Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Plains of Abraham/Archive 1

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

Battle of the Plains of Abraham

I've spent some time working on this article, with several library visits and a substantial rewrite bringing it from a thinly sourced piece to what I feel is a strong article on a pivotal battle in Canadian history. A lightly attemded peer review has resulted in some adjustments, and I feel the article is ready for a Featured Article nomination. But, I'd like one final pass-through and option for comments to be made before taking that step. I'd appreciate any comments. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It reads a little bit onesided, like reporting about enemy movements, when refering to the French, and own troops, when refering to the British. This issue is mostly due to an imbalance of persons called by name. The entry section is rather deserted from French officers compared to the long list of British officers.Wandalstouring 06:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was a little concerned about the one-sidedness myself, but there's very little available that I've been able to track down with regards to the French command structure. I suspect it's something to do with the old adage about history being written by the victors. =) It's definitely something I can try and clear up. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added names and links to Montcalm's senior staff, which should help balance that first section as mentioned above. I can't see any of the "enemy movements" mentions, however - are there any specific spots that might be adjusted? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Being in Eastern Canada myself, I was interested to see this article come up for review :) Just one initial comment - why do you repeatedly refer to Canadian troops and militia? Canada did not, of course, exist as a nation; this was one of the pivotal events which lead to its eventual creation. I believe that a modern reader could miss this distinction. My impression is that you are trying to differentiate between local French militia from the settlers in New France, and regular French Army troops from France. However, I think that applying a (future) national label to the local forces could be confusing to readers not familiar with the larger scope/history of the battle. In comparison I think in unlikely (although possible) that local militia from New England settlers in 1750 would be labeled "American". - Vedexent (talk) - 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the references I worked with do refer to them as "Canadian," though it could be intended to be "Canadien," as applying to the militia. Interesting thought, though; any suggestions as to fixing that issue? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The French Wiki piece (fr:Bataille des Plaines d'Abraham) calls them "French militia". Perhaps for disambiguation purposes, New French militia might be appropriate. I don't think Canadiens is right though. Roger 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New French militia sounds about right. I'll make those adjustments shortly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And done. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a tricky one - yes "Candaien" (a French spelling) might be the term originally used - which just became "Canadian" with recent usage... Except for the introduction Canadian is only used as "Canadian militia". Perhaps "local French militia" might be less ambiguous? It really isn't a big point at all, even if left as is. - Vedexent (talk) - 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Very tricky, as I've seen "Canadien" used a number of times in french sources (mostly Quebec Publications). As to theCanadian Military Heritage site they generally call them Militiamen and in the Plains of Abraham I've found an instance of saying Canadian militiamen. Like Vedexent, I dont relish the though of applying modern nationalism on past events. This brings up the question that where the New France colonist called Canadian at the time? I know the earliest settled regions of New France in mordern Nova-Scotia and New-Brunswick did have and used the term "Acadien" for its colonials. Making it just as possible the the St-Laurence settlers could have had their own designation.

If its chosen not to used Canadian then New France (New French isn't quite right) militia or Colonial/Local militia are good replacements.--Dryzen 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article. The only thing that I think it lacks is a map of the battle itself. Could you get a public domain image of the battlefield park and then draw your own lines on it to show the battle movements? Also, do you have a map of the Quebec area as it existed at that time that you could put in the article? Anyway, I don't think, though, that a lack of a map would necessarily keep it from making FA. Cla68 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to have a map - anyone have suggestions as to where I might find a PD image to work with? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Object. Congratulations on very good work so far, but I don't think this article is ready for A-class or Featured yet. Here are a few problem areas I see. I would have mentioned these had this article come up for a peer review in WikiProject Military History.

1. The article needs more background exposition to orient readers. Someone told me once in a peer review that a featured article should be self-contained, so that it's comprehensible to readers who don't know much about the subject. The first section of this article jumps right in with British officers moving their troops around, but we haven't been told who they are or why they're doing what they're doing. Give readers a short paragraph or two to bring them up to speed about what's going on.
2. This is a battle with a significant cultural legacy -- the deaths of Wolfe and Montcalm have in particular been romanticized -- but we get little of that here. There's no mention of Francis Parkman's classic history Montcalm and Wolfe, and the old Anglo-American view of Wolfe as the savior of North American civilization. (West's famous painting portrays Wolfe as a Christ figure.) Silly stuff by today's standards, but an essential part of the cultural legacy of the battle. Where's the legend of Wolfe quoting Thomas Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard before the battle? It should be mentioned if only to point out that it's a doubtful legend.
3. The lack of any mention of Parkman points to a more significant problem for a potential featured article: there's not much use of scholarly sources here. Most of your citations comes from two Osprey Publishing books, which are wonderful, especially for the illustrations, but are not the type of sources which would be used in a professional encyclopedia. You do have two academic scholars listed in your references -- Eccles and Stacey -- but at present they are not cited. (Some of your other sources appear to be popular history atlases and such, which are fine but again not sources for high-level articles.) And where's Fred Anderson's now-standard Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America? What about Hibbert's Wolfe at Quebec? For a critical view of Wolfe, how about Jennings's Empire of Fortune?

Keep up the good work, but it appears to me that a bit more writing and research is needed to take this one to the next level. —Kevin Myers 13:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Answering your points in order: I can always put in a couple of paragraphs of background; I thought the lead and first paragraph of the first section provided enough of a foothold to work from, but may have been mistaken. As to cultural legacy, my approach was focused specifically on the battle itself; it would seem to me that cultural references to the generals involved would be more appropriate in their articles, rather than in a discussion of the battle. I may be wrong. (The Gray legend was solidly debunked in several of the sources I read, and thus I felt it was less than necessary in a factual discussion of the battle. Again, I can certainly include it.)

As to the sources, several of them, Eccles especially, were the basis for the article as it was when I arrived; these were listed as references, but the article was not cited at all. I wasn't able in my first search to track down those books in the public or university libraries I accessed. (Checking again, I see why: one of the Eccles books is located about 300 miles from here in one of the satellite campuses.) Most of the factual information was replicated in every one of the sources; I could just as well have used Stacey as Reid for a number of the citations, but as the Reid and Chartrand books were the most useful in directly discussing the battle and the actions therein, I used them as the basis of my rewrite and fleshed out points with the other sources (such as Lloyd, which I would consider a scholarly source). If it's felt that there's more need to provide scholarly sources, I can certainly look at that. My search for references was focused on books that were targeted specifically onto this battle, so the others you mention, which look to be more overarching with regards to the Seven Years' War, may not have come up. Again, I can certainly consider further research if it's deemed necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, A-class material, yet like all things theres always some work that can be done.--Dryzen 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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