, attacking and defending castles became the dominant feature of medieval warfare.

In the eleventh century, French knights wore knee-length mail and carried long lances and swords. The Norman knights fielded at the Battle of Hastings were more than a match for English forces, and their overwhelming victory simply cemented their power and influence. Improvements in armor over the centuries led to the establishment of plate armor by the fourteenth century, which was further developed more rigorously in the fifteenth century. However, by the late fourteenth century and the early fifteenth, French military power declined during the first parts of the Hundred Years' War. New weapons and tactics seemingly made the knight more of a sitting target than an effective battle force, but the often-praised longbowmen had little to do with the English success. Poor coordination or rough terrain led to bungled French assaults. The slaughter of knights at the Battle of Agincourt best exemplified this carnage. The French were able to field a much larger army of men-at-arms than their English counterparts, who had many longbowmen. Despite this, the French suffered about 6,000 casualties compared to a few hundred for the English because the narrow terrain prevented the tactical envelopments envisioned in recently discovered French plans for the battle. The French suffered a similar defeat at the Battle of the Golden Spurs against Flemish militia in 1302. When knights were allowed to effectively deploy, however, they could be more useful, as at Cassel in 1328 or, even more decisively, at Bouvines in 1214 and Patay in 1429. Given the successes of Henry V of England, his death in 1422 altered the nature of the war profoundly and may have permitted the French to recover virtually all their territory by the end of the conflict.

You call all of this "a passage" on cavalry. I call it nauseating detail. I mean seriously: how much more could the casual person want to know about cavalry in French military history? You and I may be interested in the subject, but I think this is enough for most readers.UBER ^(talk) 19:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit I'd overlooked the first para of that. My problem is not with that passage so much, as the lack of anything on French cavalry after about 1429. Johnbod (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They're mentioned once more (in passing) in the Napoleonic section, but I think they get about all the coverage they deserve given their decline in modern times. Starting in the 19th century, the importance of mounted troops fell precipitously. However, French cavalry during the Napoleonic Wars saw an amazing resurgence in capabilities and organization, so saying more about that would definitely be appropriate. Is that a good compromise for you? I only want to mention cavalry where it's absolutely essential, not just to mention it for the sake of mentioning it.UBER ^(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course that's fine, but both knights in armour and Napoleonic hussars etc are familiar to everyone from popular culture, whereas the gendarmes, who were a French invention & speciality, and regarded as the battle-winning force until late in the 16th century, are much less well known and still unmentioned. They were also the sole component of the first standing army in post-Roman Europe. Our article on them is for once not bad either. The 17th century cavalry were just as important too. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, if we're adding material on cavalry, it might as well be on the gendarmes (poor Murat!). I've now mentioned them with the source you gave above and included an image from the Gendarme article.UBER ^(talk) 01:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Overall I enjoyed reading the article and found it very informative (although please understand I have no specific knowledge of the topic). I have the following comments about the article and some suggestions in order to keep it as an FA.

(1) MOS issues/suggestions:

• • endashes should be used for pages ranges in the citations (an example where a hyphen should be replaced is citation # 33 Kinard, pp. 61-2);
  • citations that have the same content could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (an example of citations that could be consolidated are citations #21 and 22 Brooks, p. 50)
  • the References section could be formated with the {{cite book}} to give it a cleaner look;
  • the titles of the works in the References section are capitalised inconsistently. For example Tuchman is capitalised differently to Weigley. I think they should be consistent with Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;
  • the template ribbon at the bottom of the article would look better, IMO, if it was collapsed, particularly because of the large number of redlinks;

(2) Citations needed:

• • in the Dominant themes section, the end of the first paragaph needs a citation: "French involvement in these protracted geostrategic clashes was at times both successful and unsuccessful. The wars themselves had complex political dimensions, often involving alliance systems that rarely remained static and that yielded dynamic solutions on the battlefield."
  • in the Early period section, the last sentence needs a citation: "The Empire lasted from 800 to 843, when, following Frankish tradition, it was split between the sons of Louis the Pious by the Treaty of Verdun."
  • in the Middle Ages section, the last sentence needs a citation as it is not clear whether it is covered by the previous one: "...were so decisive that the war ended right then and there. Calais was the only English possession in mainland France by 1453."
  • in the Ancien Régime section, the last part of the second pargraph needs a citation: "The vast Habsburg empire also proved impossible to manage..."
  • in the Ancien Régime section, the third paragraph needs a citation: "The long reign of Louis XIV saw a series of conflicts..."
  • in the Ancien Régime section, the last sentence needs a citation as it is not clear if it covered by the previous one: "This alliance proved less than effective in the Seven Years' War, but in the American Revolution, the French helped inflict a major defeat on the British."
  • in the Revolutionary France section, the last part of the second paragraph needs a citation: "The French triumphed at the decisive Battle of Fleurus through numerical ..."
  • in the Revolutionary France seciton, the last part of the third paragraph needs a citation: "As a result of political pressure, competition, promotion, and constant campaigning, France"
  • in Napoleonic France section, the last part of the second paragraph needs a citation: "Napoleon's huge losses suffered during the disastrous Russian campaign would have destroyed any professional commander of the day, but those losses were..."
  • in the French colonial empire seciton, the first paragraph is without a citation; and the second part of the second paragraph needs a citation: "Following victory in World War I, Togo and most of Cameroon were also added to the..."
  • in the Modern period section, the third paragraph needs a citation: "A variety of factors—ranging from inexperienced conscripts to low population growth..."
  • in the Modern period section, the last part of the fourth paragraph needs a citation: "The Maginot Line cost the Germans heavily when attacked, and..."
  • in the French Navy seciton, a citation is needed: (1) for the first paragraph; (2) end of the second paragraph; (3) end of the third/last paragraph talking about a second aircraft carrier;
  • in the French Foreign Legion section citations are needed: (1) assertion about April 30 being Cameron Day; (2) third paragraph beginning with "After the French defeat in Mexico"; (3) this sentence: "Today, it is one of the most respected units in the French Army";

(3) Images:

• • most of the images seem correctly licenced to me (I'm not an image expert, though), however there are a couple of concern to me:
  • the Gendarmes.jpg doesn't have any date, source or author information;
  • the Militaire-Canon_75,_honneur-1915.JPG image seems a little doubtful. It is listed as being from 1915 with a PD claim based on "life of author plus 70 years" (not this is not "image is more than 70 years old", which is clearly is if it was made in 1915. This is not necessarily correct though, for without providing any details of when the author died, how can it be determined that the 70 years are up? For example, assuming the author was 20 when the image was created, one might assume that assuming they lived until they were 70 it would be 1965 when they died. Hence 70 years after that would be 2035, and as such the image would not actually be PD. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the two problematic images you've identified and carried out some MoS changes. I'll source the statements you've presented over the next few days. I just wanted to say a few things about some of your MoS recommendations: it's actually not a requirement that similar references have to be consolidated. They can be separate and that's actually the way I prefer them just in case I need to make changes to individual citations. I have no problem with the cite book standard, but I also like the standard I've chosen for this article and the only thing that matters is that the particular standard remain consistent throughout the article. I tried to collapse the template at the bottom but I'm having trouble. You can have a go at it if you like.UBER ^(talk) 22:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, most of the MOS comments were suggestions. The title heading capitalisation in the References section, however, does need to be fixed in my opinion. I've collapsed the template, it required editing the template itself to turn on the function that allows each article to determine whether or not to collapse or uncollapse. I've also fixed the page ranges as emdashes were added, when they require endashes (slight difference, and very much a nitpick, I know). Anyway, thanks for the response. Good work so far, I will wait for you to add the citations and to address Nick-D's comments on content before making my decision. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I agree that this article doesn't presently meet the FA criteria. I don't have time to provide an in-depth review of the article, but I do have the following comments:
  • Some material isn't cited (an easy red flag for any FA)
  • Many of the image captions are troublesome; for instance "French peasants that had never stepped a few yards beyond their homes suddenly found themselves at the steps of the Schönbrunn in Vienna and the spires of the Kremlin in Moscow." is plainly nonsense; even the humblest peasant could be expected to have traveled in their immediate area and the drawn out campaigns of the period were hardly 'sudden'.
  • The coverage of colonial warfare is meager
  • The claim that French forces "exact[ed] a high toll from the Germans" in 1940 is nonsense; German casualties were remarkably light given the size of the force employed and the casualties they'd suffered during World War I and would suffer later in World War II
  • Likewise, the claim that the "large size [of Free French forces] made them notable throughout the war" is nonsense - countries like Canada and Australia fielded much larger forces than the Free French did (for instance, at the time Free France had 230,000 soldiers in early 1943 Australia had something like 800,000 people in its military). The Free French forces were significant due to their fighting spirit, not their size.
  • The concept of a 'Topical subjects' section is dubious, particularly as it's being used to avoid integrating the experiences and organisational history of the services other than the Army into the main body of the article.
  • I don't believe that the claim that "Currently, the French Air Force is expanding and replacing." is correct - the number of Rafales under order is much smaller than the number of aircraft they're replacing, for instance Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote or removed some of the sentences with the POV concerns you highlighted. I'm about to add more sources per the suggestions of AustralianRupert above. Please bear with me as these changes might take a few days.UBER ^(talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern include references, comprehensiveness, prose and images. Dana boomer (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed actionable concerns as best as I could and the article has improved significantly as a result. I'll quickly resolve any other relevant and outstanding issues if they are brought up, but I think this article should remain featured.UBER ^(talk) 22:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delist Specific omissions & mistakes I have mentioned have mostly been addressed, or contested, but the basic issues I set out at the start have not changed that much. Needs a thorough revamp to reach today's FA level. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to make more changes until you are satisfied, as I said before, so there is no reason to move for delisting prematurely. We left off with me adding information about the gendarmes, which is what you requested. What other changes do you propose?

Having said that, input from other users would definitely help. Only two people besides myself participated in this review, and one was the FAR nominator. One of the editors was satisfied with my changes, but the nominator remains unconvinced. We're sort of at an impasse here.UBER ^(talk) 02:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; but Eubilides adressed only the alt image text, which of course is now not an FA requirement anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Until other users respond, I don't see a reason for us to stop. We were making progress and we should continue. What else do you want me to do?UBER ^(talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well my main points above remain unaddressed. I think the article needs a major overhaul to reach FA standard, not patching repairs. But the images could be fairly easily improved - see above. The process of consolidating control over French territory is now mentioned, but not explained, and there are I think no articles exactly on this subject to link to, so here as elsewhere, summary style does not work as it should. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I responded to your criticism on the images. Which ones do you not like currently? And I'm also not quite sure what you're referring to about control over French territory being mentioned but not explained. Clarify this remark please.UBER ^(talk) 22:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded but not improved much. My initial comment began "Images: Up to the Napoleonic period and modern photographic period the images are pretty terrible, a whole series of later romanticised paintings, few actually showing action...." We now have only two non-map images, fixed very small, covering the whole period up to Napoleon. The second one is a good image but does not read well at small size. The situation is similar for all my general initial points. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well which images do you want me to include in the article? Identify them specifically and I'll put them in.UBER ^(talk) 01:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to picture research myself, nor does this fall within the requirements of a reviewer. The "military" commons category here are very thin, I agree, but there is a wealth of mostly 14th & 15th century manuscript illumination in Commons:Category:Grandes Chroniques de France] and its sub-cats, nearly all taken from the BnF website, where there are probably more that can be uploaded as PD. These all reflect armour etc contemporary to the artist, while the events depicted may be 100-200+ years earlier, but they all make a better fist of it than the Victorians & usually look better at smale scale. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty impressive database actually. I didn't know about it, but now I'm glad I do. Most of the images are very similar to one another, but I would like to use the ones for Fontenoy (Battle Fontenoy.jpg) and Tunis (Battle of Tunis.jpg) in the article. Is that ok with you? In other words, would that satisfy your concerns with images? I can't act on your requests about images unless I know which images you want, hence me asking you explicitly.UBER ^(talk) 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have specific images in mind, but those would certainly be an improvement. File:SiegeAvignon1226.jpg is one I like also. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I included the Avignon image that you prefer, but unfortunately there's not much space in that section for more images.UBER ^(talk) 01:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. Based on my realm of doing things (Vietnam), the colonial section as a whole is very much skinny compared to the others, and in general, the relationship with Catholicism is only one sentence; Clergy were very prominent in lobbying for colonial conquests so that they could bring in Christianity. Random examples include Pigneau de Behaine and another bishop who accompained Adm Rigault de Genouilly on his expedition against Vietnam. Later there were a lot of political dispute between clericals and anti-clericals on colonial policy. In the 1880s and 1950s there was a lot of political turbulence because of trouble in VN and Algeria. Many subjective statements and whole paragraphs are not sourced, especially when they have content that is not unequivocal fact, eg comments on truning points in history and attribution of such things. I know big-topic articles are difficult and require a lot of reading but in addition to stuff pointed out above, the content isn't reassuring YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delist I'll add my own "vote" here since this process has gone on long enough. I tried to save this article and I still want to, but I just don't have the time now. The biggest problem seems to be the need for a few more references, so if anyone is willing to go through some of those claims and cite them, I'd appreciate it very much.UBER ^(talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delist - Per multiple remaining issues and the fact that main person working to address issues has voted to delist. Above discussion should be used to bring article back to FA-level and to FAC later but there simply is too much that needs to be done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.