Talk:Battle of Winterthur/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "had wrested control of parts of Switzerland, the Helvetic Republic from the French" - there seems to be some punctuation missing here, as it doesn't quite make sense. You are definitely right there. :)  
 * "out of the Grisons" - is "the Grisons" correct? Please link it as well. Also the word pushed/pushing is repeated, try to find a synonym. Yes, they are mountains in Gräubunden and they are now linked.
 * "armies of Hotze and Nauendorf" - This is the first time Nauendorf is mentioned, please give his full name and link him. got it.
 * " On 22 May, Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf led a large column across the Rhine at Stein and Eglisau, while Hotze led another column across the upper part of the river, before it entered the lake," - firstly you need to give the year again, and secondly you need to clarify that it was the river, not the column, that entered the lake. long swim Indeed!
 * "was drubbed;" drubbed is not an encyclopedic term, switch it for beaten, defeated etc. Does this encounter have an article? If not do you plan to create one? wasn't planning on it, not really much info, except in Jomini
 * "Regardless, Hotze managed to extricate" - regardless isn't quite right here, I suggest removing it. I fixed this. It's actually somewhat important because he could havve been stopped there.
 * "Ney decided to take the opportunity to attack" - repetition of "attack" fixed
 * "Once the union took place (in early June)" - what union? I assume Austrian armies, but you need to clarify this. fixed
 * "despite specific, and direct orders" - comma in the wrong place, please remove it. it needed a second comma; added.
 * "@8000 men" - Thats not what @ means, and it is incorrectly used here. If you want approximately, then use ~ instead. ''fixed
 * "Walther's cavalry" -find a better link 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):
 * Big problems in the background section. Firstly, there is far too much information about the outbreak of the War of the First Coalition, which is largely irrelevant to this article and should be significantly reduced - the first three paragraphs can comfortably be merged into one. You then leap directly from the Treaty of Campo Formio to the aftermath of Stockach, which means that we have no no idea how or when the War of the Second Coalition broke out or what happened during the first few months - you actually explain it better in the lead than in the main body of the article! This whole section therefore needs significant work.
 * Improvements certainly, but there are still problems here. I recommend the following, some of which are more important than others. 1) The first three paragraphs can still be quite comfortably cut down into one 2) The "other factors" paragraph is tangental to the subject to this article and can be cut 3) the final four paragraphs can be merged into two and come under a second level (===) heading such as "German campaign of 1799 or similar".--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * condensed, etc. Much shorter now.


 * "Opposite him, Michel Ney" - You need to introduce (and link) Ney in either the background or preliminaries sections before discussing him here?
 * "Shot in the knee, he had his wound bandaged, called for another horse, and entered the fight again" - what happened to his first horse? fixed
 * You don't really describe the battle - I can guess that Ney's men attacked in column and were driven back by the Austrians as they advanced up the hill, but you don't make it clear. You also only just about touch on the Austrian counter attacks on the flank, can we have more detail here? This all needs expanding. will check Jomini, not much else out there.
 * This makes more sense now, I think your slight reorganising has pulled it into line, good work. (You might notice that previously I had the whole thing the wrong way around - I thought it was a French attack on Austrian positions, not the reverse - its much clearer now).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The action also demonstrated the weakness of the French command system" - how? This isn't clear from your description of the battle at all. The action also demonstrated the weakness of the French command system, in which personal animosity and competition between high ranking officers, in this case, Soult and Tharreau, undermined French military objectives. ??  This is also the beginning of the Soult-Ney rivalry, which undermined the Peninsular war.
 * Again, this is now clearer, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The locale section is very short, and would be better as a sub-section (=== size heading) of the background section. done locale section expanded a bit
 * 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:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * As on the talk page, I strongly suggest the article is moved to Battle of Winterthur (1799), but this is not essential to passing GA. I'm not sure it should qualify as a battle.  It was certainly not a "general engagement", which seems to be the more widely accepted criterion.
 * There really isn't a formal distinction between "battle", "action", "skirmish" or any other possible term, and battle is the normal expression if there is no defined term (and Smith's definitions are not binding by any means). As I said, I recommend the article is moved, but you don't have to if you don't want to.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the image of Winterthur, as with your article on Stockach, should go in the infobox instead of its present position. done, and although there needed to be an image in the box, this helped with understanding the layout of the battle in the section where it had been.  Smith calls it an "action".
 * I do understand that, and this is not essential. I like the image where it is now, but you don't need to keep it there if you don't want to.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm ready to pass now, excellent work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)