Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Army of Sambre and Meuse/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2018 [1].

---

Army of Sambre and Meuse

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the French army engaged in the Campaigns of 1795-96. It was part of a major campaign in 1796 which resulted, initially, in French incursians well into the Holy Roman Empire. With supply lines stretched, and infighting among generals, this army and the Army of the Rhine and Moselle were forced back to France. As usual, I have used a citation system common among US academics, and generally used in dissertations. It's what I know. This article has undergone extensive editing and perusal at the MilHist A-class review (and earlier). I look forward to your comments and suggestions. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up File:Armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse.png, File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png Y added larger px

• Generally scaling should instead be done using |upright=, unless there's a reason not to. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• okay used |upright= to scale the images, but the diagram becomes really small! auntieruth (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Rhein-Karte.png: what do the different colours represent? Y

• File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png: not clear to me from looking at this which colour would be considered "light cream" Y

• Suggest rephrasing caption of the location map to make clear that the "triangle" refers to the position of the three cities, rather than an actual visible triangle Y

• File:Fusilier_Révolution_française.jpg: on what source is this image based? Y I've confirmed how these soldiers would hve been dressed, based on other sources

• File:Armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse.png: what is the source for this graph? Y

• File:Rhein-Karte.png: what is the source of the data for this map? Y

• File:L'armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse,_1795.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Jean-Victor_Moreau.jpg, File:Marechal_François-Joseph_Lefebvre.jpg Y

• File:Général_Jean_Étienne_Vachier_detto_Championnet_(3).jpg needs a US PD tag and a better source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Y

Nikkimaria I think I did it right....Not sure on the upscaling....auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

• I reviewed this in detail at GAN and Milhist ACR, and I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Cautious support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

• The lead should have some mention of how many people the army had, and where they were mostly from (conscripts etc.). This can be tacked onto the (rather small) first para.

• He and his fellow monarchs threatened ambiguous but serious consequences if anything should happen to the royal family. - why "ambiguous" - normally when someone says, "serious consequences" it can be undefined anyway.

• The number of troops involved is ambiguous - does this mean merely "unclear" or were there two possibilities..?

• Casliber I think I've found the areas you are concerned about....although I couldn't find the above specific reference. auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Cntrl-F is your friend here, to find them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! All is fixed re ambiguous. auntieruth (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Overall, the article reads okay - no other obvious prose issues. Topic is dry for me but I figured a non-military person's view was prudent. It has a lot of context but that seems on the whole sensible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Casliber, definitely it helps to have a non mil hist person's view! auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Casliber:, is this to your satisfaction now? auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes - it looks ok now. I can't see any obvious prose issues, and it strikes me as having no obvious gaps, hence I am tentatively supporting, but am not an expert Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, Ruth, I saw this at ACR earlier in the year and think it is pretty good, although I caveat that it is not a topic area I know anything about. I made a few minor copy edits tonight and have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• in the Background section, suggest linking "1789 revolution" to French Revolution rather than just "1789"
• I suggest maybe trying to split the paragraph in the Politics subsection as it seems quite long
• the specific date of "29 September" does not seem to be mentioned in the body of the article. I would suggest adding it to the last sentence of the "Reformation" sectionn
• would it be possible to have "File:Armée de Sambre-et-Meuse.png" translated so that we use the English language version? Also, I think it needs a caption

• I'd be happy to do it, but I don't know how....auntieruth (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• G'day, Ruth, you might be able to make a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. If you can supply the translation, there is probably someone there with the skills to create the image. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've tweaked and fiddled and managed to translate it myself. Might not be as good an image....? auntieruth (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• the location of "File:Armée de Sambre-et-Meuse.png" is probably not ideal as it doesn't directly relate to the text which it appears near. I'd suggest maybe moving it to the Original formation section. Of course, that creates a dilemma with the images you have in that section, though. It might be possible to move the painting down, though, potentially to the 1795 campaign section.

• i've rearranged some of the mages. makes the politics paragraph look shorter too.

Rupert,t he fact that it's outside your area makes you one of the best readers, because Im sure I assume a background where none exists. experts might not note it! auntieruth (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: how does this look now.  :)

Looks good, Ruth, thanks. I think there is a minor issue with "File:French Armies.jpg", though. When I load the image, there is a red typo underscore underneath the word "Sambre". Otherwise, it looks pretty good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• got it, thanks!  :) auntieruth (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Coord note -- I think we still need a source review for reliability and formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• The sources look reliable and the formatting is consistent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Earwigs copyvio is clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Trying to see the original sources for these is tricky. I can't do it from where I am right now and will have another go later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• FN 35 supports the sentence it ends.
• FN 13 (used twice) supports the 2 sentences it ends.

Finding what is online is proving tricky, but these do seem in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• i tried to link directly to the source page but couldn't always do it. auntieruth (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.