Talk:Battle of Kehl (1796)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I will look to post a review of this article against the GA criteria over the next couple of days. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments/suggestions
 * This is an excellent article in my opinion. I have a few comments/suggestions (some of them linked to the GA criteria and some not):
 * in the lead, the sentence beginning "Kehl is located..." seems a little tacked on...perhaps if it was worked into a different sentence it might flow a little better. For instance: "The crossing at Kehl, located in the state of...offered the French...blah blah..."
 * done
 * in the lead, why is "Army of the Upper Rhine" in italics?
 * done
 * please add a link to Louis on first mention;
 * done
 * "The imperial army had laid siege to Kehl, but the garrison there had successfully defended themselves". --> can a date be added here to add a little more context
 * removed. too much detail
 * which army was the "imperial army"? The French? It doesn't seem to have been introduced clearly;
 * removed. It was from a different campaign.
 * is there an inline citation that could be added for the fact that French infantry had two kinds?
 * I'll try to find one
 * inconsistent presentation: "21st century" v. "twenty-first century" and "eighteenth century"
 * one of the links for Latour is to Maximillian and another is to Theodor Franz, is this correct? If one was the son and one was the father, can this be made a little clearer?
 * "the archbishopric of Trier" --> "the Archbishopric of Trier"?
 * done
 * "In total, though, Charles’ troops stretched.." has Charles been introduced yet? I wasn't quite sure who this was referring to;
 * fixed
 * "Wurmser’s troops stretched..." Again, has Wurmser been formally introduced yet?
 * fixed. Will introduce him later.
 * "in May 1796, in the border town of Zweibrücken, the 74th revolted..." 74th Regiment?
 * as above for 17th and 84th;
 * inconsistent presentation: "imperial" and "Imperial";
 * well, not really. there were imperial cities (generic term), and the Imperial army, which is something different and usually specific.
 * "Ferino led Moreau's right wing at Hüningen..." probably should use Moreau's full name and appointment here as it is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article;
 * fixed
 * within the Attack section, is there an appropriate subheading that could be added to balance with the "Simultaneous crossings" header? Perhaps "Main crossing"?
 * done
 * is this a typo: "preceded the main force of 27,0000 infantry"? Should it be "27,000"?
 * fixed
 * "eight thousand of Charles' men executed a dawn attack on the Swabian camp of the remaining three thousand Swabian and Condé’s immigrant troops, disarmed them, and impounded their weapons". This is an interesting point, can we clarify why this occured? Were they considered unreliable?
 * no, the Swabian circle was occupied by the French, so Charles disarmed the men, and they went home. Added to article.
 * are the strengths and losses cited in the infobox, also in the body of the article? I couldn't seem to find them;
 * done
 * the Battle of Ettlingen is mentioned in the lead as the next battle, but does not appear to be mentioned in the Aftermath
 * done.
 * overall the images appear to be correctly licenced, although I'm not sure about "File:Plan Strasbourg 1720.png". Currently it has "Source: Own work", a date of 1720 and a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence. This doesn't seem right. The photograph might be own work, but the underlying map isn't. If it is a photograph taken by the uploader, the copyright status of the map also needs to be clarified. So I think it needs a different licence at least. The source also needs to be clarified, i.e. did it come from a book or a website, or was it a photograph of the map itself taken by the uploader while the map was in a museum? If the last one, does freedom of panorama apply? Sorry, this one is confusing me and I'm not sure I can provide appropriate guidance...
 * the Earwig tool reveals no copyright concerns: (no action required)
 * great!
 * Thanks for having a look at this. I think I've addressed all your queries.  auntieruth (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruth, your changes look great. I've made a couple of minor adjustments - please check these for accuracy. The image concern above remains outstanding, but as I said I'm not certain how to fix this so I will pass the article with the caveat that I think you will need to check the licencing on this image prior to A-class or FAC. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)