Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rhine campaign of 1796

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rhine Campaign of 1796

[edit]
Nominator(s): auntieruth55

Rhine Campaign of 1796 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because ... working this year of the French Revolutionary Wars toward a featured topic status....this is the overview article for the group. Several of the sub articles are already at Featured article. auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: epic article, Ruth, well done. I will have to defer reading it all for the weekend, but at the moment I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Notes and citations section, there is a third level header for Notes, but nothing appears to be included in this subsection. I suggest splitting the Notes out from the Citations to fill out this subsection;
  • in the References section, is there an OCLC number for the Chandler work?
  • the duplicate link checker identifies quite a few potentially overlinked terms: Levee en masse, Rhine Campaign of 1795, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser, Renchen, Main (river), Wilhelm von Wartensleben, Imperial circles, Jean Baptiste Jourdan, Army of Sambre-et-Meuse, Army of Rhin-et-Moselle, Schaffhausen, Black Forest... et al (if you install the script I have linked, you will see what I mean);
  • I've tried installing this, I already had one. I can use the dupe detector once, and then it disables, and disappears from my choices!!! very frustrating!
  • "main force of 27,0000 infantry": should this be "27,000" or "270,000"; fixed
  • "Philippart, p. 127. and Alison, pp. 88–89. Smith, p. 132" --> "Philippart, p. 127; Alison, pp. 88–89; Smith, p. 132"?
  • I'lll fix those things...In the notes section, I moved "notes" to footnotes/citations because of the most recent snarl up on Battle of Rossbach at FA. BrianBoulton doesn't like my citation style, and objected to my having a slightly different citation format for Notes than for citations. I can readily put it back, which is why I left the "Notes" section intact. What do you think? auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I definitely think the notes and citations should be separate, but don't want to set you up for failure at FA. Reading Brian's comment I think his comments might have potentially been misunderstood slightly. I think he was after adding citations to notes, so the that reference information inside the note was displayed with a blue ref, alongside the content of the note. For instance "Habsburg infantry wore white coats.[1]". Anyway, looking at how it currently is in this article, I'm not too concerned, but I'd argue potentially that "Note 4" as currently presented was a citation, not a note. That is possibly just splitting hairs, though, so . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a slight inconsistency in how you present ISBNs. Some have hyphens and some don't ok, now they all have the same hyphen.
  • there is slight grammatical error here: "only 37,000 men and 60 guns oppose more than 50,000 Allied troops in the theater" ' looking for it...should be opposed
  • there is a slight inconsistency in presentation here: "150,000 prisoners, 170 standards, 500 pieces of heavy artillery, 600 field pieces, five pontoon trains, 9 ships of the line, 12 frigates..." (specifically "9" but also "five") fixed
  • I've done a little copy editing tonight, but am still working through reading the rest of the article, which I will try to do tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Resources for further reading section: typo here: "17879–1815" AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent date presentation: "Retrieved 2011-01-07" v "Retrieved 30 April 2014" This is fixed.
  • refs 17 & 18 aren't consistently presented (compare also with ref 36) they are exactly the same. at least they look that we to me.
  • "Accessed" v "Retrieved": suggest making these terms consistent in the citations. This is fixed.

Comments by Keith

[edit]
  • Did a cheeky little ce, put the text through the Word splendidiser and found a few typos, homogenised the citations, hyphenated the isbns, added a few missing ones and rm deprecated author= in favour of last= first=. Rv as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few long citations with biblio details in them, when there is a full entry in the Biblio section. Wouldn't it be better to limit cites to <ref>Brown, 1997, p. 21</ref>? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ce looks good, I'll go through in more detail. I don't like the single refs. I'd rather list a bibliography for people who want more information, keep the citations to full citation first, then shortened citation thereafter. When a reader points to citation, the whole citation shows up, but if it just says "Brown, p. 62" then they don't know who/what/which Brown etc. auntieruth (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth your while to try sfns to save repetition. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried those, find it incredibly cumbersome, and annoying. auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I find them the opposite but it's your decision so tally ho! ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264:, so is this support? auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264:, is this support? Or are there more revisions you'd like? Please change the header, if there are no further issues. auntieruth (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either way; apols I don't know which header you mean. regardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maury

[edit]
To start, I note that this article has taken a tremendous amount of effort to write, and in general the topic is important and interesting. But as it stands, I think it needs some attention in terms of organization.
My largest concern, and this is true of the majority of articles I review, is that there are numerous instances of paragraphs of material that are constructed almost at random. Consider the "Political terrain" section, which consists of a single enormous paragraph that covers three entirely different topics (physical, political, administrative) and jumps around between them. Then there is the first paragraph of "background", which includes all sorts of what appear to be separate topics. I believe cleaning this up will improve the article greatly.
So much of what follows are suggestions on how to break up this material and re-arrange it into self-consistent topics. Here goes...
Minor stuff:
  • You have a lot of italic text that is in English. Generally, you only italicize the first instance of a term, and then only if it's not being used in the typical fashion so you're trying to draw attention to it. Things like "Army of the Sambre-et-Meuse" should not generally be italicized (I think).
  • The text has "the archduke", "archduke charles" and "charles". Pick one! I strongly suggest using "Charles".
  • "threatened ambiguous but quite serious" = comma before "but"
  • "war on Austria. In this" - para break
  • "had been executed. The" - para break
  • "into worse chaos. From 1793 to" - para break
  • "but the thin white line" - appears to be editorializing, or is this a term people use like "thin red line"? If so it needs explaination, if not, removal.
  • "the old mountains created dark shadows on the horizon" - aren't all mountains old? And don't they all create dark shadows on the horizon? This should just be removed, this isn't a gothic horror novel.
  • "of Bavaria and Prussia. The governance" - para break.
  • "such as Württemberg. When viewed on a map" - para break. and likely better placed above, just before "The governance"
  • "by Strasbourg, and Hüningen, by Basel" - trailing comma - missing text or just typo?
  • "theater of war. Jean" - para break
  • "Germany. By the spring of 1796" - para break
  • "Knowing that the French planned" - would this not be better placed directly after "In a decree"? this has to do with generalities, not the specifics that follow.
  • "southern France. The First French" - and it seems this very interesting statement should be the last statement in Background (see below)
  • "Switzerland. The original" - para break
  • "districts of the Empire. In Spring 1796" - para break
  • "Archduke Charles withdrew the Austrian forces from the Rhine's west bank" - soooo, this was the whole French plan right? If so, it appears they have at this point a major success, and I think that deserves being called out.
  • "Afterward the duke became a harsh critic" - which duke, Württemberg? Say that.
  • "reapportioned" - jargon, repositioned? redistributed?
  • "ammunition wagons.[26] Moreau reinforced" - para break
  • "three field pieces.[31] By this time Archduke " - para break
  • "exit from the war and mid-July, Moreau's army" - "and by mid-July"
  • "Jourdan lost no time in recrossing the Rhine at Neuwied" - I am not clear if this was part of the plan or not? In any event, it seems to have had the right outcome by drawing Charles north?
  • "Similarly, though, Moreau and Jourdan faced similar" - too many "similar"
  • "3,000 men.[36] In the north" - para break
  • "to observe Charles.[48] South of the " - para break
  • "Sambre-et-Meuse. In the Battle of Amberg" - para break
  • "the 20th Moreau" - missing comma
  • "On that day Moreau sent Jourdan a misleading message vowing to closely follow Charles" - why? this is an interesting statement yet there's no explanation of what happened here.
  • "case of retreat. Anticipating Jourdan's move" - para break
  • "Over the next few days, Jourdan's" - should be above the summary table.
  • "Instead of burning the bridge, Petrasch's men had plundered the French camp" - how are these two statements connected by "instead"? The bridge is not mentioned anywhere else, were they supposed to burn it and failed to? Or is it more like "Petrasch's men did not burn the bridge, but did plunder..." Using "instead" suggests there is a default actiion here, or an either/or situation.
  • "Moreau's trains took" - baggage trains, and link to it - the average reader will not be familiar with this concept
  • "troops in the theater. Nevertheless, Napoleon" - para break
  • "eastward towards Austria. After a brief campaign" - para break
Less minor:
  • I find the entire first paragraph of the Background section quite confusing. It covers many topics that should be in separate paragraphs, and makes many statements that call for a deeper understanding that is not explained in the text. For instance...
    • The text assumes we understand why France declared war on Austria, but this is not at all clear to me. Why not the HRE? Or both? The statement immediately prior is about French émigrés, but I don't think that is directly responsible for war on Austria, unless there is some connection that's not mentioned. It appears that they declared largely as the result of Pilnitz, but given that was signed in Germany, why did they declare against Austria instead? I think this needs some explanation, and I would suggest taking the paragraph apart and rebuilding it.
    • "The Reign of Terror plunged French" - this statement just sort of floats there - was this due to the unrest, or part of it?
    • "material support. After April 1796" - how was it paid before then? I assume paper, but the following text could be read to suggest they weren't being paid at all. And for the modern reader, who may never see paper money let alone metal, it is not clear why paper money would be an issue - assuming that is the issue.
    • "The French commanders understood" - again, this statement is just kind of floating. It doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with the preceding statements, it's not clear how the two parts connect through the "furthermore", and the last part seems to precede the events described above it. At a minimum, this should be two separate sentences, but I suspect they should be part of their own paragraph explaining why the French wanted to enter Germany? See below also..
  • Likewise, the geography section needs work.
    • I cannot understand the purpose of the first paragraph of the Geography section. Much of it is just trivia which has nothing to do with the topic of this article and simply confuses the reader. As some (most?) of these sections of the Rhine do not come into the article at all, they should either be brief or removed.
    • The second paragraph does seem to be more useful in terms of explaining that a crossing could be difficult, but again includes details that don't seem germane to the topic, especially as some take place decades or even centuries later. If the goal is to describe the Rhine at the time and place of the topic being discussed, then it should describe the Rhine at the time and place of the topic being discussed.
    • This section fails to mention that the French were already across the Rhine, and a description of the area around the bridgehead would seem useful.
    • And as only the opening parts of the battle take place on or near the river, and that the rest range over the greater part of southern Germany, some description of the interior seems like a good idea.
  • "The Battle of Neresheim on 11 August" - this is the turning point, so it should be above the summary table! Generally, tables should be at the end of their sections.
  • "Moreau offered Charles an armistice" - this should be an entirely different section, perhaps "armistice"
  • Commentary should be after Aftermath in order to keep the article flowing chronologically

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a *few* more, but we've hit the main ones. I was hoping to do this this week but a nasty dose of norovirus put a crimp in my plans. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm back @Auntieruth55:. Here we go...
Geography - this still needs work. There's a lot of detail in here that has nothing to do with this article. From what I can see, the armies involved were all camped well north of Basel, so the entire description above "At Basel" should be removed IMHO. The rest appears to describe only the portion faced by Moreau, and unless I'm reading it wrong, there's no description of the area around Jourdan. And finally, all of this focusses solely on the river, which is important only for a section of the article. There's no description of the overall area. I'd be happy to take a whack at this myself. done
French organization - I've broken this up further and made some minor re-arrangements. However, I'm curious about the "led Moreau's far right wing" part. This addds a level of detail that I'm not sure the article needs, given that the body is about their movements. Further, there's no corresponding section for Jourdan's disposition. I'd suggest just removing this. done
"Over the next few days" - should this be above the table? It seems to talk about events that are about half way into the table, not after all of it. done
That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entire right wing of Moreau's army was camped on the French side at Basel/Huningen. Crossed at Huningen and proceeded east. The point of including this info about the Rhine is that it provide the German states with a clear defensive (or offensive) barrier. I'll move the"over the next few days...", but I think the remainder should stay. auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: I've re read what you tweaked, and I'm fine with it. I moved the bit on the far right wing to a note. auntieruth (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz:, Maury, if there are no further revisions, does this mean support? If so, would you change "comments" to "support"....auntieruth (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still have problems with the Geography section, but at this point I'm in the midst of a major new article so I don't have time to fix this. So support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it some more. Hope it's clearer. auntieruth (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "ideally capturing the city and forcing the Holy Roman Emperor into a surrender and acceptance of French Revolutionary ideals." May wish to change this to:
    "ideally capturing the city and forcing the Holy Roman Emperor into a surrender, and Austria into acceptance of French Revolutionary ideals.", unless this is meant to imply that the Holy Roman Emperor was to be kept on as ruler in event of French Victory, which seems unlikely due to Napoleon's (somewhat ironic) love of nepotism.
  • "any declaration of war on the Habsburgs, who were Holy Roman Emperors, brought all of the Holy Roman Empire into war." was this one sided mutual defence inherent in being Emperor of HRE, or did the Habsburgs force the issue/call in favors?
  • "whose principal qualifications may have been their loyalty to the Revolution instead their military acumen." change to:
    "whose principal qualifications may have been their loyalty to the Revolution rather than their military acumen."
  • Not a suggestion, but I'd like to congratulate you on your "Political terrain" section; its very well developed and organized (something many or even most articles about HRE organization lack.)
  • "numbered 63,000, including reserves and garrisons." does the "including" apply to both armies, or merely Napolean's? If it is both, I'd recommend adding "both numbers" in front of "including".
  • That is all my comments; happy to support as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Rhine_campaign_of_1796&oldid=920340633"