Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Army of the Danube order of battle/archive1


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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010.

Army of the Danube order of battle

 * Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it is hard to image that anything to do with the French Revolutionary Wars or the Napoleonic Wars would be under-represented in Wikipedia, but the War of the Second Coalition is. This list is my mite to addressing the omission. It meets the standards (as I understand them), has been through a peer review (archived), and ACR for Military History. There is of course the great debate on names of orders of battles: should they be "order of battle of blah blah" or "blah blah order of battle." The project has not reached any consensus on this, and I decided that blah blah order of battle sounded better for this, because the key point is not that it is an order of battle, but that it is the Army of the Danube (order of battle). There is an article that goes with it, and that article will be nominated for FA soon (next week). This is my first featured list nomination. Thanks for all constructive feedback! auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do some reviewing in the next few days, but I'll need to become familiar with the guidelines for featured lists first. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi NativeForeigner, all review comments are welcomed. Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo and Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile may be useful FL-class order of battle lists to compare to this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those, though, are both about battles- whereas this candidate is for an army- not sure we have a true analogue here. Dabomb's, though, are as close as any I believe exist. (This one is also on my list to review.) Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific; as Courcelles said, the scope is a bit different, but the general format is the same. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a very good article, but I have a few questions before I can support the nomination:
 * Is the listing of members of the General Staff complete? It's slightly surprising that all the staff officers are notable
 * It is complete as far as I can determine from Jourdan's memoirs--these are the chief people involved in the staff. There were many others, of course. Many of the articles on the officers are stubs I created rather than make complicated footnotes.  Ramsay Phipps considered this army one of the School for Marshals, in his history of the French Revolutionary Armies. I added a bit on that in the lead.
 * Is http://home.wanadoo.nl/g.vanuythoven/French%20OOB%20Danube%2003-1799.htm a reliable source? It certainly looks accurate and cites a suitable source, but my understanding is that wanadoo.nl is a webhost for self-publishers. I note that you cite the English-language version of the website's source (A Memoir of the operations of the army of the Danube under the command of General Jourdan, taken from the manuscripts of that officer) - does this verify the website?
 * the Kessinger-vanythoven material is very good. It is the electronic version of that which is available in Kessinger's analysis of the battle of Stockach.  I cited it rather than the Kessinger's article because of its availability. Roland Kessinger is a well-known (although amateur) historian of the Second Coalition in southwestern Germany, and one of the few who has written about the Battle of Stockach of 1799.  Unless otherwise stated, I've used material from his order of battle. auntieruth (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a print copy of the Jourdan memoir. It is available in full text on Googole books.


 * As a note, what appears to be the full text of that book is available on Google Books here Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Questions now answered Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Since I'm about to submit another order of battle for consideration here, I figured I should comment here.
 * I realize that images might not be required for this sort of list, but there should room for small images (battle paintings or commander portraits, that sort of thing) next to the text blobs.
 * Since the tables broke up the text somewhat, I did not see the need for images. These seemed to distract from the basic information of the order of battle.  This is not an order of battle about a specific battle, but rather a field army. I didn't want to focus on one battle or another.
 * Like I said, not a show-stopper, but I wanted to ask the question.  Magic ♪piano 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The formatting for the artillery park looks funny. Perhaps the personnel should just be another bullet item after the equipment?
 * I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. auntieruth (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The indentation of the personnel was what bugged me; I've edited to show what I suggested, feel free to revert if you don't like it.  Magic ♪piano 14:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. :) auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than that, this (without vetting the sources) looks pretty good to me.  Magic ♪piano 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support assuming resolution of other people's issues.  Magic ♪piano 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks. done. (it was new since the article's nomination)


 * Comments:
 * "Field army" could be wikilinked at first mention (in the lead) and in the infobox;
 * fixed
 * In the Citations and notes section, Citations # 40 and 41 appear to be the same and should therefore be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (you've done this with others, e.g. # 37, etc.);
 * fixed
 * In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 3 (Databook) isn't in italics, although Citation # 4 is
 * fixed
 * In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 9, the page range (80-81) should have an endash per WP:DASH;
 * it is an en dash. It shows an as endash on my screen.
 * Dabomb hit it with a script in between my review and your reply. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Citations and notes section, with Citation # 27 the composition title isn't in italics, although similar ones (e.g. # 25 and 26) are;
 * fixed
 * In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 37, the year range (2001-2002) should have an endash;
 * fixed
 * In the Bibliography section the 2000 work by Digby Smith needs an ISBN, while those that are too old for ISBNs should probably have OCLC numbers. These can be found by searching for the title on Google books and clicking on the "Find in a library" link;
 * fixed, OCLC numbers etc. added to the bibliography
 * In the Bibliography section the titles should be capitalised per MOSCAPS (a couple of them aren't, for instance Gallagher, Jourdan, Shadwell, Thiers);
 * They are capitalized according to the Wordcat entry. auntieruth (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Worldcat doesn't follow the MOS when it comes to capitalisation. In my opinion we should follow MOSCAPS and make all the entries consistent. Currently some follow the MOS and some follow Worldcat. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Bibliography section the Blanning work should have the composition title in italics (The French Revolutionary Wars);
 * fixed
 * In the Bibliography some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't
 * fixed
 * an image might work in the infobox (this is just a suggestion). AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a fusilier or a map image of the convergence. would that do? thanks for your comments and review. auntieruth (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The fusilier looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Kessnger, and Vanuythoven internet source in the Bibliography "Order of Battle, Army of the Danube" needs publisher and accessdate information (sorry I missed this one before). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support all my concerns have been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Any reason why you have the source in the table rather than as a normal cite book reference in the Sources section?
 * the models I followed in the Military History Project did it this way.
 * Okay, well it's not crucial to me, but I prefer to see normal referencing used. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * that would generate a reference on every line. This seems to be the model most of the MH project uses. auntieruth (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. That's what general references are for. Everything else, however, seems fine, good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.