Talk:Breton Chasseurs

Military history: European / French / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

B class review[edit]

The introduction says that this unit became the modern 81st Line Infantry. Please add a sentence about this at the end of the article and cite it. I imagine the source would be Grémillet. (Where did you find a copy of Susane? I'm impressed!) Djmaschek (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this format when writing the narrative: "The unit had 1 major, 1 adjutant, 1 surgeon." Please do not do this: "The unit had 1 x major, 1 x adjutant, 1 x surgeon." There are a few situations where it might be acceptable. For example, when describing a warship in the infobox, it might be more clear to write "40 x 18-pound guns, 4 x 32-pound carronades". Djmaschek (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ordnance or Ordinance?[edit]

There are a number of references to "army ordnance" in this article. From the context, however, it seems more likely this should be "ordinance" as in a decree, rather than "ordnance" in the sense of military weapons/ammo or the services in charge of it. Perhaps the French usage is different, but if someone with more expertise on the subject could chime in it would be appreciated. Russ3Z (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]