Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg/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 Karanacs 19:48, 23 March 2010.

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg

 * Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...Sandy is on a roll in approving bios and I want to take advantage of this. Seriously, it fills a gap in wikicoverage of the French Revolutionary Wars, the south German campaigns of those wars, and coverage, generally, of the generals in Habsburg service. I've checked it for dabs, links, all that stuff, and the last time I checked it, the links worked, and it was free of dabs. The alt text is present. It's been in process since the October or so, has undergone both GA review and the ACR for Military history. So here is everything you every wanted to know about a field marshal who wouldn't let the archduke lead the troops into battle, and was knocked off his horse by French grapeshot (not wine, antipersonnel ammunition). I still won't use the named citation templates, so the sources are cited in full in the first instance, and then in shortened form after that. I look forward to your constructive comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. The lead image lacks alt text ; that for the other images is fine. No dab links or dead external links. You're having Sandy's roll wrong, I think: the four bio articles promoted yesterday were biological, not biographical. Ucucha 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That explains it, then. RATS! ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't offend the fungi. Thanks for adding alt text to that image. Ucucha 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Check: Passed - 3 images. File:1760 Karl Aloys.jpg is PD-old and should be moved to Commons. The other 2 are on Commons (PD-old and PD-self) and look fine. -- Pres N  17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * thank you. I've tried to move the image but have been unsuccessful 3X. I did find an image on Commons of his wife, which I added at the family section.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes http://genealogy.euweb.cz/furstbg/furstenbg3.html#JWE a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://thepeerage.com/p4213.htm#i42123?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * because they present in concise and accessible form and in English what we need to know from Ernst Hermann Joseph Münch, Geschichte des Hauses und Landes Fürstenberg : aus Urkunden und den besten Quellen.  Aachen u.a. Mayer 1847, pp. 318-336.  If you prefer I can cite the other.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd cite the other and give the two sites above as external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * okay, done. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. All comments addressed; well-written and I believe comprehensive. Ucucha 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha: Otherwise good; I look forward to supporting when these minor issues have been solved. Ucucha 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why use "von/zu" in the infobox but only "zu" in the lead?
 * habit. It's fixed now. Just zu.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we really need the alternative name for the battle in the lead?
 * not really. French searchers will usually search on that name, but it is an English wiki, so....Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "France ranged itself" - is that an idiomatic expression?
 * yep. fixed.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "He took Speyer, on 1 April, because the commander of the city, Adam-Philippe de Custine, was not there." - that sounds a bit vague. Were de Custine's troops also absent?
 * some were, and the rest didn't know what to do. Clarified.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have Swabian linked to Swabian Circle for the contingent at Kehl: did the Circles of the Holy Roman Empire have separate army units?
 * yes they did. And this group of farm boys and journeymen was sent home that summer.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the link to Grafenhausen goes to the correct place? The one it is linked to now is deep in the Black Forest.
 * There is a Grafenhausen a mile from Kappel, but it isn't that one. It's the one further east by Waldshut, which is the one linked. I've clarified. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To complete the confusion, there is also a Kappel near Grafenhausen in Lenzkirch municipality. But I trust you got the correct ones. Ucucha 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support This looks a very fine article and when I have finished reading though I will decide whether or not to support. In the meantime, I will leave any commens I have below. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC) "the Fürstenberg sought" - is this the regiment? If so can you italicise and make it clearer? fixed
 * Ostrach in the info box should link to the battle, not the town. done
 * "a soldier in the Austrian service." - I think Austrian Army is the better term here for unfamiliar readers (or whatever the correct link is if that is not the right one). Habsburg army, with link - It is still there in the lead.
 * A question rather than an actionable comment, but in your opinion, does the Battle of Sabac deserve its own article? It probably does, although I probably won't write it. Nevertheless, I did link it. - The link is not essential, I leave it up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've said before that I think you give too much context to the start of the French Revolutionary Wars in biographical articles, but in this instance I will leave the choice up to you. However, you do need to link French Revolution and I think you should do a little more to introduce the section: something like: "The origins of the French Revolutionary Wars were . . ." otherwise it can be a little jarring. I added link.
 * "placed in charge of the advance guard by Speyer." - this sounds like Speyer is a person, use "at" or "near" instead. modified this.
 * "He took Speyer, on 1 April, because the" - as above, can be confusing. Say when it is first mentioned that Speyer was in French hands.
 * "His first battle action of the war occurred on 3 April" - does this battle have a name (does Smith suggest one?) no he doesn't, not in the Data Book either.  Most of the action wasn't there, either, but further north.
 * "In the action around Geidertheim" - Link the battle or at least the place. Also link the Hagenau when it is mentioned later in the sentence. No battle, but did link the place. - why is it called "the Haugenau"?
 * "defended the imperial line at Rastatt" - was this a battle? no just another skirmish, before the full retreat toward Bavaria.
 * "Karl Aloys was ordered" - Don't refer to the subject by his first name unless there is a risk of confusion with someone else. fixed.
 * The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is very long - can you divide it up to make it more readable? fixed.   Thanks!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the Archduke would charge him with the defense of the Hüningen bridgehead" - it wasn't immediately clear to me that this was a French bridgehead he was defending against, rather than an Austrian bridgehead he was defending. reworded.
 * "to the north by Kehl" - again, it should be at or near instead of by.fixed. - It is still there (or maybe it is another one "stronger French force to the north by Kehl".--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Austria and Prussia, in particular," - something looks odd with the punctuation here, but I can't quite put my finger on it. reworded.
 * As above, I think there is far too much context regarding the negotiations and return to war in 1798. The status of this section isn't going to dictate whether I support or not, but it could do with significant cutting down - perhaps include only those parts of the negotiations in which Furstenberg was actually invovled. trimmed
 * "The ongoing French siege angered the British" - I think you mean occupation rather than siege here. of course! Fixed
 * So was he engaged at Ostrach? If so, can the battle be linked at the point it is discussed and can you provide more detail on what he did there - it seems odd to have so much information on events he wasn't involved with and then little on something he actually participated in . expanded
 * Not something that my support will depend on, but is there anywhere else that the promotions box can go? It doesn't seem to relate to the text it sits in. I could take it out moved
 * Is it worth creating a succession box at the bottom for the passage of the title "Fürst zu Fürstenberg"? No, because he never held that specific title. His son did.  he was Fürst zu Fürstenberg-Stuhlingen, which was nominal. After the family was raised, all were permitted to use the title Fürst, but there was only one Fürst zu Fürstenberg.  I'm careful not to use Fürst in the text, or to call him prince.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a fine article and once again I am hugely impressed with your work on obscure yet fascinating characters of this war (I've created enough of those myself!). Very well done (and apologies that the review took so long to complete). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support All I's are dotted, all T's are crossed, all systems ready for blast off. Good luck out among the stars! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.