Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Dürenstein


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


 * Promoted -MBK004 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Dürenstein

 * Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it fills a gap in wikicoverage in the War of the Third Coalition. Hard to believe that there is something undone re the Napoleonic Wars, but some of the battles where Napoleon wasn't seem to have been deemed unimportant. This is one of the minor battles occurring the Austrian capitulation at Ulm and the Battle of Austerltz. I became interested in this battle when I was in Dürenstein a few years ago and was impressed that several thousands of men fought it out on a narrow strip of land. The article has been through fairly stringent GA review with Sturmvogel, and the automatic dab monster doesn't seem to think there are dabs in it. It has my usual quirky citation style, it's illustrated, and it pretty much covers the gamut of sources available (or necessary, at least) on the battle. Thanks in advance for your constructive comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * No problems reported with dab links or alt text. One external link is highlighted green, please check and advise on the status of this link.
 * More to follow later... TomStar81 (Talk) 07:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * green highlights. It linked to a very small page, through a redirect, but when I went back to it, the whole website had been remodeled.  So I just removed the citation and the sentence. It was a bit of local color, but unnecessary to the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That happened to me once while working at USS Missouri (BB-63), so I can relate. A piece of advise: in about six months or so the site with your cite should come up at the internet archive, and once that happens you will be able to re-add it if you so choose.


 * Second to last paragraph of the dispositions section: "The Austro-Russian force were mixed troops of infantry and cavalry, with over 68 artillery under the overall command of the Russian general Kutuzov, who had learned the military arts under the tutelage of the great Suvorov himself." Who was the great Suvororv? The article does not say who he was, but I suspect he was a military officer. A brief note in the article should clear that up easily.
 * okay, done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You twice mention naval engagements in the article, but leave no links to these or even expand upon their role in the battle, which leads me to believe that either examples ought to be provided or that the naval engagements should be removed altogether to allow for better focus on the land engagement described in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Magic ♪piano 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comments Support by Magicpiano
 * Article is an interesting read, but there are a few places where the writing needs work, and it could probably use some (mostly light) copyediting. (I also second TomStar's last comment on naval engagements and Suvorov.)
 * Road to Ulm, 2nd para ✅
 * Battle plan, 2nd sentence ✅
 * There are occasional inconsistencies in capitalization of unit designations (e.g. "Gazan's Division" vs. "division") ✅
 * Thanks for reading!! Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good!  Magic ♪piano 02:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support I have a few comments with regard to some of the references but I don't see anything major good job. I also checked it with AWB and nothing came up there. --Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The losses section contains a quote for "barbarously handled" that is not referenced.
 * the first paragraph of the Aftermath section contains a quote for "like chandeliers" that is not referenced
 * these both have the citation at the end of the sentence.
 * I think that ref 3 that appears to be a note should be moved to a seperate notes section
 * Reference 3 is a note and a citation, and I saw no need for a separate notes section.
 * references 66, 68, 70, 71 and 72 are identical and I think should be combined using the ref name template.
 * This is consistent throughout, and not actionable.
 * Refs 21 and 25 appear to be identical and should be combined
 * refs 26, 28, 29 and 45 should be combined
 * refs 31 and 34 should be combined
 * I prefer not to use the named refs template, because it is confusing.
 * thanks for reading! If you want, I'll duplicate the citation for the two quotes, but I see no need to do that.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added my support. Although I think the refs are a little cluttered I see no need to withhold it. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support
 * I cleaned up one bit of bad phrasing, but otherwise looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, with just one issue:
 * "possibly of greater significance, the Imperial Eagles and guidons  of the 15th and 17th Dragoons were taken by the Austrians." Why is this so significant, in a military sense instead of just for French pride?
 * French pride. I'll clarify. I saw you cleaned up the text. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the text in some places and that's the only major issue. – Joe   N  20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.