Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Albuera

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

The article was promoted 15:57, 18 December 2007.

---

Battle of Albuera

check links

Self nom. Another Peninsular War article, this one on probably the bloodiest battle of the whole war. I'm a little less confident on this one passing, but let's see what people think. Current GA, been copy-edited, MilHist peer-reviewed, and all the other usual stuff. Carre (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I passed this for GA and did some minor copyediting and peripheral work, but I think this is an excellent piece which fully qualifies as an FA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support: very good! --Brískelly 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A well written and intresting battle. Kyriakos (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support as a well-written, well-referenced quality article. Some comments though:
  • The captions for the pictures for "Nicolas Soult" and "William Carr Beresford" do not mention their ranks but "Captain-General Joaquín Blake" does. Is this intentional ?

• Not intentional. Captain-General wasn't really a rank, per se, more a position. I can remove it, or add ranks to Soult and Beresford if you'd like though.
• Y - "Captain-General" removed. Carre (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • For the reference for "Weller, Jac (1962), Wellington in the Peninsula, Nicholas Vane." - consider adding the ISBN for the 2006 reprint (1853673811)

• I don't think I can do this. The volume I used was the '62 edition (printed before ISBNs were invented), and I have no way of knowing if the pagination in later reprints is the same. Therefore to give the 2006 ISBN wouldn't necessarily be accurate.

• Fair enough - It is often the case that the pagination is changed and, given the time gap, it's likely that the book has been re-edited - Peripitus (Talk) 00:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Per the notes in "Aftermath" section I think that the the French casualties in the infobox should read "5,936–7,900 dead or wounded" rather than 5,3936-7,000

• That's a good point. I don't remember why I left the infobox at 7,000, rather than Oman's 7,900. Perhaps because 7,000 has more support among historians than the 7,900 figure. I'll change it, anyway.
• Y - 7,900 in infoblot now. Carre (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Carre (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All happy now ! A great article - Peripitus (Talk) 00:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.