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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MisterBee1966

First comments:

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

</ref>Cust, p. 166.</ref> 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

later reported in the Times - could you link to the respective article?

~~More to follow.~~ MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherclown

Top effort, a few very minor points:

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

I hope thise helps. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jackyd101

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)[reply]

"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.

Will deal with the rest later tonight or tomorrow. THANKS! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.