Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Emmendingen

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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Emmendingen[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because ... working this year of the French Revolutionary Wars toward a featured topic status....this is one of the battle articles for the group. Several of the sub articles are already at Featured article. auntieruth (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

I don't think it's necessary to say at the bottom of the infobox that both sides lost a general when the † by the names of those that died under the commanders and leaders subsection. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Indy beetle:. Additional comments? auntieruth (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The geographical information given in the lead is tool long. I would recommend shortening it to "Emmendingen is located on the Elz River in Baden-Württemberg, Germany." -Indy beetle (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Indy beetle:. Shortened. Anything else? auntieruth (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. These are my final observations:

"At midday, Latour threw his customary caution to the wind". The phrase "[throwing] caution to the wind" seems too idiomatic for an encyclopedia article. abandoned
For the losses in the infobox, it would be better if their nature was clarified. For example, separately notate the French losses as the 1,000 killed and wounded and the ~1,800 captured instead of combing them. fixed
"Lack of bridges did not slow the Coalition's pursuit." Should probably say "The lack of bridges". fixed
I'm a little confused by the citation style in this article. A few are written in a shortened footnote style whereas some are written more in full. I'd recommend adhering to a harv sfn, seeing as you already have all the bulk of the source info under "Alphabetical listing of resources", but at any rate these should be consistent as per WP:MH/A A1.
In the footnotes that are rendered under the "Notes" subsection, it would be helpful if the citations presented next to the text were put in the ref tags so that they rendered separately under the "Citations" subsection. If I'm not being clear enough, see the citation for the "Notes" section at the Black Sea Raid article.

This is an ongoing dispute in my referencing style. I'm reluctant to separate the citation from the note, first of all. Regarding the citations, they are consistent: the first time one is used, it's cited in full. Subsequently it is short-cited.'

"Smith does not fully explain the difference of 4,000 men in the Coalition force...It is possible, even likely, that the difference accounts for the force that Charles sent to blockade the French". Is this something Smith makes clear, or is that a WP:SYNTH interpretation? That might be the logical synthesis, but no one actually says that.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC) No further concerns from me. Support on the prose. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

"Habsburg/Austrian": See WP:SLASH. Although slashes survive MOS if reliable sources treat the slash as part of the name, I don't think this slash will survive that test.
"to abandon their plans for a three-pronged withdrawal, abandoning": abandons running wild.
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol, rewrote abandons gone wild, and fixed the slash problem. auntieruth (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: Excellent work as always, Ruth. I made a few minor MOS tweaks, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the Alphabetical listing of resources, "Paul Huot" --> Huot, Paul? fixed
same loc, "Constant von Wurzbach" --> Von Wurzbach, Constant (or Wurzbach, Constant von)? fixed
same loc, date/year for Dupuy? removed. I removed the citation before.
- Sorry, Ruth, I'm not sure this has been dealt with. You have still got a citation to Dupuy (citation # 2). I think Dupuy should be added back to your alphabetical listing. If there is no year/date, I don't see a major problem, it could probably just use "n.d." or something similar. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the Gates citation should be added to the Alphabetical listing of resources, as should Haythornthwaite, Rothenberg, Vann, Walker
"Phipps, II:380–385" --> "Phipps, pp. 380–385"? no it's volume 2.
- No worries. I have a couple of follow up queries/observations then... You currently only list one volume of Phipps in your alphabetical listing of sources, so there potentially isn't a need for you to disambig Phipps in short citations. Secondly, you have "Phipps, II:380–385" but also "Phipps, p. 278". Is the second Phipps citation to the same volume, i.e. Volume II? If so, they should be consistent. Equally, if there is a need to disambig the short citation, it should probably be "Phipps, Vol. II, pp. 380–385". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there is one citation needed tag that should be dealt with. that is generic encyclopedic information. If it has to be cited, I'll remove the note and force someone can actually look it up in the article about it. Taking citation of everything to the level of ridiculousness.

Thanks, @AustralianRupert: . auntieruth (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is probably best to remove the note in this case, if it can't be referenced given that another editor has requested the citation (per WP:CHALLENGE). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can link it to the article on the First Coalition....It's just that the participants in the coalition are cited in nearly every source....auntieruth (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okay, @AustralianRupert: I added a different citation, instead of adding all the books into one. still having trouble getting edits to "hold". auntieruth (talk)

Works for me, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ruth, this one looks close to promotion, IMO, but there are a couple of minor queries still outstanding in my comments (the Dupuy and Phipps issues are still outstanding). It possibly also needs an image review. @Nikkimaria: if you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at the images on this one? Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AustralianRupert:, Nikki did an image review (I fixed the one problem), and I've fixed the Dupuy and Phipps issues. also have solved my editing problems! auntieruth (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ruth, I've added my support now. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Passage_from_Germany_Moreau_1796.jpg: check reference number, doesn't seem to be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strange. But it's fixed now. auntieruth (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.