Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/War of the Fifth Coalition

Fifth Coalition

Hey guys, time for another FA attempt from me. I've worked on this article feverishly in the past few days and hope it meets most (if not all) FA criteria. Any points, suggestions, ideas, and criticisms are, as always, strongly welcomed and appreciated. Thank you very much!UberCryxic 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Very good article, overall. Now, for a variety of more minor quibbles and suggestions, in no particular order:

Shouldn't this be located at "War of the Fifth Coalition"?
Bavaria should be explicitly mentioned as a participant in the intro, as it wasn't part of the Empire proper.
There's some funny inconsistencies in the footnotes in terms of how names and titles are formatted, leading to things like "David G. Chandler, The Campaigns of Napoleon. p. 708." and, on the next note, "Chandler p. 708." You should pick one form and stick to it throughout; I personally prefer the newer CMS ("Last name, Shortened title, #"), but feel free to use anything you like, as long as it's consistent.
An overall {{Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars}} would be very helpful.
"Although Napoleon maneuvered with customary brilliance, as evidenced by overturning the awful initial French position, the growing size of his armies stretched even his impressive mental faculties. The scale of Napoleonic warfare grew too large for even Napoleon to fully cope with, a lesson that would be brutally repeated during the invasion of Russia in 1812." really needs to be cited to a reputable source.
The headings need to be edited to conform to the MoS; in particular, a leading "The" should be avoided where possible.
The "Other theaters" section is choppy, and should be coalesced into one or two solid paragraphs.
Maps are nice, but can we also get some other pictures here? There's a wide variety of paintings available for many of these battles, so availability shouldn't really be a problem.
I would replace {{main}} with {{details}}, which reads somewhat nicer; but that's just a personal preference.

Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I made every change that you suggested. Thanks!UberCryxic 15:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Another suggestion would be to simply merge Treaty of Schönbrunn into this article; I doubt there's enough material there to warrant a separate one, or to allow for anything more than a stub to be written. Kirill Lokshin 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm I'm not sure about that. There isn't much there now, but that's because no one has written about it, not because the topic is devoid of information. We are, after all, talking about months of negotiations that led to Schonbrunn in October 1809. They should probably stay separate.UberCryxic 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, your call. I typically merge treaties into wars, but if you think there's enough separate material here to make for a decent article... ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]