Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Schliengen

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

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Schliengen[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Featured article candidates/Battle of Schliengen/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'm hoping it's ready for that. All citations seem to be in place, it has artwork etc. auntieruth (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support good read MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at the German Wiki article? I find the aftermath section (Folgen der Schlacht bei Schliengen) a bit better to understand and how the battle was embedded in the greater scheme of things MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on sieges of Kehl and Huningen. Do you think they should all be rolled into one article? auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What triggered my response was the fact that the English article classifies the battle as an Austrian victory in the Infobox. The German article depicts a more balanced outcome (inconclusive) with both sides claiming some success and the consequences favoring the French side. In the German article the French retreat is a success of the Austrian forces, however the French forces managed to retreat, without significant losses back to France, this is a French success. The following engagements at Kehl and Hünningen tied down Austrian forces which could have played a difference in the Italian campaign and in the Siege of Mantua, so the German article. I feel this could be made more explicit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it. I've tried to make it more explicit. See if that solves the problem. auntieruth (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you have a look at the ISBN numbers please? Some are formatted with, some are formatted without and some are formatted half heartily with dashes. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried fixing this and added OCLC numbers for all those references lacking an ISBN number. Could you please check if OCLC 314361292 is the correct number for your reference "(German) Volk, Helmut. "Landschaftsgeschichte und Natürlichkeit der Baumarten in der Rheinaue." Waldschutzgebiete Baden-Württemberg, Band 10, pp. 159–167."? I am not 100% sure if this is indeed the correct one. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ISBN numbers don't usually have dashes or any kind, I thought. I copied them out of Worldcat. Or Amazon. Or from the book itself.
  - I had read Volk's article at the archive, but I found a copy online here: Volk, which I put into the bib. That should solve the problem.

Support But see below for some minor requests. Djmaschek (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture gallery: The Duke of Enghien pic has no name in the caption.

Fixed.

Aftermath: Kehl and Huningen are run together.

Fixed.

2nd paragraph Background: (a) There is a list of battles going from 1792 to 1796, and then it says "but in 1795" which is chronologically incorrect. Is this a typo for 1796? The Austrians lost no territory in 1795. Verdun, Kaiserslautern, Neerwinden and Mainz are not needed for context since they are pre-1796. (b) If 1796 is intended, then the statement about Jourdan pushing the Austrians back is not exactly true. Jourdan advanced to the Lahn but then was driven back beyond the Rhine from 16-20 June. (c) It was Moreau's crossing at Kehl on 24 June that ultimately won territory, at least temporarily, from the Austrians. Moreau did not support Jourdan's right. It was the total lack of mutual support that caused the French defeats. (d) The statement that Moreau raided Munich is not enough background. "Raid" is debatable; the French government ordered an invasion. (e) Aside from Schliengen, Moreau's army fought six significant actions in 1796, but only Emmendingen, fought 5 days before, is noted in a picture caption. Munich is deep into Germany. How did Moreau get there? And what caused him to come all the way back to the Rhine? You don't have to explain the entire Rhine Campaign of 1796 but since this is a class-A article, at least a couple of additional paragraphs are needed to give background to what happened at Schliengen, in my opinion. BTW: The Terrain section is really splendid and the Battle section is solid. Djmaschek (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dj, I've added some material on the background, including a table of battles, and a lengthy explanation of the lead up. auntieruth (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You did everything requested and then some!
However, in the new material in Campaign in 1796 there are a few minor issues. See below. Djmaschek (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: Paragraph 4, sentence 1, "27,0000".
There is a Fürstenberg in paragraph 1 with no link. Not counting links in the infobox and introduction, it is my understanding that you only need the link the first time. After that "Prince Fürstenberg" or some other shorthand is okay.
The Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé link should be near the top.
The first Latour link, Theodor Franz, Count Baillet von Latour is wrong. Theodor was not promoted Major until 1809. Maximilian is your man.
"16th and 50th Demi-brigades, the 68th, 50th and 68th line infantry" has duplication. If it's Delmas' division, it would be 16th Light, 50th Line and 68th Line Infantry Demi Brigades.
When explaining the French mutinies, the 17th, 74th and 84th were probably line infantry, but the article does not say. Does your source say what type of unit? There was a 17th Dragoons.
Typo: Paragraph 1, sentence 3, "bulk o the army".
Battle of Rastatt was 5 July 1796 (see table). There is not an article for Renchen (28 June) yet.

Support: G'day, Ruth, interesting article. I made a few tweaks, please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit. I also have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

minor inconsistency: the lead gives the date of "26 October", but the infobox says "24 October"

fixed

watch for overlink. The duplicate link checker tool identifies the following possibilities: Mullheim, Huningen and Karl Aloys zu Furstenberg

fixed.

in the Sources section, is there an ISBN that could be added for the Blanning, Cuccia and Smith works? These can sometimes be found through Worldcat.org

added where these are available.

as per the above, is there an OCLC number the could be added for the Charles, Dyke, Graham, Hansard, and Philippart works?

No OCLC #, but I did add web links when available. no, yes, yes, no.

"...interests of Louis and his family..." given that Louis hasn't been mentioned by name yet, I suggest adding a link and using his full title at first mention

done

suggest linking terms like "battalion", "regiment" and "squadron" etc on first mention to help readers understand the size of these units

well, I could, except that these sizes weren't really consistent in 1790s.

I'd still recommend this, but it isn't a warstoper. I'll leave it up to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite specific orders to the contrary, the Conde's Corps formed down the river at Neuburg and made a spirited attack on Steinstadt" --> do we know why they disobeyed there orders? If the sources don't say, that's no drama, I'm just curious...

clarified. The Duke got carried away with the situation.

I suggest using title case capitalisation for the English language book titles. For instance, "Napoleon in Italy: the sieges of Mantua" would become "Napoleon in Italy: The Sieges of Mantua" etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

will go through and do this tonight.

okay, I think I've addressed all the questions above, by Rupert, Dj and MrB. auntieruth (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Ruth. I made a couple of adjustments, please check you are happy with those. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.