Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rhine campaign of 1795/archive1

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rhine Campaign of 1795

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it's been updated with all the information available. Full casualties are not available unless I do OR. Its sister articles, Army of the Rhine and Moselle, Rhine Campaign of 1796, and Army of the Sambre and Meuse, have undergone A-class review and the latter two have passed FA. Army of the Rhine and Moselle is at FA consideration now. auntieruth (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gog the Mild

Disclosure, I assessed this for GA.

@Auntieruth55: I have done a little copy editing, could you check that you are happy with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Needs alt text for the Battle of Handschuhsheim.
Optional: "Pichegru's army made a surprise capture of Mannheim" seems a little clumsy; maybe 'Pichegru's army captured Mannheim in a surprise attack'?
Siege of Mannheim: I am genuinely unsure if Siege should be capitalised, as Battle would be. Is there any guidance on this?
"traitorous contact with French Royalists". Why is Royalists capitalised? (And elsewhere.)
"the army had made itself odious throughout France, by both rumor and action". I am not sure what "rumor" is alluding to. Perhaps you could expand? (A little.)
"Imperial Circles". Why the capital C? (In Note 1 it is lower case in the first sentence, upper case in the second and lower case again in the third!)

ok, I've "regularized" this. perhaps better? It should be capitalized when referring to a specific circle.

Optional: "Political terrain"? Perhaps 'Political background'?
"the Rhine Ditch". Why is this in italics?

it's a translation from German, and in English or German, it is colloquial.

"Further to the north, the river became deeper and faster". Does your source definitely support this? I thought that in this stretch it became broader and slower, and meandered more.

north of the knee it broadened, and then as it progressed further north, it became deeper, narrower and faster.

"By 1794-95, military planners in Paris". Is the source not more precise?

" For the French, control of the Upper Danube would give the them a reliable approach to Vienna." In what way was the approach "reliable"?
Optional: "not only in terms of war aims but also in practical terms: the French Directory believed that war should pay for itself". I would replace the colon with a full stop.
"The right flank of the Armies of the Center". Should that be 'Army', singular?

Always referred to as Armies (plural) because there were several armies in the Center.

Then see the next sentence "The remaining units of the former Army of the Center…" Singular.

"Although this solved some of the problems of feeding and paying the army". How and why? I don't see why it should?

make the occupied territories pay wages and for food.

But you don't mention that:
Theirs was an army entirely dependent for support upon the countryside it occupied. The planners reorganized the army into task forces. The right flank of the Armies of the Center, later the called the Army of the Moselle, the entire Army of the North and the Army of the Ardennes were combined to form the Army of the Sambre and Meuse. The remaining units of the former Army of the Center and the Army of the Rhine were united, initially on 29 November 1794, and formally on 20 April 1795, under the command of Jean-Charles Pichegru. Although this solved some of the problems of feeding and paying the army, it did not solve them all.

The article reads as if the reorganisation partially solved these problems.

"in May 1796, in the border town of Zweibrücken, a demi-brigade revolted. In June, pay for two demi-brigades was in arrears and two companies rebelled". Why are incidents several months after the campaign finished relevant?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Coalition garrison of 9,600 negotiated secretly". Why the upper case C? (And elsewhere.)

Because the Coalition was a thing. The First Coalition (as opposed to the Second), included allies that called themselves the Coalition.

"With Jourdan temporarily out of the picture, the Austrians defeated the left wing of the Army of the Rhine and Moselle at the Battle of Mainz: 17,000 Coalition troops commanded by Wurmser engaged 12,000 Republican French soldiers, commanded by Pichegru, who were encamped outside the Mannheim fortress." That's a long sentence. Suggest replacing the colon with a full stop.
"Mainz, on 29 October 1795, a Coalition army of 27,000, led by Count of Clerfay". Either 'the Count of Clerfay' or 'Count Clerfay'.
"and prepared for invasion". Is that 'and prepared to be invaded', or 'and prepared to invade'?
"this meant drafting raw recruits from the ten "Circles,"" Why an upper case C? Why the scare quotes? Why the comma inside the quotes?
"in the spring of 1796, Charles had half the number of troops covering". Half the troops compared with what?
"By 1795, Pichegru was leaning heavily toward the Royalist cause. During the campaign, he accepted money from a British agent". Should events "during the campaign" not be covered in the section "Campaign of 1795", rather than one after the Aftermath section? In any event, I don't see what this paragraph has to do with School for marshals.
"Jean-de-Dieu Soult, who participated in the campaign as an infantry brigadier, noted that Jourdan too made many errors but the French government's errors were worse." Suggest deleting "too".
"The Army of the Rhine and Moselle (and its subsequent incarnations) included five future Marshals of France" Why do you not include Soult, "who participated in the campaign as an infantry brigadier"?

That's it for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Ruth, nice work. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1792–98 --> "1792-1798" per WP:DATERANGE
units combined the old military units with new revolutionary formations --> "units that combined..."?
there are a few duplicate links: Holy Roman Empire, French Directory, Duchy of Bavaria,
in the Sources section, the ISBN that is provided for Phipps appears to be the same as that provided for Rothenberg 2007
in the Sources, "Dunn-Pattison" should appear after Dodge, if it is to appear in alphabetical order
in the Sources, some ISBNs are hyphenated differently to others. For instance, compare "978-3540293934" with "978-1-908692-25-2"
1789-1797: should have an endash
in the Web sources section, the date ranges should have endashes in the titles
there is some inconsistency in date formats, e.g. compare "2014-11-12" with "10 February 2009"
"Rothenberg, pp. 37-39": needs an endash
"Rothenberg, pp. 37-39" and "Rothenberg, p. 39": seems ambiguous - is this Rothenberg 1973 or 2007?
Gates, listed in Citations but not in Sources
Pichegru bungled --> "bungled" seems quite strong, and while potentially true, I think we need to be careful with this word as it might convey a point of view. Potentially "Pichegru missed at least one..." might be less problematic?
Wurmer then laid --> "Wurmser"
Of the lessons learned in both 1794 and 1795, the Habsburgs may have concluded that they could not rely on their allies --> suggest this should probably be attributed in text. For instance, "According to Gunther Rothenberg..."
led by Count of Clerfayt --> "led by the Count of Clerfayt"?
citation density looked fine to me, and on face value the sources look reliable to me, although some of the German language references were beyond my skills to research, I'm afraid
in Template:Campaignbox Rhine Campaign of 1795 there is a redlink for 1st Mannheim, is this the same as Siege of Mannheim (1795). If so, can I suggest that the template be updated? If not, I am not sure whether the redlink appears in this article. It probably should. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life has intervened, but I will get to these comments over our long weekend. auntieruth (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Ruth, I hope all is well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntieruth55: - do you foresee being able to address this review? Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntieruth55:, this has been open for three months, so we'll probably have to wrap it up and close it unless you're going to be able to address these comments shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2018 (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.