Wikipedia:Featured article review/War of the Fifth Coalition/archive1


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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

War of the Fifth Coalition

 * Notified: UberCryxic, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history, 2021-02-04

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is unreferenced information, an unaddressed Austro-centric concern raised on the talk page in May 2020, and a need for a copyedit. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

For reference, I've pasted Z1720's concerns on the talk page below - Dumelow (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original concerns


 * Many paragraphs and sections do not have citations.
 * The lede needs to be reformatted to remove the short paragraphs and ensure it summarizes the major parts of the article.
 * There are concerns above about the POV being Austro-centric. Has this been resolved?
 * There jargon in this image caption: "to throw off the yoke of Napoleon's Bavarian allies"
 * The article could use a copy-edit. I recommend this happens after all the information has been verified (as this process might cause the prose to change or new information be added)
 * Ref 15 cites 23 pages. Is there a way to narrow this down?

My feeling is that the background section is overly long and could do with trimming down to the key points - Dumelow (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Background section and infobox
 * I think we should merge the background of Austria into single one, and add up some other countries' background such as UK, Sardinia and others. And, I think Third Coalition is not necessary here, because this war is after fourth coalition. Also, as you said, this article is mainly about battle between Austria and France, which is not containing all the battles. What about course of Peninsular War or Wars in Poland, or the rebellion in Tyrol? That should not be described as other theatres, because it is interwined with Austro-France battles. -- Wendylove (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the background, please feel free to have a go at reducing it or I may do later on. With regards the main content, we'll have to check consensus in the sources but I'd consider the War of the Fifth Coalition to be largely a Franco-Austrian matter, with the exception of the Walcheren Expedition and the Tyrol revolt.  I'd also consider the Peninsular War to sit outside the coalition wars (starting before and continuing after) and indeed our article on the Napoleonic Wars treats it as such.  We should mention it but not focus on it, I think.  I'm also not clear on the involvement of Sardinia and Sicily in the Fifth Coalition, they are mentioned in the infobox but not the article? - Dumelow (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've found a passage in Mikaberidze (2020) which discusses the formal coalition members (Austria, Britain, Spain, Sicily and Sardinia) but notes the last four played a "rather nominal" role. I've tried to elaborate on this in footnotes in the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we should retain something about the war of the third coalition. The fifth was fought primarily between France and Austria, and the last time those two had come to blows was the third - Austria having not taken part in the fourth coalition. Part of their motivation for waging war in 1809 was to avenge the beating they had in 1805. Chuntuk (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is quite pinch to my opinion, and I think you're right! -- Wendylove (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, about Sicily and Sardinia, they are not belligerents of 1809 war. If you take a look at Coalition Wars and Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies, they are not main parties. I think we should change Coalition Wars too. And in other languages' article, such as French and Italian, they put Sardinia and Sicily as well, but there is no references for it. (Italian article has references, which says 'Solo formalmente parte dell'alleanza, in realtà non coinvolto nelle operazioni militari') .-- Wendylove (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed Portugal, Spain, Sicily and Sardinia from the infobox and cut back the result to "French Victory Treaty of Schönbrunn" per the guidance - Dumelow (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I started on hacking back the background, only got down to the 4th coalition so far. Will continue, but probably tomorrow.  If anyone else wants to continue, please feel free - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've cut some more back. This will also need a judicious ce to get rid of editorializing --phrasing like "the French mauled their Russian opponents" is rife. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ... or not Eddie891 Talk Work 02:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I merged backgrounds of Austria by now, and I put Spain and Portugal again, but I mentioned Peninsular War, making Spanish war and Austrian War separate. Also, I will add up some Spainsh and Potugal generals. --- 03:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing how the Congress of Erfurt merits such a long mention in the background... Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've cut most of it and added a little about the part played by the Austrian minister Stadion. I'm still plodding through (with others) and adding refs, the background is almost fully cited now- Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I also get the general impression from my source that the article underplays the extent of Britains involvement. How would people feel about a paragraph or so on background about them? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also: How sure are we that all sources agree portugal was not a member of the coalition? this says they are Eddie891 Talk Work 15:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see Chandler (1994) has Spain and Portugal as "associated" with the coalition (whose members he gives as only Britain and Austria). Lachouque (1961) lists Austria, England, Spain and Portugal as members. I'll add them back as members with a citation to Lachouque - Dumelow (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think substantial sections on the background and the lead up to the war are important things to keep in the article - because they won't appear anything else. The actual events of the war - the big battles - have substantial articles of their own so don't need too much text here. The causes and consequences are only going to be dealt with here. I'm about to go away for the weekend, so can't do anything, but I thought I'd share that perspective. I'm also doing some digging on the "fifth coalition:" whether that term was actually used at the time, or applied in retrospect by later historians. Could help us nail down the membership! Chuntuk (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, most of the background that's been trimmed so far belongs in the prior wars of the coalitions and the Peninsular war article... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Added: Maybe an approach to consider would be to show the pre-war positions of each of the great powers - Austria, Britain, France, Prussia, Russia (one paragraph each) - followed by one or two paragraphs on the rest: Spain, Portugal, Confederation of the Rhine. One of the themes we ought to be developing is the increased role for Napoleon's allies in this war, because a lot of his French troops were committed in Spain. That's one of the factors that encouraged the Austrians to make war in the first place. Chuntuk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What does Gill say about Francis's decision for war? (our article has " Stadion remained hopeful of Prussian support and on 8 February 1809 persuaded Emperor Francis I") Esdaile says "on 23 December [1808] the increasingly desperate Francis resolved on war." Eddie891 Talk Work 01:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Gill has "It was in this charged atmosphere that the monarchy's principal leaders gathered on 8 February to deliberate once more the question of war. Stadion apparently dominated this conference, painting Austria's situation in brightly optimistic colours and again persuading the Kaiser and Charles that Napoleon's preoccupation with Spain presented a brilliant but fleeting opportunity for success".  He goes on to reference Francis' earlier December decision, but the Google preview doesn't have that page for me. I'll see if I can find anything about December elsewhere - Dumelow (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I found a bit in Gill 2020 discussing the matter, he says the December decision was "tentative" and the final approval came in February. I've tried to clarify this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't get why we need a whole section here on the Peninsular war. I think a sentence or two in background is enough... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Peninsular War is a separate conflict that started before and ended after this war. Beyond a basic description of its impact on this war anything on the Iberian peninsula belongs in that article, not this one - Dumelow (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Now I think the Austrian section (while all relevant background) might benefit from splitting into a sub section or two. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sourcing
 * I have ISBN 9780203209745 and can see if there's anything worth adding shortly. It looks as though someone may need to track down sources like ISBN 1446448762 though not sure. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about ? Eddie891 Talk Work 03:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been through and tidied up all the existing references to use sfn or harvnb templates, it's not my preferred method but the least disruptive to what was already there. It seems to me we might be leaning rather heavily on Chandler, which is over 50 years old now, but is probably OK for this kind of overview. I've added Gill's more recent three volumes on the 1809 campaign to the list of sources (they're probably the definitive work on the subject) - I'll see if I can tick off some of those "citations needed" with it. Chuntuk (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Found a bit of time to get stuck into the sourcing. Everything's now sourced down to Wagram and I'll try to keep going with the remainder.  I've struck out some of the original items raised as concerns as they have been addressed.  Once we've added in a bit more about the German rebellions and naval actions I think the Austro-centrism will be dealt with also - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * About other participants.

By my view, it is very odd to divide participants by major and other, because none of the other articles of Coalition wars (First to Seventh) divide countries. I think it is better to put countries all together, and we should avoid verifying each country to participate or not. By the way, there is an effort to delete Portugal from main participants, but this is quite controversial. If we are going to cover Peninsular War in this article, then we should put Portugal as one of the main participants, because it was one of the major participants in Peninsular War. The Peninsular War 1807 – 1814, A Concise Military History by Michael Glover or The Peninsular War by Charles Esdaile can be a good resources for that. While Sicily and Sardinia didn't have any battles with French at that time (which should be reviewed with other materials as well), Portugal saw combats during 1809. -- Wendylove (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * course of war (Austro-centric)

Although it is a war between mainly Austria and French, I think we can rearrange Austrian section into one, and make "Other theatres" into appropriate poisition. After all, I think Holland, Poland, and Italy and Dalmatia section can be put into Austrian section, and I think we can cover up Peninsular War and Andreas Hofer's rebellion into one independent paragraph. I'll try it first, and if there is any problem, pls remind me. --- 15:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rebellion among Germans

Can we find some resources about Tyrol Rebellion, 1809 Gotscheer Rebellion, or Andrea's Rebellion? If we find resources, we can expand article. -- Wendylove (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Update, work ongoing as of March 25. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Everything is now cited. Next job is to expand the non-Austrian sections a little (Germany and the naval battles), sort out the lead and then a copyedit and it will hopefully be passable - Dumelow (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone who has been improving this article. Please ping me when the edits are complete and I will reassess the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've finished expanding everything non-Austrian now. I've also rewritten the lead (though this may be a bit long now).  Would someone mind copyediting the article? - Dumelow (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a copyedit from me, but I do have a comment. The section Peninsular War opens up rather abruptly with "Unhappy after Portugal reopened trade with Britain" (we do not discuss the Continental System anywhere before and the link to Peninsular War does not explain it further). Is it possible to expand a bit to explain that Britain was under a comercial embargo at the time? (if sources mention it?) RetiredDuke (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks RetiredDuke, I've rewritten these sentences, hopefully it is better now - Dumelow (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the context. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am a non-expert in this subject. Do you want me to complete the copyedit or are you looking for someone with more topic-knowledge? Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a need for copy editing - the very first sentence I glanced at in the article was "Massena launched a costly frontal attack that captured the position on 3 May; Hiller withdrawing along the Danube" which changes tense at the semicolon. I would be willing to do one except that I'm a horrible copyeditor, as anyone who's ever reviewed my GAN or ACR noms can probably attest to. Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Z1720, a copyedit from yourself would be most welcome. In a way it may even be better that somebody without knowledge of the topic goes through the article.  I've been editing it very piecemeal and much is unchanged from the original (particularly in the "Austria-Bavaria front" and "Aftermath" sections).  I'll try to have a read through today to check for any obvious errors but if you pick anything up please note it here so it can be addressed.  Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a copyedit of the article, but I want to do another one at a later date. Please review and revert any changes that are unhelpful. I posted questions on the article's talk page that I hope others can clarify there and fix in the article. Could someone review the sources to make sure they are high-quality and correctly formatted? Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a single source reliability question, and will post some source formatting comments soon. Who is Robert Burnham, and is his contribution to The Napoleon Series (ref 2) going to be considered high-quality RS? Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment

I think previous edition look better because this edit looks similar to the original one, which looked so disperse. What I mention is not about cite or references, but order of paragraphs. Is there any reason for putting order of paragraph back to the original one? -- Wendylove (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Source formatting comments
 * Don't think Bruce needs an accessdate; they generally aren't given for books as far as I know
 * Henderson needs a location
 * Johnson needs a location
 * Does Lachouque have an OCLC?
 * We have a ref to Gardiner p. 75, but no source by a Gardiner

Sources look fine otherwise aside from this and the question about Burnham above, no spot checks done. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hog Farm, I've replaced Burnham with a citation to Mikaberidze. Added locations for Henderson and Johnson and an OCLC for Lachouque.  Wendylove, you added the reference to Gardiner here, could you add the source to the bibliography? - Dumelow (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I have conducted a second and third copyedit to the article. There are two concerns I hope other editors can help me address: 1) There's some dup linking in the article, but I think some of it is justified because of the amount of text between the links. Can a more experienced reviewer look at the dup links and remove the ones that are not necessary. 2) There's a Further Reading section. I think the article is well researched but some editors on FACs have opposed FAs due to this list. Should we keep this list? Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Further reading is generally only an issue if there is so much further reading that it indicates that the article does not comprehensively use sources. This doesn't seem to be the case here, and two of the further reading sources are by Gill, multiple of whose works are already cited.  So I think the further reading is fine.  I did remove one web source that doesn't really add anything. Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed one duplink, but I think the others are spread out enough it's not horrible. Will do a complete read-through later; I anticipate that this can be closed without FARC.  The no target ref to Gardiner is the only main issue I'm aware of, and it's not that major. Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can install User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to keep your dashes in order (done).
 * Missing author: The British Expeditionary Force to Walcheren: 1809 The Napoleon Series, Retrieved 5 September 2006.
 * - It looks like that source Sandy linked above is also by Burnham, so it'll either need replaced or we'll need to determine what Burnham's credentials are. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hog Farm, didn't spot that one. Now replaced. I've got a book coming that might allow me to replace the elusive Gardiner too - Dumelow (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Think I've sorted the Gardiner ref now. Unless there's any other issues that have not yet been brought up, I am hoping this can now be reviewed as acceptable - Dumelow (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments on read-throughs
 * "A French invaded Poland in November, where Russian forces were stationed, and occupied Warsaw" - missing a word
 * Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * " The same day the Convention of Paris imposed heavy reparations upon Prussia," - Probably need a brief gloss of what the Convention of Paris was somewhere, as this is the only mention
 * I've tried to expand on this, strange we don't have an article on it. I guess it is more of an afterthought to Tilsit - Dumelow (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "The French suffered heavy losses, around 32,000 men, with their commanders particularly affected as around 40 French generals were killed and wounded." - Are Austrian casualties known to compare this to?
 * Added - Dumelow (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A number of the commanders are only mentioned in the infobox: Maximillian, Frederick Augustus, Erker, the three from Portugal, Ferdinand VII, Alava, Blake, Perceval, and the Duke of Portland
 * Good point. I think everyone is now named or trimmed - Dumelow (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Use of Habsburg/Hapsburg is inconsistent
 * Standardised to Habsburg - Dumelow (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Although Metternich and Charles succeeded in negotiating lighter terms in return for Austrian co-operation, most of the hereditary Hapsburg territories were preserved" - Are we sure that "although" is the best word? Because wouldn't lighter terms for Austria go along with preserving the Habsburg territories?
 * Reworded Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's about all I see that needs done yet here. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I addressed two of HF's concerns. The others require more knowledgeable people than me. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Not particularly an expert on this exact conflict, but I think this is good to be closed without FARC, as it looks like everything brought up in the FAR has been fixed. Hog Farm Talk 16:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Close without FARC I reviewed the article again and my concerns have all been addressed. I am not an expert in anything Napoleon or MilHist related, but I could easily understand the article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Close without FARC, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.