Talk:Battle of Stockach (1799)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Stockach (1799)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good article criteria, an should have my initial comments posted up in few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now completed a review of this article and am placing it on hold pending the resolution of the issues outlined below. However, it is a rather good article and with a few tweaks should meet the GA status. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead and infobox:

 Done::: Dates should be delinked.  Done::: There is inconsistency in the capitalisation of "army" in relation to nations. For example, both "Austrian Army" and "Austrian army" are used. Please pick one and use it throughout.

1. Background:

 Done::: "When the violence erupted in France in 1789" - Could you please clarify what "the violence" actually was? I presume the French Revolution?  Done::: "As the rhetoric grew more strident" - I'm not sure "rhetoric" is used in the correct context here. Rhetoric is related to speach and language ...

yes, I do mean rhetoric.

Okay. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done::: I think the identity of Leopold and Marie Antoinette should be clarified in who they were, instead of forcing the uninformed to click on the wikilinks to find out.

tried to clarify that

 Done::: "Marie Antoinette, and her children, with greater and greater alarm." - I think it would be best if the "greater and greater" was replaced with "increasing" or "ever increasing". Done  Done::: "As the revolution grew more and more radical" - Substitute "more and more" for "further", and how was it radical?  Done::: "The treaty proved difficult to administer; Austria waffled about giving up some of the Venetian territories" - What/which treaty, (the one mentioned in the previous sentence) and what conditions? Also, "waffled" is a not exactly an encyclopaedic term, so I would recommend its replacement with another word.

Yes, I suppose not. But it's a great word!  ;)

Lol, yes, it is. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done::: "ultimately causing is overthrow, but after 18 months of civil war" - "but" is redundant. Done

1. Prelude to Battle:

 Done::: Only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalised in level headings.  Done::: Truthfully, I don't think the inclusion of the geographic coordinates in this context add much or are particularly necessary.  Done::: The capitalisation of "Advance Guard" is inconsistent here, with most capitalised but a few not.  Done::: "After an initial day and a half of skirmishing" - should be hyphened in this instance. i.e. day-and-a-half.  Done::: "but this time it was closer to 2:1, instead of almost 3:1" - I would recommend the odds be presented in words rather than numbers.  Done::: Per MoS, dates should not be presented with "th", "rd", "st" or "of", but more singular and succinct, such as 14 October 2009. cited::: "The general engagement was brutal and bloody." - This is a little peacockish and a little like commentary. Also, it would probably be best to specify or clarify the exact date here. added specific citations for those comments. and fixed date. cited::: "The attack was so ferocious that the" - "so ferocious" is also a little peacockish, so I would recommend it be tweaked. added citation

1. Consequences:

 Done::: "Consequences" would probably be best named "Aftermath". Done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The same cites should be collapsed into one. For example the cite "Phipps, pp. 49–50.", which is used several times. To do this you type in <ref name="(add what you want to call it, such as "Phipps")">(add deatils of ref here. eg. "Phipps, pp. 49–50.")</ref>. For subsequent times the ref is used you just need to type <ref name="(Same name of ref used previously, such as "Phipps")/>. For an example of an article that uses this, or for further clarification, you might like to have a look at Lewis McGee.

I don't like this form of citation. It makes additional editing, and adding material, difficult. According to MOS it is the editor's choice.

I actually find this way easier, but it is your choice, of course. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

would be nice:: It would be nice if there was some further detail on the battle, but I can understand if this cannot be done.

The is nothing on this except Young and Jourdan, that go into the specific details. Some other stuff is starting to appear, but since Napoleon wasn't involved, it's been neglected.

Fair enought. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

 Done:: I would probably increase the size of the images, as they are a little small. Also, it would be best if alt text was added. will do

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well, I am now satisfied that any and all of my comments have been addressed and this article now meets the Good article criteria, so I am passing it as such. Well done and congratulations! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Review by jackyd101

As I read through I'll leave a list of comments and then a summary of my thoughts at the end.

• Watch for tenses - as this is an historical event, all tenses should be in the past (unless referring to something that still exists today). For example, "In the broader military context, this battle comprises a keystone in the first campaign" should be "comprised" instead.
• The background detail section is problematic - the first two paragraphs go into too much detail about events seven years before the battle. We don't need to know how or why the French Revolutionary War broke out - it would be much more relevant to see the origins of the War of the Second Coalition and more detail on the campaign up until the battle.

• added a paragraph on this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• second battle of the campaign, so....not too much else going on. Possibly could include Swiss campaign, but that was in early stages. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• The cut down version you have there now is good, but I recommend an introductory sentance along the lines of "The French Revolutionary Wars broke out in 1794, and despite initial victories for the First Coalition forces at . . .--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The list of units of the Army of Danube is unneccesary (as is the long list of French commanders in the infobox as you have the Battle of Stockach (1799) Order of Battle article (which should be moved to Order of battle at the Battle of Stockach (1799). If you feel the need to list some of the army's major formations in this article then try to do it in a brief prose paragraph instead.

• done (renamed article. Originally there was no Order of Battle article, hence the inclusion in the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the article looks better without the list, but remember to link anyone who is now not linked at first mention. Go through the article and link all proper nouns and technical terms when they first appear.

• PS, you also do not need so much information on commanders in the infobox as they are also represented in the seperate order of battle article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• "cut the Austrian line at Switzerland" - Do you mean "in Switzerland"?
• "The two armies faced each other across this small valley and by 7 March, the first French forces arrived there" - this doesn't make sense, how can the French arrive after the armies have faced one another?

• duh. yeah. :) fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Lefebvre, wounded at Ostrach, was still out of commission" - try to avoid turns of phrase like "out of commission" and say unfit for service instead. Such things can be confusing for people reading this from othe cultures or languages and don't scan well in a Wikipedia article.

• fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Move the link to the order of battle to the head of the section - it gets lost in the text where it is.

• fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I think was mentioned in the GA review, it would be nice to have more detail regarding the actual fighting, although I understand if this simply isn't available.
• "instead of pursuing the French, he ordered his army into cantonments" - is this Archduke Charles?
• "(see bibliography below)" - this aside doesn't really tell us anything. It would be much better to create a footnote explaining which historians stated this and which (if any) disagreed with it. See one I created at Battle of the Nile that summarises differing historical opinion).
• "Others [who?] did [what?] as well," clarify this.
• "From his exile on Elba, Napoleon" - give the date (this was 15 years later!)
• "Furthermore, Napoleon argued, Jourdan had retreated" - this is a fact, not an argument: what is Napoleon trying to say here? (are the words "should have" missing?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats my review, on the whole a nice article on a poorly covered subject (in English at least). I think there is still a little work to do, but it has the grounding to be a very good piece of work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

very poorly covered! Thanks for the review, and I'll incorporate what you've suggested in the next couple of weeks. I've found an additional source (in German), and I can perk up the map a bit with what I learn from that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)