Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhine Campaign of 1796/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 [1].

Rhine Campaign of 1796[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Rhine Campaign of 1796, an important campaign year for the French revolutionary wars against the European coalitions. Four armies worked their way back and forth across southern and central German states in the course of a few months. At the end, the armies ended up where they had begun, but French successes in Northern Italy (where the French army was led by Napoleon), forced the Austrians into an armistice and then a peace treaty. ... auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I was a part of the MILHIST A-class review, and I can find no further improvements to be made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.
I wasn't sure what to replace frin with in " Jean Hardy's division frin the west side of Mainz retreated to the Nahe river," could it be from? ϢereSpielChequers 23:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is "from" I'm trying to find it.... thanks for your edits, they are fine! auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another excellent article by Auntieruth. –Vami_IV✠ 11:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit: Using harv/sfnref to link a citation directly to its source for convenience would be a suggestion from me, but I still support this bid for FA. –Vami_IV✠ 11:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tintor2[edit]

Comments by Tintor2

  • The lead feels a bit unbalanced. I would advise trimming some of the last paragraphs and increasing the top one.
I've trimmed the last paragraph.
  • The caption of Rhine River feels too big. Since it's a free image, I would avise you to remove to trim to as everybody can click on the image.
the caption was expanded based on previous reviews, then trimmed some. I don't understand how clicking on it would provide the material included in the caption....

Other than that, I see no further issues. Ping me or mention me when you think you are done so I'll support it. Also if possible, a fellow user and I are doing this FAC and would appreciate feedback. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comments! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Tintor2:. Would you take a look and see if this is clearer? auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: will you take a look to see if I've addressed your concerns? auntieruth (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

Support Sourcing review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Why are some books given as full title cites in the citations and not listed in the Resources section? Strange name that, but no matter.
  • fixed. changed name to sources
  • Better, but not quite what I meant. Why do you have full information for some books like Cuccia in 83, but often use name, page # for other refs? Please standardize on name, page # for all cites. For the web sources, just use name, title, not website name or retrieval date, since those last two are provided in the full reference in the sources section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean: all citations first mentioned have name, text, pub date pages, or, for web, basic info on website, author, article, date retrieved. Subsequent mentions of the same source are shortened. The complete bibliographic info is listed in the Sources section, including OCLC, ISBN, or whatever # is listed on worldcat. auntieruth (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but no bibliographic info is provided in the citations for Smith or Lefebvre on first mention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops missed those. Got them now. I thought Ihad fixed Lefbvre before. I also combined another cite although I don't like doing it when they are so far apart. Seems to interrupt stuff. auntieruth (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some cites need periods after p or pp. Notably 38 and 49
  • combined
  • Some cites need to be combined. #39, 49 and 52; 72 and 74
  • combined
  • Cite 36 needs a space between p. and the page number
  • fixed
  • Retrieved date format is not consistent
  • fixed
  • Rothenburg, Volk, and Whaley lack publisher locations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volk is in a journal. There is implied publishing location in Freiburg, but it's not listed in the OCLC citation
  • Rothenburg: Indiana University Press.....? Ummm, Indiana? I've added them...
  • I expect that it's Bloomington, Indiana, but best to check for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whaley:Oxford University Press, ummmm Oxford? I've added them.
  • Missed this on the first 2 readings, journal articles need the ISSN of the journal. At least if they're less than 50 years old or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't make any difference. Just give the first one a name, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturm, can I double-check: are you signing off on reliability of sources as well as formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just formatting for the nonce. Gimme a day or so and I'll do some spot checks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Cuccia, Napoleon in Italy: The Sieges of Mantua, 1796–1799, pp. 87–93 Does not contain anything relevant to the information cited in #81. Smith, which I could not get access to, may have all the relevant information.
  • In #84, p. 279 of Philippart only references 40 battalions in the defending force, does not give manpower total.
  • In #31 Graham doesn't mention anything relevant to Ferino's attack, but covers Moreau's attack, dealt with in the preceding paragraph.
  • The most heavily referenced books lacked previews in Google Books, but the others that I checked were fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jackdude101[edit]

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: The prose is satisfactory overall, but some things that need correcting. Political terrain section: The predominantly German-speaking states on the east bank of the Rhine were part of the vast complex of territories in central Europe called the Holy Roman Empire, of which the Archduchy of Austria was a principal polity and its archduke typically the Holy Roman Emperor: the French government considered the Holy Roman Empire as its principal continental enemy.[4] This sentence should be split up and that colon should be removed. Geography section: The Rhine River formed the boundary between the German states of the Holy Roman Empire and its neighbors, and was especially effective in separating the German states and France; any attack by either party required control of the crossings. This sentence should be split up, also. War plans section: Before the campaign in the Rhineland even started, though, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser went to Italy with 25,000 reinforcements after news arrived of Bonaparte's early successes. This should be changed to "Before the campaign in the Rhineland started, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser went to Italy with 25,000 reinforcements after news arrived of Bonaparte's early successes".
    2. comprehensive: The article appears to address everything notable about the topic.
    3. well-researched: The article appears to be well-researched with 95 separate references cited.
    4. neutral: Neutrality is satisfactory.
    5. stable: No edit wars, and the majority of edits over the past six months have been from the nominator.
  2. Style guidelines
    1. a lead: Lead has no problems.
    2. appropriate structure: Structure is appropriate.
    3. consistent citations: Citations are good overall and are present in every section.
  3. Media: The number of pictures in the article is just right and they are spread throughout the article appropriately. The caption in the image of Jean Moreau seems to contradict what's in the lead, though. It claims he had overall command of all French forces, but in the lead it says that his army and the army commanded by Jean Jourdan operated independently. This should be addressed.
  4. Length: Length is satisfactory.

This article is in pretty good shape overall. Fix the issues above and I'll support it. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Auntieruth55: You made most of the corrections, but you missed the sentence listed above that mentions Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser. That one still needs fixing. Jackdude101 talk cont 17:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: We have three supports here but I'm not convinced that we have had the depth of review needed against the FAC criteria. I'd like a few more eyes on it first; there's not necessarily anything wrong with it but I'd just like more review. I wonder if Ian Rose or HJ Mitchell could have a look? Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Some comments from me, having reviewed some of the related articles:

  • Bonaparte is mentioned in the second para of the lead, then also seemingly re-introduced at the end of the fourth para of the lead. This seems contradictory. He either was approaching Vienna from Italy before the fighting in Germany, or he did so during or after. My understanding is that this occurred at the same time, so introducing him as a new French army commander in the fourth para seems weird. Some explanation needed?
  • there is an unnecessary space between fn 5 and Note 1
  • Where is says "In the 1790s, the river was wild and unpredictable and armies crossed at their peril." is this in reference to the whole river, or just the Upper Rhine? If the latter, perhaps specify?
  • all, but particularly important was between Basel and Bingen.auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the War plans section, should there be a see also template for the Rhine campaign of 1795?
  • who was Lazare Carnot?
  • when Archduke Charles is introduced, he isn't linked, although the archduchy is mentioned earlier. Perhaps mention Charles was the archduke and link earlier?
  • he was Archduke of Teschen and Brother of the Holy Roman Emperor
  • When the Army of the Lower Rhine is introduced, perhaps explain what the Lower Rhine was (or explain it further up).
  • link von Wurmser at first mention
  • Bonaparte is also introduced without linking or context
  • sometimes Imperial and other times imperial. Suggest consistency per MOS:CAPS
  • In many ways, the geopolitical/military antebellum situation is introduced too late. Particularly WRT the Habsburg and Imperial arrangements
  • but the "thin white line"[15] but?
  • move Note 3 next to fn 15
  • Wurmser taking 25K reinforcements to Italy is mentioned twice, perhaps restrict it to the chronological point it happened?
  • more to come... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you@Peacemaker67:. I think I've got everything you mentioned so far. The problem with Upper Rhine, Lower Rhine, etc., had been taken out during a previous review, but I think I've modified it enough to clarify. auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • suggest moving the sentence beginning "Charles was 25 years old..." up to immediately after the sentence that introduces Charles. consolidated
  • there is some repetition between the War plans section and the Habsburg and Imperial organisation section, around Wurmser's transfer of the 25K trops, the instructions of the Aulic Council, and the strategy chosen. This needs to be consolidated.
  • how do the figures of 125,000 and 90,000 troops inter-relate? consolidated
  • link Upper Swabia done
  • link Rastatt at first mention done
  • link Freiburg im Breisgau at first mention done
  • at the beginning of French organization, drop Lazare from Carnot per MOS:SURNAME
  • link Mainz at first mention done
  • the following are duplicate linked: Württemberg, Rhine campaign of 1795, Kehl, French Directory, Aulic Council, North Sea, Hüningen, Nahe river, Duchy of Baden, Switzerland, Neuf-Brisach done
  • principle responsibility → principal responsibility done
  • after being introduced, Wartensleben should just be Wartensleben per MOS:SURNAME done
  • whack in a comma after "to join Kléber"
  • link Desaix in full at first mention, just Desaix thereafter done
  • unclear what is meant by "Most of the Imperial Army of the Rhine was stationed too far away to support the smaller force, by Mannheim to the north, where the river was easier to cross." Does this mean most of the Imperial Army of the Rhine was stationed at Mannheim, or elsewhere? Clarify. done
  • "the Prince Condé" should just be the Condé or Condé after introduction done
  • Saint-Cyr? Link? --he is linked on first mention.
  • who are the Kreistruppen? Explain and link at first mention. done
  • The Austrian brought 6,000 men. Should it be Austrians? no, he (the Austrian) brought 6,000 men.
  • Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg should just be Fürstenberg after introduction according to MOS surnames,yes, but he was not the title holder, and there were two of them. so to distinguish....
  • and would need reinforcements from Charles, should this be "and needed reinforcements"
  • linking is not really needed in the tables, as pretty much all are linked elsewhere in the article, there are also quite a few examples of people whose names should just be trimmed to surnames the tables, I thought, were supposed to stand on their own?
  • Archduke Charles should just be Charles or the Archduke after introduction, as there are no other Charles' done
  • more to come... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continually clashed with Charles' retreating army" seems an odd description if it happened on one day at one place? sort of a moving battle
  • suggest "The historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge" done
  • suggest "Despite their French losses"
  • perhaps Marceau should be Marceau-Desgraviers, I didn't immediately make the connection and had to search for the name.fixed
  • whack in another comma after "By no later than the 20th"done
  • Jean Castelbert de Castelverd should just be Castelverd at second mention
  • Poncet? Link in the body at first mention yes
  • link Freiburg im Breisgau at first mention done
  • Delmas? Link in the body at first mention done

That's pretty much it. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I think I've got them all, unless you want me to take the links out of the tables...that wasn't clear. auntieruth (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, is there anything more you'd care to add? I'd like to wrap this up if we can. Sarastro (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Sarastro1. I haven't had a chance to go through Ruth's changes and see if there is anything outstanding as yet. Should be able to do that in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Sarastro1. All good. Supporting now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support from Cas Liber[edit]

looking now....

.. forcing the Holy Roman Emperor into a surrender and acceptance of French Revolutionary territorial integrity. - why not, " forcing the Holy Roman Emperor to surrender and accept French Revolutionary territorial integrity."? "force...into a surrender" sounds odd to me..

Rest of it looks ok - will go over it again soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the changed, but I cannot even find it. auntieruth (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, anything further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
hang on, will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nothing further is jumping out at me prose-wise, and it looks comprehensive, so a cautious support...but I am a neophyte in the area...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Sorry for the delay on this one. I think we're good to go now. I'd recommend someone having a look at the duplinks as there are one or two showing up that may not be needed, but I don't think we need to hold this up any longer. Sarastro (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rhine_Campaign_of_1796/archive1&oldid=838896860"