Talk:Battle of Stockach (1799)

Review by jackyd101
As I read through I'll leave a list of comments and then a summary of my thoughts at the end.


 * Watch for tenses - as this is an historical event, all tenses should be in the past (unless referring to something that still exists today). For example, "In the broader military context, this battle comprises a keystone in the first campaign" should be "comprised" instead.
 * The background detail section is problematic - the first two paragraphs go into too much detail about events seven years before the battle. We don't need to know how or why the French Revolutionary War broke out - it would be much more relevant to see the origins of the War of the Second Coalition and more detail on the campaign up until the battle.
 * added a paragraph on this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * second battle of the campaign, so....not too much else going on. Possibly could include Swiss campaign, but that was in early stages.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The cut down version you have there now is good, but I recommend an introductory sentance along the lines of "The French Revolutionary Wars broke out in 1794, and despite initial victories for the First Coalition forces at . . .--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The list of units of the Army of Danube is unneccesary (as is the long list of French commanders in the infobox as you have the Battle of Stockach (1799) Order of Battle article (which should be moved to Order of battle at the Battle of Stockach (1799). If you feel the need to list some of the army's major formations in this article then try to do it in a brief prose paragraph instead.
 * done (renamed article. Originally there was no Order of Battle article, hence the inclusion in the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article looks better without the list, but remember to link anyone who is now not linked at first mention. Go through the article and link all proper nouns and technical terms when they first appear.
 * PS, you also do not need so much information on commanders in the infobox as they are also represented in the seperate order of battle article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "cut the Austrian line at Switzerland" - Do you mean "in Switzerland"?
 * "The two armies faced each other across this small valley and by 7 March, the first French forces arrived there" - this doesn't make sense, how can the French arrive after the armies have faced one another?
 * duh. yeah. :) fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Lefebvre, wounded at Ostrach, was still out of commission" - try to avoid turns of phrase like "out of commission" and say unfit for service instead. Such things can be confusing for people reading this from othe cultures or languages and don't scan well in a Wikipedia article.
 * fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Move the link to the order of battle to the head of the section - it gets lost in the text where it is.
 * fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I think was mentioned in the GA review, it would be nice to have more detail regarding the actual fighting, although I understand if this simply isn't available.
 * "instead of pursuing the French, he ordered his army into cantonments" - is this Archduke Charles?
 * "(see bibliography below)" - this aside doesn't really tell us anything. It would be much better to create a footnote explaining which historians stated this and which (if any) disagreed with it. See one I created at Battle of the Nile that summarises differing historical opinion).
 * "Others [who?] did [what?] as well," clarify this.
 * "From his exile on Elba, Napoleon" - give the date (this was 15 years later!)
 * "Furthermore, Napoleon argued, Jourdan had retreated" - this is a fact, not an argument: what is Napoleon trying to say here? (are the words "should have" missing?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats my review, on the whole a nice article on a poorly covered subject (in English at least). I think there is still a little work to do, but it has the grounding to be a very good piece of work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * very poorly covered! Thanks for the review, and I'll incorporate what you've suggested in the next couple of weeks. I've found an additional source (in German), and I can perk up the map a bit with what I learn from that.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)