Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Army of Sambre and Meuse

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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Sambre and Meuse[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth55 (talk)

This is the second of the two principal French armies participating in the Rhine Campaign of 1796. It has passed GA. It should meet the qualifications for A-class. auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is my first review so please give me some leeway if it's not perfect. I was attracted to this article because the Planquette march of the same name, popular at West Point under a different name, is my second favorite.

Sources: Citations are largely at the paragraph level, however, everything appears to check-out and the references are quality.
Images: All correctly permissiond. Alt text on everything except those in the table, which seems reasonable.
Plagiarism: Earwig shows copyvio unlikely.
MOS: I didn't notice any issues. Some of the numbers are presented like this (Jourdan marched south with 30,000 men of the infantry divisions of Simon), instead of spelling out "thousand", however, that's all fine per MOS:NUMERAL. The lede is long-enough and representative of the article as per WP:LEDE.
General: It would be nice to see the lineage table displayed in English, though, the words are simple enough that even the most inept reader of French should be able to comprehend them. I trust the order of battle presented in the section "Original formation" is styled in a customary way and will defer to someone else to comment if not. Maybe we could link Le Régiment de Sambre et Meuse in a "See also" section? Not a big deal. This seems like a thorough and comprehensive treatment of the subject.
DAB: None needed.

Very nice! Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, thaks for your review. the "Le Regiment de Sambre et Meuse" poem was written in 1870 about a different regiment, so not applicable here. auntieruth (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

auntieruth Thanks much. I was under the impression that Planquette set the poem to melody on the eve of the Franco-Prussian War as a restrospective patriotic tribute to the subject of this article's victory at Fleurus of 80 years before? No big deal either way, it was just a throwaway comment. Anyway, a very, very fine article! Chetsford (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is true. Certainly, the "regiment" fought at that battle, but not the army. They were different. auntieruth (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't realize there was a co-existing regiment of the same name as the army at all, and though the use of "regiment" in the song's title was just an artistic license by Planquette to refer to the army. Thank you for the edification! Chetsford (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! the regiment formed an important element of the army, and I suspect, although I could not cite it, that it was given the name because of regimental success at Fleurus. thanks for jumping into the review process! auntieruth (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this article in detail at GAN. I have one outstanding concern, regarding the caption that begins "In particular, the states involved in late 1796 included". It is way too long, and nearly all the material in it should be incorporated into the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this picture an caption has been used in other articles that went through FA and at those reviews, I was told to make the paragraphs shorter. I will, however, do as you asked, and we'll see! auntieruth (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading @Peacemaker67:. I think I've addressed your caption comment. Would you have another look? auntieruth (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

All of the following errors would never have occurred if you had used {{sfn}} together with the various citation templates, populating the |ref= parameter. Doing so would not only make your article better, it would also save a nontrivial amount of your reviewers' time, saving them from checking each of these manually:

In references but not in notes: Alison, The Annual Register, Beevor,Bertaud, Bodart,Charles 'Geschichte',Charles 'Grundsätze', Cuccia, Dunn-Pattison, Durant & Durant, Ebert, Ersch, Graham, La Bédoyère,Lievyns, Lühe, Malte-Brun, McLynn, Mechel, Mechel, "Pichegru.",Philippart, Rogers, Rothenberg, Rothenberg, Schama, Sellman, Vann, Walker, Wilson.
In notes but not in references : i think i see Lefebvre, more later
In the notes, you sometimes put full references... and then these ae sometimes lastname-firstname (Rickard, J. ) but sometimes firstnam-lastname (Joachim Whaley; James Allen Vann)
You have a full reference for "Ramsay Weston Phipps,The Armies of the First French Republic: Volume II " listed in both the notes and the references
Ditto for Warfare in the Age of Napoleon
Volk, Helmut. "Landschaftsgeschichte
I see punctuation errors
I'm sure there are more inconsistencies etc., but I am going to bed Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lingzhi, thank you for your comments. I've used the sfn template on other articles, with your help, and, despite your help, found it cumbersome and difficult to follow, and incredibly difficult to edit. I've pulled out the additional resources listed under resources and put them in a separate section. Everything in notes and citations is (should be) listed also in references, first as they should be in footnotes/endnotes, and second as they should be in a bibliography (ln, fn).auntieruth (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lingzhi:, thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I think I've addressed your issues. Would you have another look? LeFebvre is covered. I don't see the listing in notes first time with a full reference, and subsequently as only partial as inconsistent. I've found the sfn template to be incredibly confusing to use and annoying to read. We're going to disagree on that. :) auntieruth (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi: G'day, would you mind taking a look at Ruth's changes and letting her know if there is anything outstanding? If there isn't, the review is probably ready for closure. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp[edit]

I was looking at this because I'm interested and I tried to view it as a user. It's feedback, rather than structured review per se so please feel free to ignore :)

Per Blaise Pascale 'I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead.' I continually review my articles and try to condense since shorter is better, particularly on the web. I do a lot of research and I have to constantly force myself to remove things that are interesting to me but not essential to the audience.

I think the lead paragraph contains detail relevant in the body of the article but when placed in the lead paragraph invite more questions.

...brief but celebrated existence... for an army, I don't think three years (1794-1797) can really be described as 'brief' while 'celebrated' is a value judgement (I'm a military historian; I know the song, not the army but I have heard of the Cannonade of Valmy, for example).

...Rhineland campaigns of 1795 and 1796. During 1796... Given that statement, jumping straight into 1796 doesn't seem to make sense; what happened in 1795?

During 1796, commanded by Jean-Baptiste Jourdan , the army crossed the Rhine...the date should be more precise ie May? June? I can't find the month lower down in Section 5;

added date....

On 29 September 1797, the Army of Sambre and Meuse... ditto, what happened in 1797?

armistice, explained in last paragraph....

Jean Victor Moreau crossed the southern Rhine... as written, it isn't clear this is another army;

ok, should be cleared up....

by the end of July, he had conquered most of the southern states of the Holy Roman Empire, forcing them into an armistice profitable for the French Republic; again, this raises more questions than it answers eg who were the 'southern states' etc but more importantly, the Armistice (why was it profitable?) doesn't seem to appear anywhere else in the article (I might well be wrong ::).

profitable in that it (1) disarmed over 25,000 men (rough estimate) and (2) allowed the French to plunder.

This is how I'd rewrite it - not a suggestion :) it's purely to show what I mean, sometimes more helpful

The French Revolutionary Army of Sambre and Meuse (French: Armée de Sambre-et-Meuse) under Jean-Baptiste Jourdan was formed on 29 June 1794 and played a key role in the Rhineland campaigns of 1795 and 1796.

After an inconclusive campaign in 1795, the French planned a co-ordinated offensive in 1796 using Jourdan's Army of the Sambre et Meuse and the Rhine and Moselle Army under Jean Victor Moreau. The first part of the operation called for Jourdan to cross the Rhine north of Mannheim and divert the Austrians while the Army of the Moselle crossed the southern Rhine at Kehl and Huningen. This was successful and by July 1796 a series of victories forced the Austrians to retreat but internal disputes between Moreau and Jourdan and commanders within the Army of the Sambre and Meuse prevented the two armies linking up. This gave the Austrian commander Archduke Charles time to reform his own forces, driving Jourdan to the northwest and eventually back across the Rhine. On 29 September 1797, the Army of Sambre and Meuse merged with the Army of the Rhine and Moselle to become the Army of Germany.

As a general point, I think the descriptions of the campaigns are overly detailed (ie too many numbers). That matters because it makes it hard to pick out the strategy - its almost overwhelming. For example;

Marshaling the divisions of Hotze, Sztáray, Kray, Johann Sigismund Riesch, Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein and Wartensleben, the Austrians won the Battle of Würzburg on 3 September, forcing the French to retreat to the Lahn river. Charles lost 1,500 casualties out of 44,000 troops against 2,000 French casualties.[31] Another authority gave French losses as 2,000 killed and wounded plus 1,000 men and seven guns captured, while Austrian losses numbered 1,200 killed and wounded and 300 captured.

That can be summarised as; The Austrian victory at Würzburg on 3 September forced the French to retreat to the Lahn river.'

And the numbers are not different enough to need two estimates eg Tacitus claims 80,000 dead while modern archaeologists estimate 100-250 max - that's worth knowing but not 1,200 v 1,500 Austrians.

I do a job where I get feedback from total strangers twice a week so I'm used to getting as well as giving :) I have a tendency to overwrite sentences and I found it really helpful when a couple of editors pointed that out so I hope this is useful.

yes very useful! thank you! I've done some tweaking, and added charts showing the intermediate battles. Perhaps this helps? auntieruth (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I think I've addressed your questions. Will you have a look? Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: G'day, Robin, would you mind taking a look at Ruth's changes and letting her know if there is anything outstanding? If there isn't, the review is probably ready for closure. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay - I found it a lot easier to follow now so that means it should work for others :). Couple of things I was curious about which might be worth considering;

- On the geography; pre-industrial campaigns make a lot more sense when you understand the importance of water-borne transport and its role in keeping armies supplied, as well trade routes. I'm not sure the role of the Rhine as barrier and transport hub really comes across.

- Politics; no argument with the details but I'm not sure it needs this amount of detail;

Otherwise, looks good!

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: looks very good, Ruth. I made a few minor tweaks and have some other comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the first paragraph in the Background section needs a reference, otherwise the article is very well referenced

fixed.

unless I missed it, I couldn't find the date of 29 June 1794 mentioned in the article (outside of the lead); suggest adding this to the body of the article, and potentially the infobox

I've added it to the info box, but it doesn't show up. Active dates showup. I've added it to the text.

creating deep defiles in the mountains: suggest linking Defile (geography) here
Location map depicts distribution of Army --> Location map depicts distribution of the Army

Thank you! Fixed!

ext links all work, and there are no dabs or duplicate links (no action required)

Thank's for having a look! auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2018 (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.