This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
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 articles
"is a structure projecting outward from the main enclosure of a fortification, situated in both corners of a straight wall (termed curtain),...."
Should this "of" perhaps be an "or"?
I have just modified one external link on Bastion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
21:24, 29 March 2017 PBS (talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 770681185 by Anmccaff. A Bastion this shape is also a cut off by a ditch would be a ravelin)
21:26, 29 March 2017 PBS (talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 770818654 by Anmccaff -- not undue weight if you thinks so the explain on the talk page)
21:28, 29 March 2017 Anmccaff ((11,173 bytes) (-668) . . (Reverted 2 edits by PBS (talk): A ravelin is not a bastion. Using an uncited portion of a relatively obscure author is undue weight. (TW)) updated since my last visit
user:Anmccaff You have removed a citation from a paragraph of text copied from a source. Why? It is a breach of the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline. If such a thing as cut bastion exists: "The term cut bastion is also used for one that is cut off from the place by some ditch." then such a structure could also be described as a ravelin.
How do you know "Bulwalk and Bastion" is a obscure source? It meets Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable secondary source, the paper is for example cited in:
As to undue weigh you removed a paragraph of 688 characters out of an article 11,173 bytes, that is about 0.5% of the whole article. How is such a small paragraph undue weight? -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar? here's a few, with the word "fortification" appended.
For Halleck I get 60 cites of him on the first page, and about 4,000 references to him. No doubt some of the ones at the back of the list will be crap, but a respectable show.
For Simon Bernard: 197 refs, although no cites to his works directly, which isn't surprising, since he was writing ex officio in many cases. The bibliography you cite above mentions him repeatedly.
For Mahan? 89 cites directly to him, about 5000 references to him, mostly good, although some are focused on his son. The bibliography you cite above mentions him repeatedly
For Simon-François Gay de Vernon, I only get 20 indirect, but adding his xlator, John Michael O'Connor, almost doubles that. The bibliography mentions....
Sylvanus Thayer pots 560, although many focus on USMA, not his work on fortifications. The bibliography...
Joseph Totten gets only 4 to him on the first page -again, often writing ex-officio, but 1300 on him, the bulk good.
That is just for American sources (some adopted, obviously), and just for the time period which is covered in detail in Bulwark and Bastion. No, four is not very much at all. Anmccaff (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Next, let's look at a couple other assertions. If such a thing as cut bastion exists: "The term cut bastion is also used for one that is cut off from the place by some ditch." then such a structure could also be described as a ravelin. No, it would not. A ravelin is a large structure , covering an entire face, or a major portion of the face. It is forward of the face. A Bastion is a flanking structure. It is close in to the face, and, except in certain very small forts, it is only a small portion of the total face. For the last sort used in USAnian practice, which I think of as caponiers in drag the bastions took up less that 20 percent of the curtain.
Yes, such things as "cut bastions exist" but it's an imprecise term. One use is a bastion which is partly or totally separated from the (rest of) the curtain. Note, this does not make in a ravelin; its purpose is still to sweep the curtain with flanking fire. The other is a bastion with its point clipped, usually into a tenaille. Very, very different concepts, but neither of them are ravelins. Anmccaff (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Moers fortifications, designed by Simon Stevin, where ravelins appear as triangular shapes surrounded by water, with wall (shown in dark green) facing outwards with no wall on the inner side.
User:Anmccaff you have not addressed the plagiarism issue.
You have not addressed the undue issue and that the text you say is undue makes up less than 1% of the whole article. Did you delete it due to concerns about undue weight of because you disagree with the content?
The drawing to the right show revelins that are little different from the bastions other than being "cut off from the place by some ditch". In scale they are a similar size to the bastions. -- PBS (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
