Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * No consensus to promote at this time (after 28 days). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty

 * Nominator(s): Alexandru Demian (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because: I believe that this article meets all the criteria for A-class. I think that it is an in-depth and quite comprehensive biography of one of the foremost cavalry commanders of the entire Napoleonic Wars. The article has also recently successfully undergone a Good Article review. Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * no dabs, links all work. auntieruth (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning toward support of this article. Its subject is among Napoleon's finest cavalry commanders and successfully made the multiple transitions from Ancien Regime to Napoleon to Restoration, which attests to his abilities.  The editor has covered the subject's life, from childhood to death.  In terms of content, at first read it seems complete, although as this review progresses, I'll make more comments. The bibliography needs a more consistent presentation, including dates on all the sources, not just a few of them: easily fixed, though. The article's primary problem is the grammatical style, which is old-fashioned, reflecting the sources. I've gone through the first few sections, including the lead, and smoothed out some of these anachronistic style issues, but perhaps Alexandru could do that for the rest. I'd like to see some other editors take a look/"pen" to this.  auntieruth (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the article and comments. I'll start working on it soon. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'll review this soon. Also see our A-class checklist; if that makes sense, good.  If it doesn't, please ask, or I can point out problems as I go. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the first sentence, I'd prefer "Count Étienne-Marie-Antoine-Champion de Nansouty (30 May 1768 – 12 February 1815) was ..." because it gets to the point faster, and I agree with WP:LEAD that tight first sentences are important. OTOH, I have to admit that I'm not completely up on the preferences of the relevant wikiprojects. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Vauchamps or Craonne": Shouldn't that be "and"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Replaced "or" with "and" --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "élite": Is this French word used in English sources (other than in the sense of "elite")?
 * Done replaced with the plain English "elite" --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "14th arrondissement": The French word is used often enough in English that it's not a problem, but I'm wondering if it's capitalized in English.
 * Checked. On e.wiki it is not capitalized. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Single quote marks (' ') will probably get shot down at FAC per WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "sub lieutenant": "sub-lieutenant", since "sub" isn't a word (at least, not this word).
 * "Chasseurs à Cheval": English sources generally say "light cavalry", right?
 * Not really. Chasseurs à Cheval are just one type of light cavalry of the French army during the reign of Napoleon. The other type are hussars.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not qualified to make the call, but it's possible that this and other French words and phrases, such as chef d'escadron and chef de brigade, may be more suitable in a note or in a glossary article (we've got one for German words common in military articles). - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the Fr for Chasseurs a Cheval probably should stay in, or a note could explain what it is. A parenthetical explanation could also suffice (after the first mention).  auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.I've made sure that there is a link to the chasseurs-a-cheval article, where I've explained that hey were light cavalry. Also included the fact that they were light cavalry in the text.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:MHCL. I'm fixing them for now; I'll stop if there are a lot of them. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found more, see if you can spot where the second comma should go in each:
 * The disorganization triggered by a night march, as well as a lack of coordination between the different manœuvres led to total failure of the action of May 17.
 * ... Nansouty took part in several successful cavalry skirmishes around Strasbourg, in November and December of 1793 and then took part to the Battle of Geisberg.
 * Done--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OTOH, there are too many commas in this one, try to reword so that it doesn't need so many: "During this action, the corps cavalry, with the 9th Cavalry included, charged and were initially successful, taking a number of enemy guns, before being countercharged and having to retreat in disorder, spreading panic among the ranks of the infantry that was just coming up."
 * Done--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The American spelling is perfectly acceptable, if he uses American spelling throughout. Alexandru, just pick one, though, and stick to it.  I would also say the Cavalry corps, which included the 9th Cavalry, charged, and took a number of enemy guns.  A Habsburg counter-charge forced them back in disorder, which spread panic among the ranks of oncoming infantry.  (something like that).  auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Check throughout for "maneuver"; that's the AmEng spelling, not BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. British throughout. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "he was not bothered at any time during the radical phase of the French Revolution": "bothered" isn't the most apt word, considering the times. Maybe "threatened".
 * During this stage of the Revolution, many commanders were subjected to attacks, ranging from attempts to dismiss them (the case of d'Hautpoul, for example) or just harassed (the case of Davout, for example). Sometimes it went as far as to threaten a commander's life, but this was not typical. I've opted for disturbed. Is that ok for you? --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I went with your word "harassed". - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "He reportedly became extremely attached to his unit": Either you personally believe that he became attached, based on the sources you read, or you aren't sure. If you believe it, drop "reportedly".  If you aren't sure, then you might say who said that he became attached, and what others say that contradicts that.
 * "extremely" is unnecessary. On the other hand, using the word attached is ambiguous here.  He can be attached (militarily) to a unit, but not be emotionally attached.  According to contemporary accounts, .....  auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Rephrased: "He became very fond of his regiment..."--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "where laid Lannes's communications with the rest of Napoleon's army.": I don't follow. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Rephrased to explain that the village had to be held, because it was crucial for Lannes's communication with Napoleon.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "so he decided to fall back, with a cavalry combat taking place": In theory, "with ...ing" can work, but you'll be better off if you get rid of it in every case and use an active verb instead that better describes the sequence of events.
 * Done Rephrased to make it sound more natural.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * After you have a chance to respond to these, I plan to offer limited support per standard disclaimer down to where I stopped, at the beginning of Étienne_Marie_Antoine_Champion_de_Nansouty. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the responses to the above, and I've resumed copyediting, more tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the following edits unless I asked a question or made a request. Feel free to revert.
 * In general, it's a good idea to avoid ligatures (œ) when another spelling is more common.
 * "This cavalry reserve included Nansouty's 1st heavy cavalry division, a 2nd heavy cavalry division under Jean-Joseph d'Hautpoul,": I went with "This cavalry reserve included Nansouty's heavy cavalry division, another heavy cavalry division under Jean-Joseph d'Hautpoul,". I have no objection if someone wants to repeat the names of the units, but at some point, it makes the text unreadable to repeat too many words that most English readers won't understand. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Chasseurs à Cheval de la Garde Impériale begins: "(in English: Horse Chasseurs of the Imperial Guard)". What would be lost by replacing 4th Chasseurs à Cheval with "4th Horse Chasseurs"?
 * I'd really leave this one as it is. You can find "Chasseurs à Cheval" in several history books in English. Plus, we have "Carabiniers à Cheval", "Grenadiers à Cheval" etc. If they don't know what it is, let them click it, I say. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "best serviced": What does this mean? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Replaced with "administered".--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There were 3 different spellings of "sublieutenant" (with a hyphen and a space). I standardized the spelling to "sub-lieutenant", but "sublieutenant" throughout would also be okay. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not in a position to make the call, but check the capitalization on "battle" throughout. Per WP:MILMOS, when you lowercase "battle of X", what you're saying is, "This battle either isn't widely known, or is widely known under a different name".  Otherwise, especially if we have an article titled "Battle of X", then "Battle" should be capitalized.  - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Capitalised it, just like you suggested.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never noticed that any styleguide dislikes "10 o'clock", and I think it's fine ... but if you're headed to FAC, someone will probably ask you to standardize time formats, using "o'clock" everywhere if you use it once. That could get tedious, so I recommend a numerical format.
 * Fixed--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If "in a move that proved to be uncoordinated with that of his Russian allies" doesn't mean anything more than what you say in the next sentence, then it would be better to delete it.
 * Done--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "leave behind 2,000 casualties": Were there 2000 wounded, or 2000 dead and wounded? This might confuse the reader, who's going to assume that they wouldn't stop to pick up corpses while being overrun.  If it's 2000 wounded, it would work to change "casualites" to "wounded".
 * Clarified--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "1st heavy cavalry division", "Piston's 1st brigade": Search the article for "1st" and "2nd", checking the capitalization of all units. Particular units are capitalized (but try to use a common name for the unit; approximate names for a specific unit wouldn't be capitalized, but in general, they aren't recommended). "Piston's brigade" is descriptive, so it wouldn't be capitalized, even though it refers to a specific unit. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "blitz": It's true it can mean "fast and overpowering", but it usually refers to mechanized, 20th century warfare. I removed it, since you talk about the speed of the attack in the next sentence.
 * "With the enemy blocked in the city,": barricaded? surrounded? - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Trapped in the city.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed "with the battle won in brilliant fashion by the Emperor's timely arrival,". My thinking was that we shouldn't say "brilliant" too often, and the Emperor had already arrived, but if I'm not representing it correctly, please fix it.
 * "such as Italian Viceroy Eugène, Marshals Davout or Lannes or Generals Rapp and Legrand also acquiring residences there." I don't understand; did one of these men live there, or all of them?
 * Clarified All of them had acquired residences there.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Nansouty acquired quite a reputation for excessive mockery, even regarding the daily aspects of his service." I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed Deleted phrase, as I am explaining the entire event in the "Considerations" section.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support for half of it. Okay, this time I got a little more than halfway, down to Étienne_Marie_Antoine_Champion_de_Nansouty.  Support is per standard disclaimer.  It would be really helpful if the nominator and others could finish up; I think reviewers will respond well to this article at FAC if we can get it polished up.  If anyone wants to know what needs fixing, here is a diff showing some of the changes Ruth and I have made. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article says that Nansouty was born in Bordeaux (Aquitaine), while his grave indicates he was born in Burgundy. This apparent contradiction is not explained in the article. What is the truth ? UltimaRatio (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The birthplace issue is something that I will have to phrase differently. The only actual source saying that he was born in Bourgogne is the statement to that effect on his gravestone. Yet, I am almost certain that this is because of tradition (his family has a long history linked with the region). All the biographers that I consulted and the two specialised dictionaries say that he was born in Bordeaux.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done I've explained that the gravestone states that he was born in Bourgogne but his biographers and contemporary historians note that he was born in Bordeaux.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One quick comment
 * I've only really glance at this, but MOS:BIO advises that places of birth and death shouldn't be in the lead unless they're relevant to the subject's notability. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I should have mentioned MOS:BIO above too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to take a moment to thank everyone involved for their comments so far. I think that I've addressed most, if not all the issues identified so far. However, some things are yet to be done: Also, please do keep comments coming on any other outstanding issues. Thanks,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Outstanding work
 * I did note Auntieruth55's comment that I need to improve the prose at times, to make it sound more modern and less reflective of the one hundred-year-old main sources. I've already done that for most of the article and will do the rest during the next few days.
 * I will add the dates of all books in the "Sources" section
 * I will also double check to see if there is any more improper use of commas (likely)
 * I will check if there are any unclear phrases left. I do need help here, though, because, having written the article, it all makes perfect sense to me so I'm bound not to realise when some phrases are obscure or unclear.

I keep re-reading this article, and each time it improves, based on comments and collaboration from reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Some comments, though:


 * The battle of Raussnitz is also called Battle of Wischau, probably its more commonly used name (at least modern name). I've created a stub on that and linked it.
 * Could you check your sources on the capitulation at Erfurt? Smith, who is more recent, and possibly more balanced than the early 20th century source you're using, says that it was about 12000 captured-- some of the cavalry units escaped--and only 65 guns (not 120).  He also lists the standards and colors.  In the comment, he says that 9000 prisoners were  escorted by one battalion and were freed a short time later by a squadron of Prussian hussars.
 * Done, used Pigeard (very trustworthy, as a military specialist).--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I've said this before, I think: your sources (listed) need dates.  It's inconsistent.
 * Done.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article keeps improving. Keep up the good work! auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Co-ordinator comment: this review is due to be listed for closure in about 12 hours (having been open for 28 days). In order to be closed as successful the article requires a minimum of three full supports. So that the nominator has a chance of success and to make it easier for the closing co-ord to make a decision, could reviewers with comments please check to see if they have been addressed and then state whether or not they support the article's promotion or not? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only two of us have been looking at the article, and I believe that both of us have only gotten through half of it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, unfortunately it doesn't seem like the required support will be achieved this time round as there seems to be a shortage of reviewers. As such I will close the review as "no consensus to promote at this time" as the 28 day period has now passed. Please note that the article may be renominated for an ACR at any time, although it would probably be best to nominate for a peer review beforehand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.