Talk:Rhine campaign of 1796/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 19:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

GA on hold

Hi auntie, I'm back! I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and I think, as always, that its great, a really interesting examination of a complex campaign that I found very readable. I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, but I don't think there is a long way to go: I've listed below the principle problems. Well done on the work so far.

Lots of great work so far - give me a buzz when you think it's ready and don't feel any time pressure - I'll hold the review open as long as you need.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Just took a quick look to see how things are going and as always I'm amazed by the quality of the work that you are putting into this - as far as I am concerned the only thing still outstanding is the fortress garrison question below, although as I mentioned above I'll wait until you tell me you are ready for me to go over it again. Fantastic work--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

"After sending large reinforcements to Italy in May, Austria was forced onto the defensive." - is large the right adjective for reinforcements? Also, why were the Austrians on the defensive if they'd just sent in reinforcements?

"After Jourdan lured Charles to the north" - too many "afters".  Done

"Moreau was close enough to interfere with the operation. So, the archduke determined to launch an attack." might read better as "Moreau was close enough to interfere with the operation, so the archduke determined to launch an attack."  Done

"Ramsay Weston Phipps wondered why Moreau" - when?  Done

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

I think the lede needs a little more context - just a simple sentence or two explaining why French armies were invading Southern Germany and a link to the French Revolutionary Wars.  Done

"In a decree on 6 January 1796" As above here, there should be a little bit more context - how long had the war been going on - why were the French fighting in Germany and Italy simultaneously. Doesn't need to be complex, but should give a casual reader a bit more of an introduction.

"The garrisons of Mainz Fortress and Ehrenbreitstein Fortress counted 10,000 more" - in total or each?

Why do some battles have articles and others (Uckerath, Maudach, Renchen) don't? Given casualty comparisons it feels a little arbitrary. don['t have them written yet.

Just to be clear - I'm not of course thinking about holding up this GA until these articles are written, nor am I demanding that you write them at all necessarily, just that I wasn't sure why certain engagements were linked and others weren't. Red links alone are enough for the GA. --Jackyd101 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"Despite Charles' splendid success in Germany, Austria was losing the war in Italy to a new French army commander, Napoleon Bonaparte." This is in the lede, its a nice moment, but it doesn't appear later in the article - can this be followed up?  Done

Can you give more commentary on how this year's campaign left the situation in relation to what subsequently happened in 1797? What are the longer term implications of the campaign?  Done

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• @Jackyd101: I think I've got it covered now....Maybe Ishould remove the map? Or put in another set of coordinates for the middle Rhine? auntieruth (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm 100% which map you are referring to, but I think they all contribute to the article, and I leave the question of additional co-ordinates up to you. There is still one issue, can you clarify whether the 10,000 in the fortresses was per fortress or in total, as above? Otherwise, I think this is, as always, a phenomenal piece of work, congratulations!--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There were only about 2600 at Ehrenbreitstein. auntieruth (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant could you clarify it in the article?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I did.  :) auntieruth (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So you did . . . I was not paying attention to things yesterday apparently. Sorry about that. Promoted. And let me say again what an excellent piece of work this is, congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)