Talk:Battle of Ettlingen/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 20:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Some questions:
 * prose
 * *Why are Habsburg armies in italics? Subquestion of that, do we need an OOB article/list on Charles' Army? This would obviate some of the need for the high level of detail included in each of the articlkes.
 * I always put army names in italics. I must have seen it somewhere and liked it. As far as the OOB, this seems like a debatable situation. I have in the past created or updated OOB articles. For big battles like Waterloo or Jena it makes perfect sense, but I am not convinced that it is necessary to do this for a somewhat obscure battle such as Ettlingen. I believe that one group of people likely to visit this article would be wargamers and they love OOBs. Also, I use the narrative form rather than a list because an editor once took me to task for putting an OOB list in an article. Djmaschek (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Archduke Charles planned to attack the French on the 10th. But after conferring with Desaix and Saint-Cyr at Renchen, Moreau mounted his own assault on 9 July 1796 This doesn't make sense.  First, we shouldn't begin sentences with "but" ....  Second, did Moreau know that Charles was going to attack on the 10th?
 * ✅ Good catch! Rewrote: After conferring with Desaix and Saint-Cyr at Renchen, Moreau mounted his assault on 9 July 1796. This decision preempted Archduke Charles, who had planned to attack the French on the 10th.
 * Dodge citation needs and ndash.


 * Images
 * maybe put the cannonballs-in-rock in the box?
 * ✅ Other pictures were shifted to avoid bunching.
 * Lecourbe image needs author/artist info
 * ✅ Used a better-referenced Lecourbe picture.
 * I like the map, btw.

Oh, I forgot, also, two dupes, one in lead (Rhine) and in Operations (Mannheim) If you have a reason for this, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I gues they have to be sorted. As usual, very good work, readable, nice flow (although some of the OOB details can be boggling). Let me know when you've addressed these issues. auntieruth (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good eye on the dup catches. Djmaschek (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)