Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rhine campaign of 1795

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rhine Campaign of 1795

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... part of a series on the French Revolutionary Wars that ripped up Europe, and the better part of the world, in the 1790s. Extensive renovation since last A-class review. I look forward to your comments. auntieruth (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

I assessed this for GA, during its first visit to ACR and made a few suggestions while Auntieruth was subsequently working on it.

Optional: "Political terrain"? Perhaps 'Political background'? ″altered″
"the Rhine Ditch". Why is this in italics? removed
"Further to the north, the river became deeper and faster". Does your source definitely support this? I thought that in this stretch it became broader and slower, and meandered more. explained.
" For the French, the more German territory they could control, control of the Upper Danube would give the them a reliable approach to Vienna." I am not sure that this actually makes sense. fixed
"For the French, control of the Upper Danube would give the them a reliable approach to Vienna." In what way was the approach "reliable"? removed
Optional: "not only in terms of war aims but also in practical terms: the French Directory believed that war should pay for itself". I would replace the colon with a full stop. fixed
"and prepared for invasion". Is that 'and prepared to be invaded', or 'and prepared to invade'? fixed

In what way? It looks the same to me.

"By 1795, Pichegru was leaning heavily toward the Royalist cause. During the campaign, he accepted money from a British agent". Should events "during the campaign" not be covered in the section "Campaign of 1795", rather than one after the Aftermath section? In any event, I don't see what this paragraph has to do with the "School for marshals". No, Marshals is a title.
"The Army of the Rhine and Moselle (and its subsequent incarnations) included five future Marshals of France" You then list eleven men who served in the Army of the Rhine and Moselle and its subsequent incarnations and became marshals. So was it five or eleven or have I missed something? okay, it was 5 in Phipps' text, and 11 when you count them, so I took out the number and replaced it with "several"
an army could also use the river's flow to approach the Austrian capital" How? (Assuming they are marching and not swimming.) Yes, you know and I know the answer, because we are aficionados, but a reader wouldn't. removed. not really relevant to 1795 campaign
"engaged 12,000 Republican French soldiers" I think that you need to standardise on either "French" or "Republican French" throughout the article. fixed

You have one "Republican French" left, in " Wurmser, engaged 12,000 Republican French soldiers, commanded by Pichegru".

I would have thought that cadre was standard English and didn't need to be in italics. fixed

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got everything. auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Two outstanding queries above. Resolve them and give me a chance to have another browse through and I think that you will be getting a well earned support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

got them! :) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Ruth, great to see you back. I reviewed this in the earlier ACR, and have checked the edits since then. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the territory of these polities was not contiguous, a village... --> suggest a semi colon instead of the comma here done
Dufour's division was cut to pieces and Dufour was captured --> probably could replace the second "Dufour" with "he" here to save repetition done
Of the lessons learned in both 1794 and 1795, the Habsburgs may have concluded that they could not rely on their allies --> suggest attribution in text here, for instance, "Rothenberg speculates that that of the lessons...", or something similar fixed
is the surname "Pattison" or "Dunn-Pattison"? If the latter, then the work appears out of alphabetical order in the Sources fixed
further to the above, currently this author's name is presented as "Pattinson" in the article but the link is at "Pattison" fixed
in the Sources section, the ISBN that is provided for Phipps appears to be the same as that provided for Rothenberg 2007 fixed
- G'day, Ruth, I have adjusted this for you with this edit as I think you may have missed it earlier: [1] Can I please get you to check this is the correct isbn for your edition? (I was guessing at this from Worldcat). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the hyphenation of the ISBNs is inconsistent fixed
"Rothenberg, p. 39" and "Rothenberg, pp. 37–39" probably should employ something to clarify which work by Rothenberg (1973 or 2007) this refers to fixed
"fumbled" and "bungled" -- not sure about these terms as they seem potentially loaded I'm not sure what else to call them. It was a complete debacle, misuse of resources, loss/waste of manpower....
- Would something like this work: "The promising start to the French offensive ended when Pichegru lost an opportunity..."? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

changed per above, although that replacement text is an understatement! auntieruth (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources: look pretty good to me, although I caveat I am not an expert on this era. One query, though, the Rickard/History of War sources --- I have seen some editors express doubt about these elsewhere on Wikipedia. What is your take on their status as reliable sources?

Which is why I only cited them once, as background. They are very basic sources that sketch the bare outlines of the battles or skirmishes. I confirmed everything there with Smith. Since you questioned them, I took out the citation, and changed the header to "resources". auntieruth (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, thanks. In terms of reliability, Rickard appears to have some military history credentials per this [2], and the site also has other published authors contributing to it, so it is potentially ok as a source at least for some of the articles that fall in the authors' sphere of expertise. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Should use |upright= rather than fixed px size fixed

File:Rhein-Karte.png: first source link is dead I removed the dead link.

File:Battle_of_Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim_1795.jpg: source link is dead. fixed Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

in the lead, are the Army of the Lower Rhine and the Army of the Lower Rhine notable?

Yes, but there are no articles yet.

link Cologne, move link to Düsseldorf to first mention, Duisburg, move link to Mannheim to first mention, Strasburg, Basel, Kaiserslauten,
"The remaining units of the former..." what army were they united into?

The right flank of the Armée du Centre (Army of the Center) later the called the Armée de Moselle (Army of the Moselle), the entire Armée du Nord (Army of the North) and the Armée des Ardennes (Army of the Ardennes) were combined to form the Army of the Sambre and Meuse. The remaining units of the former Army of the Center and the Armée du Rhin (Army of the Rhine) were united, initially on 29 November 1794 and formally on 20 April 1795, under the command of Jean-Charles Pichegru. ?

Were the remaining units of the former Army of the Center and the Armée du Rhin (Army of the Rhine) included in the Army of the Sambre and Meuse, or were they part of another army? This isn't clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is the Army of Rhine and Moselle notable?

yes...It's linked.... fixed.

perhaps name and link both the Habsburg armies when introducing them in the Campaign section

redlinked

Dufour? full name and link? fixed.
link chasseurs à cheval
"defeated the left wing of the Army of the Rhine and Moselle at the Battle of Mainz:..." but isn't this following bit about Mannheim? Or should it be Mainz? This seems to have Mannheim first then Mainz? Confusing. fixed.
link Battle of Mannheim fixed.
is the Battle of Frankenthal likely to be notable? If not, link Frankenthal fixed.
suggest extending the piping of Siege of Mannheim to "invested by the Coalition" per WP:EASTEREGG fixed.
"this meant drafting raw recruits from the ten imperial circles, providing basic services and was authorized to act as he saw fit" who was authorized? and services, not training? fixed
suggest "Historians generally accept the French ~~results~~involvement ofin the Campaign of 1795 as an unmitigated disaster" fixed.
suggest introducing Comité before the quote. Was this the Directory, or something else? fixed. Directory. But Phipps uses the old reference.
suggest "a cadre of young French officers" if that is what is meant fixed.
suggest a comma after "and interference from the Directory" fixed.
who is Lazar Hoche? link? fixed.
Lefebvre in full and link at first mention fixed.
later, François Joseph Lefebvre→Lefebvre fixed.
link Michel Ney fixed.
who is Massena? link? fixed.
are there links for the "south German and Swiss campaigns"? fixed. I've added them.
Jean de Dieu Soult→Soult as he has already been introduced fixed.
is the Swiss campaign of 1799–1800 notable? link? fixed.
link Jean Baptiste Bessieres fixed.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you....would you check again? I have no way to search to make sure I got all the links right. auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 14 June 2019 (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.