Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Winterthur (1799)

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.

---

Battle of Winterthur (1799)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Winterthur (1799)/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it fills a gap in War of the Second Coalition wikicoverage, article has undergone a GA review, and passed, it has requisite maps, and is a thorough survey of available literature (English, German and French). Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text. Two external links are flagged in green, please check and make sure that they are still ok with regards to use in the article. Dab tool reports one redirect to the page, please locate and fix the link in question.

These are okay, they are just redirects from an index page to the sub page, which is how that cite works.

• • In the second paragraph of the political and diplomatic situation section you have the line "The French Directory was convinced that the Austrians were conniving to start another war." Under the circumstances of the article the word conniving could be seen to violate the policy on weasel words, I suggest that it be removed from the article.

They were conniving, and so were the Austrians.

• • In the outbreak of war section the first line reads "As winter broke in 1799, on 1 March, General Jean Baptiste Jourdan and his army of 25,000,[10] crossed the Rhine between Basel and Kehl." This sounds funny to me, might I suggest removing "on 1 March" or perhaps rephrasing so that the winter breaking and date do not sound as awkward? Perhaps something like "As winter broke in 1799 Gerneral Jean Baptiste Jourdan and his army made ready to move out. On 1 March, 25,000 troops under Jourdan's command crossed the Rhine between Basel and Kehl"? done
  • In the local section you have the line "To the west, the Töss river 59.7 kilometers (37 mi) long, runs north toward the Rhine." This reads awkwardly to me, I would suggest either removing the length of the river or placing the length of the river before its name (ie "To the west, the 59.7 kilometers (37 mi) long Töss river runs north toward the Rhine.") done
  • The last line of the first paragraph in the leadership sections references a weak brigade, may I ask what is meant by that? I presume less than full strength, but do you know why it was weak? I would be interested in knowing. it was less than full strength. Massena didn't have the numbers.
  • In the preliminaries section you have the line "Out-numbered almost four to one, Hotze's force was badly mauled by the French; 750 of his men were killed or wounded, and 1,450 captured; in addition, he lost two guns, and one color." My memory is a little hazy, but I recall using the word mauled in the New Jersey article and catching flack for it on weasel word grounds, so I would suggest finding another word to use instead of mauled. I don't know about your New Jersey article, but mauled is a fairly normal word to use in Napoleonic warfare. I used drubbed once, and Jacky didn't like it; changed to mauled, it it was fine.
  • In the clash section you have the line "Opposite him, Michel Ney, newly in command of the division of approximately 3,000 men, deployed his force around the heights, the so-called Ober-Winterthur, a ring of low-lying hills some 6 kilometers (4 mi) north of Winterthur." What kind of division? Infantry, I assume, but I would suggest specifying for clarity's sake. Mixed. Infantry, artillery and cavalry. They were all mixed by then, usually. It should have been clear, The troops at Winterthur included a brigade of four battalions commanded by Dominique Mansuy Roget, a weak brigade commanded by Théodore Maxime Gazan, and a cavalry brigade commanded by Frédéric Henri Walther ? Not clear?
  • In the fifth paragraph of the clash section you have the line "By mid-morning, Ney had moved toward the front with Gazan's brigade and he could see the enemy advancing in front of him; expecting Soult's reinforcements on his flanks, he still anticipated an easy victory, like the one three days earlier in which Massena's force had mauled Hotze's column at Frauenfeld." Again, I have concerns about the use of the word mauled, and would suggest that it be removed or replaced if at all possible.
  • In the last paragraph of the clash section you have the line "Tharreau manuveured around the Töss, attempting to re-establish his line, but Massena did not want a general engagement, not there and not then." Why didn't Massena want a general engagement? Also, the use of "not there and not then" seems a little odd, could you try rephrasing the line? done.
  • You're a little thin on visual media in the clash and aftermath sections, could you see about maybe getting an image or two added to the sections in question? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can hunt stuff up.

I've added additional images. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support That's better, although I would still like those redirects and ambiguous links removed from the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the redirects in the references and citations sections, although I don't think it's a good idea, because now the reader has to know more German to find the section on Hotze...previously the link brought the reader directly to the Hotze bio on that site. As for the ambiguous links, I'm not sure what those are. I found a dab which had not been there before, and fixed that. Is this what you mean? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support A-class now by my standards. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Looks good prose/detail/citation-wise. A couple of things:
  • Structure/illustration-wise, I'd prefer to see the leaders' portraits earlier in the article, closer to where they're introduced. Admittedly it might be hard to crowd all of them in further up but given the nature of the caption for Soult, his could appear in the Aftermath section and just Ney and Hotze earlier.
  • I notice Longworth listed in the Bibliography but not cited, therefore he should be moved to a Further Reading section. That's just an example, I didn't go through every single citation and reference matching up, so pls check all. Otherwise I can't see any issues - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

checked other sources. Longworth was left over from a previous edit. I redid the leadership section, and added a bit. See if you like this better. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support One question I do have. You have an unresolved link to Théodore Maxime Gazan. Could it be that this is Honoré Théodore Maxime Gazan de la Peyrière? If so please fix the link. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2010 (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.