Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Ostrach


 * 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 02:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ostrach

 * Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it meets the requirements, and it fills a gap in War of the Second Coalition coverage. It's been through GA. It's had a DYK. As usual, I won't do the funky templates that add a,b,c,d, etc. on the references. It makes me crazy to read those articles, and add to them, so I don't use them myself. Sources are cited in full for the first reference, and after that are listed in abbreviated form. Bibliography and External links include the sources I used. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

First comments:
 * MisterBee1966
 * No dabs! HOORAY!!!
 * Holy Week, add link done
 * Lake Constance and Ulm, add links they are linked at first instance, I think....
 * now they're linked


 * Cust, p. 166. fix reference done
 * Casualties and losses in the info box, where did you get the numbers from? Smith. cited
 * check alt on images, the flag of France needs an unlink or alt text  these are decorative and don't require an alt text, right?
 * unlinked now


 * 4.7 miles (8 km) versus 48 kilometres (30 mi), make it consistent, either miles first or kilometres
 * fixed

More to follow. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * later reported in the Times - could you link to the respective article?


 * Anotherclown

Top effort, a few very minor points:

I hope thise helps. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't 'Austrian Advance Guard' be lowercase? For instance I think it should be Austrian advance guard (3rd para in Prelude); done
 * Shouldn't '8th regiment of Chasseurs à Cheval' be capitalised? For instance 8th Regiment of Chasseur à Cheval? done
 * Shouldn't '7th company of sappers' be capitalised? As above. yes.done
 * Alt text could possibly be improved to be more discriptive. For instance the map is currently given the alt text 'Southwestern Germany, where troops wintered in the east, and troops on the west bank of a wide river; the troops converged at a point in the center.' Maybe include that it is a map? Remember alt text is for the vision impaired. okay now, I hope
 * Is the name LeFebvre or Lefebvre - both used in text? done


 * Yes, very much. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Well written and comprehensive. Anotherclown (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A very good article, although the prose needs quite a bit of work. I have provided the most serious issues below. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Will deal with the rest later tonight or tomorrow. THANKS! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jackyd101
 * "French forces suffered significant losses" - repetition of "French forces". Try "The French Army" instead. done
 * "his men seemed to disappear in a cloud of redcoats," - can we have an actual quote, with a cite, here? see citation 42  I've removed reference from it in the lead.
 * "evening of day two," - try "evening of the second day"
 * Add a piped link to the Battle of Stockach (1799) in the lead. '''ummmm....there is...See: Austrian victory
 * "who had succeeded Joseph as Emperor a year earlier," - which year are we talking about here? fixed
 * I'm not convinced you need to give so much information about the lead up to the War of the First Coalition, particularly when you give absolutely no information about the start of the War of the Second Coalition, of which this was the first battle.
 * When the terms "Emperor" and "Archduke" are in reference to a specific person, they should be capitalised (they are proper nouns in this instance)
 * "a fourth advanced" - "a fourth column advanced".  done
 * "By the 11th, the" - on Wikipedia, use the format "By 11 March, the" - this needs to be addressed at several points in the text. '''Yes, but then I'll have "March twice (or more) in the same sentence, which probably falls under MOS:redundancy.  (if there is such a thing).
 * "a couple of other points he considered strategic," - Either name them, give a number, or say "several" instead of "a couple"  they had just been mentioned above, but I repeated it again.
 * "he thought the main" - "Jourdan thought that the main" done
 * "center more or less at" - "center approximately at" done
 * "General Ferino's men, encountered" - remove the comma done
 * "that lasted nearly the day." - "that lasted most of the day." done
 * Make sure that all of the towns and villages mentioned have wikilinks - this helps a reader who wants to establish a sense of place more precisely. many have no wikiarticles, but I've tried to identify them with hidden geotags and milage.
 * "42 squadrons attacked the French line" - an "and" missing here? yes; fixed.
 * "Jourdan wrote that his men disappeared under a cloud of red coats" - can you quote this? It is cited specifically. See cite #42.
 * "no one seems quite clear" - "no sources are clear" done
 * "the decision could not be argued" - which way? Don't leave us in suspense! suspense removed
 * Is source 70 the town's offical website? yes.


 * Thanks for your comments. They should be fixed now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I believe that this article meets A class criteria. I made a couple of minor tweaks myself rather than bring them here as they were very minor. Congratulations. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What else needs to happen with this article? Any more comments and suggestions?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2009 (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.