Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Dürenstein/archive1

Jappalang's comments

Lede

• "... Corps Mortier, ..."

  Does "Mortier" need to be italicized? "Corps Mortier" seems a proper noun, and the MOS does not seem to recommend such typesetting... Although the half italicized name is used later in the main text (Dispositions and the header French Corps Mortier), it is also fully italicized at one point (another part of Dispositions), making the naming inconsistent.

I think it does, according to MOS. first, it is a foreign word, so it should be italicized, second, it is consistent within the article.

Not quite. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to (see [[Words as words)." "Corps Mortier" is a proper name, as such none of its two words need to be italicized. I brought up the consistency issue because previously, it was called "Corps Mortier" two times, and "Corps Mortier" once. Regardless, in light of the MOS, all mentions should not be italicized. Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the italics, but I still think it is incorrect. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, this cannot be capped... so using strikethrough to show it has been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Danube campaign

• "... an alliance of Portugal, Sweden, Russia, Naples and Sicily, Great Britain and eventually Austria and Prussia fought the ..."

  This seems structually weird to me (the number of "and"s in one sentence)... Could we go with something like "... an alliance of Portugal, Sweden, Russia, Great Britain, Naples and Sicily fought the ... Austria and Prussia joined the alliance in ...", separating the belligerents or such.

  • • In the War of the Third Coalition 1803–1806, Portugal, Sweden, Russia, Naples and Sicily, Great Britain, Austria and Prussia fought the First French Empire and its client states. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Despite Charles' methodical plan of reorganization, Karl Mack, Lieutenant Field Marshal and the Quartermaster-General of the Army, had engaged in several competing field reorganizations, ..."

  A bit confused here... By "several competing field reorganizations", do you mean that Mack went against Charles' plans in organizing the army?

  that is exactly what it means. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Road to Ulm

• "... the 1. Regiment of dragoons ..."

  Is this supposed to be "I. Regiment"? Are there any alternative names ("the First Regiment", "the 1st Regiment", etc)? "1. Regiment" is a tad weird...

  the French used Roman numerals for Corps, so this would be correct, and within the standard as I read it.

• "... in a singular success ..."

  What does this mean, especially when it is prefixing a statement of defensive arragement?

  it was actually the only victory the Austrians had of the Ulm campaign (singular success), but I removed it.

• "In this engagement alone, the Austrians lost more than half their reserve artillery park, 6,000 (out of 8,000 total participants) dead, wounded and captured, and four field guns and four colors lost."

  Are the figures for the reserve artillery park? Also note the grammar, "... the Austrians lost ... four colors lost."

  fixed. Thanks for noting that.

• "Mack's misreading of the French dispositions resulted in the consolidation of the Austrian forces near Ulm; as each separate unit was defeated, the remaining Austrians withdrew into the fortification there."

  Logically, this seems conflicting to me. "Consolidation" seems positive to me (despite the "misreading"). I suggest, "Mack misread the French dispositions and scattered his forces; as each separate unit was defeated, the surviving Austrians withdrew into the fortification at Ulm." I would also link Battle of Ulm to "Karl Mack surrendered" in the later sentence instead.

  very nice. Thanks, I'll use your wording.

Prelude to battle

• "... Dürenstein, which stands at the end of chain of hills extending to the river channel."

  The town of Dürenstein extends to the river channel?

  No, that would require the comma after hills. The chain of hills extends to the river channel, and D lies at the foot (end) of those hills, between the hills and the river channel.

• "The dark fir rising behind the old walls set them apart." I took that out.

  Set which two apart: walls and ruins, or ruins and rocks?

• "Since the 15th century, the local inhabitants practiced viticulture (growing of grapes) and ..."

  Readers need not jump to another article to get an inkling of the term with this exposition.

  • • I don't like putting the def in parens, but I modified the sentence and its surroundings to make it clearer. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispositions

• "This failure became important ..."

  Important to what or whom?

  for everyone.

• "... giving Kutuzov plenty of warning of an approach of scale."

  Not too certain this is a common phrasing...

  did a few tweaks, should be clearer now.

Battle

• "... a Russian column under command of Major General Strik began its passage ..."

  I thought it was "Brigadier General Strik"?

  conflicting sources, but I've changed to Major General. If he had been a brigadier, his name would appear as commander of a column.

• "Mortier committed his remaining forces to driving Miloradovich back, which meant he left a single battalion ..."

  I do not see how committing "his remaining forces" would mean leaving behind "a single battalion".

  Mortier committed his most of remaining forces to drive Miloradovich back, leaving a single battalion—perhaps 300 troops—to cover his northern flank,

• "Within 30 minutes, he achieved the superiority of numbers he sought: 4,500 French opposed 2,600 Russians, and forced them back toward Stein, while pressing an attack along the river."

  I do not think the colon is supposed to be used in this manner...

  It could be, but I've changed it to a period, and a new sentence.

• "With the additional force, the French were overwhelmed, but, in the darkness, most of the shooting ceased."

  I am not certain "overwhelmed" is the right word here, since it would imply that the French were defeated there.

  yes. they were.

Aftermath

• "Dupont had demonstrated his leadership: when he heard cannon fire, he directed his troops toward it to support the French Division."

  Hearing cannon fire and directing troops toward it does not sound like a leadership trait to me.

  If you're a general, and you hear cannons, and you don't go to the battle field, what kind of leadership is this?

  It demonstrates nothing of leadership, but instinctiveness (tactical acumen). Leadership is the sum of several qualities, such as decisiveness, tactical acumen, and principally, the ability to motivate and convince others to follow one's ideas. Dupont's action here was more in the line of one aspect of leadership (tactical acumen), not the whole. Unless the source specifically state directing troops toward the sound of cannon fire as a quality of leadership (which one should then state the person who states that), the display of one aspect does not qualify the whole. Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • • • nice wording. Actually, Napoleon did think it a matter of leadership, but I'm not going into that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Furthermore, their officer corps was released only on the condition it not fight until exchanged."

  I am afraid I cannot fully comprehend this sentence...

  the officers had to be exchanged. Officers weren't locked up in a prison camp, they were released to go home, on their word that they wouldn't fight again until "exchanged" for another officer.

  I am still not clear here. Do you mean the captured soldiers (let us say Mr. Bean) could go home but they could not join their army on the field again unless the leaders of the armies agreed (in writing or of some official form) that Mr. Bean has been exchanged for Mr. Sully or such? Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • • • You've got it now. I've added a bit to clarify the sentence. See if it makes sense now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "... a successful skirmish Nördlingen between the retreating the escaped cavalry and the French, ..."

  Again, this is something I failed to comprehend: what is Nördlingen?

  a town. I've linked it.

Battlefield commemorations

• "... at the Stein Tor, the gate leading from the old village of Krems to the hamlet of Stein, the site of heavy fighting."

  Was Stein Tor or Stein the referred site of heavy fighting?

  yes. Stein Tor is at Krems, and a few dozen meters away is the village of Stein.

  To clarify, "the site of heavy fighting" (the referencing of just one site) is referring to the Stein Tor or the village of Stein? Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • • clarified. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Why are there underscores as authors for A Biographical Dictionary of all Austrian Generals in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 1792–1815 and Napoleon's Regiments?

  do you mean ___. Biographical.... etc.? Because it's the same as above. Digby Smith. This is a standard bibliographic entry. I guess I don't understand your question. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, I see; however, is that the standard way to point out books by the same previous author? In most of the other articles, the author's name is simply repeated for the other books. Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • • Yes, but since you seem to have a problem with it, I've taken them out an included the author's name. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just the above as of this revision. Jappalang (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated from this revision. Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous issues (above) resolved as of this version. Jappalang (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)