Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Dürenstein/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010.

Battle of Dürenstein

 * Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it fills a wikigap, and generally a B I G gap, in coverage of the Danube campaign between the surrender of Ulm (a big event) and the Battle of Austerlitz (another big event). It has been through some serious scrutiny by the project, and others, and I hope it's ready. Citation style is slightly different. I'm experimenting, and where there are duplicate consecutive references, I've used the name citation template. Thanks in advance for your constructive comments! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Is there some reason you have capitals in "Order of B attle" and "Allied C olumns"? And a change in citation style—courageous indeed. Ucucha 17:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A "column" was a formation, like a Corps or a Division, and it was a specific name. I'm not married to the Order of Battle (changed), it could be Order of battle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I thought it was courageous of me to try something different. ;) thanks for noticing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Ucucha 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * "Databook" or "Data Book"? You use both in the notes. done
 * Current ref 15 (Stadt Krems..) just has a numbered link, it needs a titled link same for its listing in the bibliography. done THANKS~
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support for an overall wonderful article. However, I had a few concerns. For starters, the last part in the lead about Napoleon marrying Marie Louise puzzled me. That happened in 1810 and was not related to the immediate aftermath of Austerlitz. It really should not appear in this article. Also, I think the article could benefit from an additional copyedit to make the prose flow better. Right now there's way too many semicolons that butcher the prose in several spots. Ignoring or satisfying this last request won't affect my supportive decision, but you definitely want to remove the part about Napoleon's marriage to Marie Louise. UBER ( talk ) 02:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Image review concern -
 * File:Austerlitz1805 Alombert1.jpg: the source should not point to the exact image link but from the page, which is hosting the image; thus, it should be http://www.napoleon-online.de/html/1805karten.html, which thankfully gives its sources. This map was published during 1902–08; unless the deaths of Jean Lambert Alphonse Colin and Paul Claude Alombert-Goget are known, their copyright status in France (source of origin) is unknown. The map is public domain in the US by virtue of pre-1923 publishing.  Therefore, it should be stored on Wikipedia instead of Commons unless the deaths of Colin and Alombert-Goget are known.  Jappalang (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Colin, Jean-Lambert-Alphonse, 1864-1917 and Paul Claude Alombert-Goget, b. 1857. according to LOC. I'm looking for a death date. The book this is from is published in 1903, and is in public domain (it is on Google books, at least), but I have difficulties scanning pages from there, so I found the copy of the page on the other site.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for replacing the monument image with a free one! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems; images are now cleared with the provided deaths of the cartographers(?). Jappalang (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Historians. we can be cartographers too sometimes. ;)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazing. I knew that, and it still got in there. Oh well.  I did take it out. And I took out a few of the semi-colons. Not all of them, but some. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Support * Comments : There are some issues, as detailed in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Dürenstein/archive1, I would like to be addressed before I feel comfortable throwing in my support for this article. I have some confusion with parts of the content. Although I did some copyediting, I would prefer if another editor, more experienced and "powerful" in prose, were to take a gander and further tighten the language. Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Support This article has come a long way since I initially assessed it as B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone through your comments on the talk page. Thanks for such a careful review of the article. I think I've addressed them all, by rewriting several areas myself or adopting your prose. Thanks for your comments!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have updated my comments based on your changes and inputs. Jappalang (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comments on the talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After copyediting and having my concerns resolved on the talk page, I think I still would be much more comfortable to make a decision if someone more experienced were to copyedit the article. Could you find someone to do so?  Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * sure. I'll ask someone to do so. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jappalang, I LOVE what you did with the chart and the map!!! Beautiful!  Thanks so very much!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems, tis what I can help. I have read the article again, and I believe the prose has improved significantly.  The illustrated article is a comprehensive look at one battle of the Napoleonic Wars&mdash;teaching in brief the wind-up to this battle, the flow of the battle, and the aftermath.  I would like to complain about the last section where it seems the information is dealt with as trivia ("The battle appears in this.").  However, I think Auntieruth has done superbly here by titling the section "Battlefield commemorations"; hence putting things (which are put into context rather than tossed in) in focus here.  I am happy to support this article for FA.  Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support, and your effort on this. I particularly like what you did with the chart and the map, and I particularly object to what happened with the cites and the bibliography. I've brought this up on your talk page, and we can continue the conversation there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Support now, was  Comments  by Ruhrfisch. As requested I have taken a look at the article. While I am close to supporting, there are some issues I would like to see addressed before that.
 * Perhaps a place to provide context to the reader Political conflicts in Vienna delayed Austria's entry into the war [of the third coalition] until 1805. (my capitalization is probably not consistent, but you get the idea)
 * good idea. fixed.


 * Clarify which hostilities ended in 1800 here: After hostilities ended in 1800, Archduke Charles, the emperor's brother, developed a military restructuring plan ...
 * Another good idea. fixed.


 * Say this was at Ulm? On 16 October, Karl Mack surrendered his encircled army of 20,000 infantry and 3,273 cavalry.
 * A third good idea, fixed.

OK, have to stop for now, more tomorrow, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Locale section seems like it could be written more clearly. For an article on the battle of Dürenstein, it mentions that location pretty late. Would something like "To the west of Stein the Danube made a large curve, with a crescent-shaped floodplain between it and the mountains. At the far western end of the floodplain, where the mountain came down to the river, was Dürenstein, with its castle." Then go on to describe the dimensions of the plain and the other villages / hamlets? A map of the palin would really help.
 * Clarified, I hope. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, much clearer. I looked at Open Street Map to see if the map there could be used, but it is modern and shows the highways and rail lines. I think the improved description and panoramic photo give a good idea of the battlefield. I have struck my comments above, more follow. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, those are all my comments, expect to support soon, interesting read and nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More Ruhrfisch comments
 * I think there are inconsistent verbs in this (parallel construction), and it should either be "preventing" or perhaps "to prevent": ''This Corps was to secure the north shore of the Danube, blocking any of the Austrian or Russian groups from reinforcing one another and, importantly, prevent Kutuzov from crossing the river and escaping to Russia.[17]
 * This seems like an error, wouldn't it be 9 November? On 9 March, Gazan's division reached Marbach an der Donau, and covered the 50 kilometers (31 mi) to Dürenstein...
 * For those not clear that dragoons are cavalry, would adding cavalry somewhere help this sentence: This failure was an important factor when Mortier lost his Corps's so-called "eyes": after he and Gazan had crossed the Danube, the French dragoons had veered to the northwest, leaving only a small [cavalry?] contingent available for reconnaissance.
 * Clarified differently, which is fine Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is Mortimer? Despite Strik's continuous assault in the next two to three hours, Mortimer and Gazan were pushing the Russians back up the narrow fissure in the hillside. Mortier?
 * Since metric units are used first, I would change this to "within a few kilometres": Unknown to either Gazan or Mortier, the Coalition had concentrated a force of approximately 24,000 men (mostly Russians and a few Austrians) within a few miles of the French position at Dürenstein.
 * I would link guidon in the infobox
 * One more. The caption for File:Dürnstein-Loiben.jpg reads Little Frenchman Memorial, at Loiben. but it is not clear which memorial described in the text this is. I imagine the ruins visible on the mountain behind it are Schloss Dürenstein, would it be worth mentioning that in the cation too?
 * I'll take care of these. I've also added a map I just drew. I cannot get rid of the black line in the lower right, perhaps someone better versed in inkscape can figure that out. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Final comments I have switched to support above, and have struck the points that have been addressed. A few questions remain, and I found these few more quibbles while rereading it, but it is close enough to support now. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also change acres in Acres of terraced vineyards extended up the sides of the Krems river, until it became a mountain stream and terrain was unsuitable for cultivation. probably to hectares or perhaps square kilometres
 * It wasn't meant as a specific measure, but rather a general sense of space. I took it out, and I deleted the photo and caption from this page.


 * Missing word in caption? Or is the "and" an estra word? The French occupied the vineyards in the floodplain, and were surrounded by Russian troops as they emerged from [the valleys?] and defiles of the mountains. Another column of Russians approached Dürenstein from the south.
 * Fixed caption.


 * I like the new map but am unable to fix it. For some reason the blue river shows on the map when I look at it by itself, but does not show on the map in the article in either IE or Firefox . Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I swapped the svg version of the map for a png version and it looks fine.
 * Thanks for your efforts and support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments We have two spellings for the name of the man who was familiar with the local geography: Steibar and Steiber. Could you check the source to see which is correct? -- JN 466  14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've completed another copyedit of the article.

Support promotion to FA. -- JN 466  14:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks JN. Re Steibar and Steiber, the sources have 2 spellings, so I'll pick one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If they have roughly equal frequency of occurrence in sources, "Steiber" seems much the more plausible spelling. It is a reasonably common German name today, whereas "Steibar" is not. -- JN 466  15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have managed to track down a snippet view of Egger. He says the man was called "Kreishauptmann Christoph Freiherr von Stiebar" (i.e. with "ie", not "ei"). That checks out – there was a documented noble family of that name in the region which is mentioned in multiple books – so forget what I said before, and let's go for "Freiherr von Stiebar", with the title. -- JN 466  15:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)  JN  466  15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for fixing that. I have the entirety of Egger, thanks to .  It's interesting reading.

Support promotion to FA. --Frania W. (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I noticed a couple of little nothings, such as conversion of kilometers vs miles, which I mentioned to Auntie Ruth - the conversion as shown in text makes it look as if 1 mile is 2 kilometres, while it is 1.6 km: to me, this type of detail is important as, in a battle, bombs that fall 400 metres off the intended target can mean the death of friends instead of foe... (read the battle of Normandy in July 1944!) --Frania W. (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been to the CONVERT page and tried to use the sigfig= parameter, but I cannot get it to work. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * okay, it's fixed now! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.