Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze

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 08:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it meets requirements, it's passed all the previous steps (B, GA), it's even had a DYK, and it fills a gap in wikicoverage. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support.

:*In the lead you contradict yourself when you say in the first paragraph he commanded the left wing and at the end that he commanded the right wing. fixed

~~In the lead it'd be nice if you could somehow integrate the parenthetical date ranges into the text - as it is they are kind of awkward.fixed~~

"during the action on October 1793," Either in October or on October XX, please. fixed.

Fix these up and it'll be good. A very interesting read, by the way. – Joe N 20:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. Sorry for the delay. – Joe N 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the article is very well written and does a great job of covering the subject. I do have a couple of minor recommendations though.

There appear to be several references that are identical and I recommend combining the into one rather than several identical ones. The main one I notice is the one that looks like reference 4. do you mean the named refs template? I find that impossible to read when people use it, and won't use it myself.

That is the one I was referring too but ok.--Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article in AWB and there are couple of places were months are abbreviated and per the MOS should be spelled out. I think the month in questions was Oct. thanks. fixed.

looks good thanks --Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military person infobox does not support Mother and Father so I am not sure if they should be there or not. I see that you identify the father in the article but since the Infobox doesn't display it you may also want to mention the mothers name as well. she is mentioned.

I see it now sorry, my mistake. --Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you use the de icon template, and I am not sure about its use but I do notice that many of the references look bare and I would recommend using the cite templates. Besides giving structure to the references it also allows for meta data about the reference to be read by other applications and websites. that icon is acceptable. What do you mean, they look "bare"? Not enough info? The required info is there, I think. Give me an example, please. I don't like the cite templates, find them very cumbersome to use.

What I meant by bare was, using 4 as an exmaple it just appears to be a link with no, publisher, accessdate, or publish date.--Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I use the full reference on the first mention and after that, an abbreviated one, according to AHA style (American Historical Association). The full cite is also included in the bib.

I would recommend adding the placeofburial option to the infobox. he had two places of burial; one in Schanis, and one later, after he was dug up and reinterred in Bregenz. So place of burial is confusing.

Fair enough, I understand. I usually use the current or final burial location myself but thats just personal preference so I understand if you leave it off. --Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kumioko! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's helpful. Thanks for reading. Does this mean you support? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- No problems reported with alt text. External link checker reports three dead links and a bunch of others that are suspicious, please check and advise. There are currently no dab links in the article.

**Throughout the article you have linked Hotze's rank to the main article, but if at all possible I would suggest that you try and find the rank for the specific country he was promoted in and link to that instead. no rank for specific country. Habsburg military. There is Austria-Hungary, but no Habsburg. If you know where it is hidden, please say so.

- Nitpick: The article is a little thin on pictures, perhaps one or two more could be added? It would, in my opinion, improve the article. will go hunt for extraneous pictures. ' Added one.
Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I guess this one's a little obtuse for finer details such as I've suggested. At any rate, its solid, so I lend my support. Bon Chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these Austrian field marshals are an obscure and esoteric subject. I found a source on the Habsburg military, so when I'm done with German Peasants' War, which should be next week and for which I could use a collaborator (hint hint), I' write the article on that. Until there is more info on Hotze, it isn't going past A class, as far as I'm concerned. If someone finds something else, which I really don't think is out there yet, then it might be possible to take it to the next level. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.