Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Battle of Kehl (1796)


 * 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Second Battle of Kehl (1796)

 * Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is part of a series on the Rhine Campaign of 1796 that I and some others have been working on. It recently passed to GA and I think it meets the A-Class standard. auntieruth (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "the heavy Austrians fire": ?
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but I didn't tackle the lead, which jumps around and is hard to follow. It will need some work if this one is headed to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments: (I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow, so I'm posting these piecemeal today)
 * "Austrian and imperial troops"
 * Link to imperial, few readers will understand the reference.
 * Ive added this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "At Kehl and the city of Strasbourg lay a complex of bridges"
 * Does this mean "Between Kehl and Strasbourg"? In any event, remove "and the city" because that's already mentioned in the para above.
 * Generally I find the third para of the lead very difficult to understand. I think it needs a re-write.
 * These issues have both been addressed. I'll start working on the body now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments This article is in good shape, and I have only the following comments:
 * I'd suggest mentioning what war this battle formed part of in the first sentence
 * The para starting with "The French plan called for two armies to press against the flanks" and the next two paras would benefit from the addition of the approximate dates when the events it describes occurred Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * done! auntieruth (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Support My main comment is now addressed. I'd still suggest moving a mention of the war into the first sentence, but it's not a big deal given that it's at the end of the initial (short) paragraph Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments **looking for one. Added auntieruth (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "and earlier in 1796, when the French crossed into the German states on 23–24 June." You link 1796 to the first battle, but I would spell it out.
 * fixed
 * "the autonomous corps of Wilhelm von Wartensleben" I would move note 1 explaining autonomous corps to here.
 * fixed
 * The infobox gives the date of the battle as 13 to 18 September, but you only mention events on the 18th in the lead and do not spell out that they were the Battle of Kehl.
 * fixed
 * "Control of the surrounding territory there prevented the French from crossing to safety in Strasbourg". I do not understand this. If the French controlled Kehl and the bridges, and the Austrians the surrounding territory, then how could the French retreat to Basel and not across the bridges?
 * if you're referring to the aftermath section, I think I've fixed it.
 * There is no background section. Some of the second paragraph of the lead could be moved to a short paragraph which covers the earlier history and the war before 1795.
 * Is no map available? The description of the dispositions of the forces is incomprehensible without one.
 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Further comments
 * "On 18 September 1796, the Austrians temporarily acquired control of the tête-du-ponts (bridgeheads) joining Kehl and Strasbourg until a strong French counter-attack forced them to retreat, leaving the French in control of the bridges but the Austrians in control of the territory surrounding them." I would merge this into the first sentence. It is confusing to have the first half of the battle at the beginning of the lead and the rest not until the third paragraph.
 * Much of the second paragraph of the lead seems to me to belong in the background section.
 * "After he tried to force his way through, the Austrians fell back to Weingarten at 49°3′5″N 8°31′50″E and waited there for the French to catch up.[11] By the time the French arrived, Scherb found himself caught between detachments of Austrians by the Kinzig river and behind him." This is a bit confusing. "catch up" sounds as if they are on the same side, and "By the time the French arrived" sounds as if there were two French forces. Perhaps delete "to catch up" and change the next sentence to "When Scherb arrived, he found himself caught..."
 * "The Austrians had insufficient reserves to meet the fresh troops from Strasbourg. By 23:00 though, the French had recovered Strasbourg, the village of Kehl and all of the French earthen works." Were the fresh troops the ones mentioned before or new ones? Also why "though"?
 * Looks good. A few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've dealt with all these now. auntieruth (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - although I am not really happy with the lead. You have not dealt with the first two points in 'further comments'. I still think that you should say in the first paragraph that the French recovered the ground lost by the initial Austrian success rather than leave the reader to work it out from the wording of the 3rd para, and I also think that some of the 2nd para belongs in the background. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OH! I finally understand what you were asking me to do.  I think....auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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. 