Napoleonic Wars was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
How is US Co-belligerent in this case? Yes, the US had the war of 1812 however the US involvement had nothing to do with anything going on in Europe and was fighting a completely different war than Napoleon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The US should be a co belligerent because the British had to fight a war in 2 different places at the same time. Although they didn't happen because of one another the do directly effect one another so the USA should be a co-belligerent. The reason why these directly effect one another is the war of 1812 forcing the British to waste more time, money, troops, and supplies to fight another war , all of which would have been great to use against napoleon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To say that the War of 1812 had nothing to do with the Napoleonic Wars is absolutely mistaken. The second sentence of the War of 1812 article makes the point that it was caused by issues that were part of the Napoleonic Wars, and that its generally treated as part of them by British and European historians, though not by American or Canadian. Chandler considers it sufficiently a part of the greater conflict, for instance, that his Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars includes entries for the war itself and for a number of its people and events (Commodore Perry, Lundy's Lane, Sackett's Harbor). It's no coincidence that peace was concluded at the same time as the Napoleonic Wars ended, even though nothing had been decided in the fighting and the Treaty of Ghent didn't resolve any of the issues that had caused it; those issues had been resolved simply by Britain and France not being at war with each other anymore. The paragraph on the war in this article makes it clear that the United States neither was a formal ally of France nor acted in conjunction with them militarily, but the statement that the war is "technically not considered part of the Napoleonic Wars" should be removed because it's often not true. Personally I think there's grounds for also including the USA in the infobox, though it doesn't really bother me. (Also should be removed: the sentence stating that British involvement in the war gave the French "a slight advantage" over the Royal Navy. Any statement about the French having any sort of naval advantage between 1812 and 1814 would really need to be backed up by a pretty solid citation.) Binabik80 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The world map showing the powers and their territories is wrong. Tasmania south of Australia was under the control of the Netherlands which were opposed to Napoleon so Tasmania should be coloured blue and the French had control of Western Australia.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The map shows New Zealand partially colored pink, but there were no European settlements there at this time, just trading stations. It wouldn't be under British sovereignty for another quarter-century. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Ottoman Empire be in infobox? It clearly says 'The Second Coalition was formed in 1798 by Austria, Great Britain, the Kingdom of Naples, the Ottoman Empire, the Papal States, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and other states. ' elmasmelih 21:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The Ottoman Empire was removed from the infobox without explanation in February. I just noticed this, so I have put the Ottoman Empire back in the infobox. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Persia's role and in the article and on the map
Persia was firmly allied to France for several years following the Finkenstein treaty, and France was allied to Russia in the other years of the Napoleonic wars It would be nice if Qajar Persia's role, albeit minor, could be covered somewhere in the article as well as they largely led the front in the North and South Caucasus
Also this map needs to be adjusted. If someone could do that.