This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
A fact from Claude-Étienne Guyot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 January 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I've revert an edit of this article, because it introduced information sourced to websites which cannot be considered as being specialized or reputable in the field of Napoleonic history. In order to maintain an appropriate level of information quality, when expanding this article, please use online or offline sources that come from reputable historians.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
actually no information was added, the online sources merely confirmed the unreferenced verbiage in the article. you did delete a disambig hat to another man named Guyot though. Slowking4 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've reinserted the disambiguation link to Jules Guyot. I do not mean to seem abrupt about he respective websites; it's just several years' experience with websites about the Napoleonic Wars that led me to the conclusion that most websites about the topic are junk. So just want to keep high standards for the content of the articles I contribute to. Best, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
i agree with you in general. that napoleon series appears to better than most [1], with a real author; and it is a good shield against the tendency among some who disparage that which they can't click through to. (i've seen it a AfD.) nice article - needs expansion, i take it you wouldn't mind, if i cited marbot (have to find it on the shelf) Slowking4 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I believe the Napoleon Series to be a good enough source, although I have to say it bothers me that he offers neither a bibliography for each article, nor inline citations, which makes it hard to assess the quality of his sources. Marbot is actually a primary source for many historians, as he has written extensively about the Napoleonic Wars and also is a skilled and captivating writer. I have seen, though, that specialist warn that he has a tendency of exaggerating and turning affairs into stories of heroism and chivalry, as was probably his nature.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
