Talk:Henry de Hinuber

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henry de Hinuber/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Images appropriately licensed.
• Explain what a line battalion is in a note or something
  • Added link.
• the town was un-captured remained or rephrase entirely
  • Done.
• Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge set this off with commas
  • Done.
• Books that lack an ISBN need an OCLC number
  • Added.
• Journals need an ISSN
  • Added.
• Add a link to Brownlee and what kind of thesis is it?
  • Annoyingly it's an MA, which I've added. I can't find a single other source that discusses this particular part of his career.
• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • As per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, master's theses are not generally regarded as reliable sources. Can you find other works that are RS that have used Brownlee?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

    Honestly can't find anything on the topic in English full stop (apart from this Brownlee). I'm going to inquire whether there's anything available in German. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

    It is easy enough to confirm that Hinüber was on some of these committees and a bit about what they did. (also on TWL) (p. 12 footnote 49). This one looks good but I only get snippets: . While Brownlee cites as sources some archival material, these reports actually appear to be mostly published (for example ) and searching for the dates mentioned (like this) probably gives something useful. With these links, I think everything but the "ten corps of 30000 men each" can be verified; I haven't found that yet (but I haven't put much energy into it so far). —Kusma (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

    Found it, p. 40 of the "Von Wien nach Königgrätz" book I linked to above (de Gruyter via TWL). So I think everything you need from Brownlee's thesis can be cited to the first two sources I mentioned. —Kusma (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    @Kusma: Many thanks for coming to my aid so quickly. The Angelow in particular is a fantastic source! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    You're welcome. I'm happy to help with this kind of things any time. I've learned again how little I know: The existence of the German Federal Army had been news to me, and now I know how embarrassingly little I understand about the German Confederation. —Kusma (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: Thanks very much for taking up both Hinuber and Rebow! Responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: With the gracious assistance of Kusma I've replaced all the Brownlee. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the actions of Henry de Hinuber and his battalions during the Battle of Bayonne in 1814 reportedly "... saved the allies from a very terrible disaster"? Source: Napier, William (1882). History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France. Vol. 3. London: George Routledge and Sons. OCLC 1337805809. Page 448
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Obliskomzap

Improved to Good Article status by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 02:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Henry de Hinuber; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Hi Onegreatjoke (talk), review follows: article promoted to GA on 26 May and is very well written; entirely sourced offline but more than happy to assume there has been no overly close paraphrasing by an editor I know and trust; hook fact is interesting and mentioned in the article, the quote is sourced in the article and the speaker (William Francis Patrick Napier) given, not sure if we have to do this in the hook too, but will leave that up to the promoters; consider adding "Hanoverian general" and "1814" to give some context, but again happy to leave this for later preference; shame we don't have a painting of the man but I had a quick look and found nothing online; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Onegreatjoke and Dumelow: I do think the hook would benefit from context; when I read "the allies", I think of World War II (which is something DYK does cover quite often). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

    Hi theleekycauldron and Onegreatjoke (talk), we could add "1814" before the battle or mention the Peninsular War? - Dumelow (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

    The former might be more generally accessible :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Death from mastitis

I placed the apparent cause of death in quotation marks. Mastitis is an inflammation of the breast, usually during lactation. To have it in an elderly male would be most unusual. Of course, breast cancer occurs in males and could be misdiagnosed.Ekem (talk)

@Ekem: Hi, that's an interesting point. The source does call it mastitis, but I'll change to the expanded definition it also gives on the same page in order to avoid the obvious confusion. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not have access to the two sources. Did they call it pneumonia? That is a common cause of death, but I never heard that it leads to breast ulceration or mastitis.Ekem (talk) Ekem (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It's recorded as an inflammation of the lungs, possibly caused by an ulcer. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

KCB, KCH Should Be Removed Because It's A Duplicate

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: KCB, KCH on the infobox stays, here's an example when I removed it with no objections: Igor Judge, Baron Judge. I'll revert it because it's a duplicate. Articles should be short & concise, as much as possible. NKM1974 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@NKM1974: Making an edit without objections on a start-class article is a little different to doing so on an FA. Leads should be concise, I agree, but I disagree that six letters make it too bulky. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Further to this, I believe either way that the awards Hinuber received should be in the lead; with promotion payment and seniority based, rather than merit, they are a key way of gauging the success of a soldier in this period. Explaining this in the prose would make the lead significantly longer, which the post-nominals avoid. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I removed the post-nominal template on the Henry de Hinuber article because it's already posted on the infobox, which is totally absurd. Henry de Hinuber had awards in the past, one is enough for post-nominal template not two. Look at Winston Churchill, he was a featured article in the past that's semi-protected. His name has lots of awards & there's only one post-nominal template on the infobox. Regardless about their rank & status, based on observation, Wikipedia should have one post-nominal template on the infobox not two. NKM1974 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

There is only one set of post-nominals in the infobox. This article has gone through three levels of review. While I don't own this article (please read WP:FAOWN), there has been agreement that the previous version of the lead was suitable. Winston Churchill does not have post-nominals on the lead because he has seven sets of them. We've already discussed how the post-nominals may or may not make the lead too bulky, and that's an example of that. This is not. Please do not cherry pick articles that suit your style, I believe I provided a good rationale for why the post-nominals should stay here. To take a leaf out of your book, however, here is a very small sample of army officer FAs which demonstrate the use of post-nominals:

• Mike Jackson (British Army officer)
• Cyril Bassett
• Frank Berryman
• R. V. C. Bodley
• Harry Chauvel
• Dudley Clarke
• Harry Crerar
• Richard Dannatt

I'm going to revert your change based on this. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with Cunliffe on this issue. DonBeroni (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

GCH

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: about this edit, no problem. However, should that not be mentioned somewhere (towards the end?) for multiple reasons? First, to stop it from being added back into the article in future ... in six months, or four years, or 15 years. Second, it is a determination that has been made by Wikipedia editors (you), one that seems too valuable to disappear in revision history, and one that might even be worth a mention in its own right: there are two (old but online and readily available) German language sources that support the awarding but that (so far) cannot be corroborated with English language sources: which I find intriguing.

And then there’s the German Wikipedia page (and list) which still says it, and that should probably also be updated at the same time with comparable wording ... but let’s settle on wording here first. Elrondil (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I'll look to add a note in explaining that. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)