Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Winterthur (1799)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:47, 11 February 2010 [1].

[edit] Battle of Winterthur (1799)

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Featured article candidates/Battle of Winterthur (1799)/archive1


Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... it fills a wikigap. I'm preparing several articles on the War of the Second Coalition, focusing in particular on the campaign in southwestern Germany and northern Switzerland, and including several battles and several generals (Johann von Klenau, recently promoted to FA, is one). This is a gap not only in wikicoverage but also in literature on the Second Coalition in general. Much of the literature focuses on northern Italy campaigning, which of course is where the great man himself was most active. Thanks for your comments and helpful critiques. As always, I will work hard to bring the article up to snuff; it has passed GA and Military History A-class review, and is in good shape, although I'm sure some folks will find some issues to bring up here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've checked Dabs, and as of now there are none. All pictures have alt text, or link=, and the link checker tool says the links are good. I'm also the primary editor. Auntieruth55 (talk)
PPS per talk page discussion, this is my fifth FAC. Unification of Germany, Cologne War, and Hermann Detzner have been promoted, and Johann von Klenau was promoted last week. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - you have multiple citations for the same page numbers. Use the <ref name> template. Parrot of Doom 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No thanks. I prefer to not use name templates because of the confusion they cause for newbies. This is not actionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have diffs for this "confusion to newbies" thing? Is that the only reason you dislike named refs? ... Everything confuses newbies. Could probably find diffs of newbies being confused by wikilinks, citation templates, shortcuts, etc.
In refs but not notes: Hicks; Mörgeli; University of Zurich. In notes but not refs: Kurdna and Smith. • Ling.Nut 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm the newbie.;) I detest named refs and won't use them. I find them terribly confusing to read, and would prefer go the other route. Thanks for catching the Kurdna and Smith thing and the other ref. I'll fix that. Hicks is in there. Ref 45. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well that's your choice, personally I think it makes things more confusing. If you're going for "east of use" though, a quick look at the formatting of your citations reveals:
References - inconsistent capitalisation of Accessed.
Huerliman ref. fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Ref 22 - check pp or p, also, why are there two page numbers?
because they are two different books....? Unless you mean citation 19, which refers to pp 45-46, and p. 48. In that case, since I've been castigated before for not being specific enough in the citations, I noted specifically where the information came from. pages 45-46 and page 48. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So why cite two book with one citation? You should use two citations instead, to avoid confusion. Parrot of Doom 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, why are several books quoted in full in Citations and Notes and Bibliography, while other books are summarised in the former, and quoted in full in the latter?
All are cited in full in citations and notes the first time they are mentioned, and afterward, I use the abbreviated citation. In the Bibliography, I use the bibliographic citation format Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Why? It just makes the references section needlessly complicated. Just list the books in full in the bibliography section, and use abbreviated citations in the notes section. Parrot of Doom 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ref 48 - Smith, Data Book - Bibliography says Databook (no space).
Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography - Peter, Armin... no full stop on the end.
Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Seaton, Albert. The Austro-Hungarian army of the Napoleonic wars. London: Osprey, 1973, 9780850451474. - what's that big number on the end?
fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Smith, Digby. The Napoleonic Wars Data Book. London: Greenhill, 1998, ISBN 1-85367-276-9. - why does this ISBN have dashes, and others do not?
fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Young, John, - this entry highlights that its in two volumes, but other books just quote the volume number.
yes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Parrot of Doom:
I've thought a lot about your comment above
Why? It just makes the references section needlessly complicated. Just list the books in full in the bibliography section, and use abbreviated citations in the notes section.
and actually started to switch the citations to short form throughout, but cancelled the switch. When I read an article, I like having the full citation, so I can see what is being cited, at least in the first instance, and from there, knowing what "Smith, Databook" is, for example, or Blanning is. There are a lot of Smiths out there, and it could be anyone, but knowing it is Digby Smith gives credibility to the citation. Although there aren't a lot of Blannings out there, knowing it is Timothy and which of his books is cited gives credibility also. While there is room for minor formatting problems (accessed/Accessed, Data book, Databook, etc.), these are fundamentally minor and easily fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that's your choice, but I cannot reconcile your statement "I detest named refs and won't use them. I find them terribly confusing to read" with having a references section that frankly, looks a mess. Sorry. Parrot of Doom 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
    • Hugh Chisholm, The Encyclopædia Britannica, New York, The Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1910–11, vol. 29, p. 735 Can you give the title of the entry for this one, so we know what is being cited? it's duplicated in a lot of other place, so I took it out.
    • Current ref 18 (Terry J. Senior) "Ney had been promoted to General of Division only weeks early." do you mean "earlier" here or was he promoted two weeks earlier than his sceduled promotion?
same as above.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Current ref 18 again, can you link to the actual PAGE you're citing on this site please, rather than the home page? Also, what makes this a reliable source?
all of this is replicated in the other sources for the paragraph, so I took it out.
    • Archibald Alison. History of Europe from the fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the accession of Louis Napoleon in 1852. N.Y: Harper, 1855, Chapter 28, p. 20 is a 150 year old source, surely something more recent is available to cite "On 22 May 1799, Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf led a large column across the Rhine at Stein and Eglisau, while Hotze led another column across the upper part of the river, where it is still a mountain stream. From from there, Hotze's force passed through the Grisons, into Toggenburg, and moved toward Zürich."
Very few detailed accounts of the battle. Most of the "modern" literature focuses on the action in northern Italy (where Napoleon and Suvorov were), not in northern Switzerland. This was the most specific description of that I could find, plus Jomini.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave this for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As we are all aware, the discipline of history has changed in the last 150 years. Is there no modern source that backs up these facts? That kind of thing always worries me. Sometimes facts are omitted from modern sources because there is no evidence for them. If, however, there is no modern interest in Switzerland, as you say, that is a different issue. Are we absolutely sure that no modern source can be found? Should perhaps an attribution be made in the text, then? Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There is Rodger, which I cited earlier in the text. Blanning has also written some on the situation, and I've incorporated his work. But the most specific texts are Jomini, Archduke Charles' papers, Alison, etc.. As you've pointed out, the discipline of history has changed a lot, just in the past 20 years, much less 150 years, and the best source on troop movements, etc., is still the really old texts. Who went where, did what, lost how many. In some cases, there is a considerable amount of confusion about who did what, where, when and how. For example, crossing the Rhine, where...? But once people like Jomini got involved, well after the fact, and sat down with their maps etc, these are fairly reliable, if not always impartial. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The only modern French, German or English source I could find that commented on the Rhine crossings was http://www.napoleon-online.de/AU_Generale/html/nauendorf.html , a German website associated with the Napoleon Series that has Nauendorf crossing one day before Hotze, on May 21st. Beyond that, I found various older sources contradicting each other to some extent as to the precise location and date of the crossings, including one older source that mentioned that there were conflicting accounts even then (all posted on Ruth's talk page). But as much as they differ in details, they are in broad agreement in that Hotze and Nauendorf crossed the Rhine on May 21/22, Nauendorf west of Lake Constance, and Hotze to the southeast. I guess we could (and perhaps should) place a note giving alternative accounts, but it is really a minor detail. --JN466 01:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm satisfied on this point, but I wonder if adding a footnote to the effect that particular sources are useful for troop movements might be nice. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Current ref 23 (Smith) same problem as current ref 18 above, link to the exact page please and what makes this a reliable source?
link to page: cannot link to exact page. site doesn't allow it. I've included all the information one needs to find the page.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
reliability: well, first, it's Digby Smith. One of these days I'll get around to writing an article about him. He's written about 20 books or so on the Napoleonic Wars, plus many many articles. Second, the Napoleon Series website is one of a hand full of really good sites for research on the Napoleonic Wars. Most of the contributors are amateur historians and reenactors, but there are several professional historians involved. Third, it's Robert Burnham, the editor in chief, who has peer reviews for all the articles, if even if the quality of the writing isn't always top of the line, the information is. I refer my students to it (university students) as a legitimate reference, and a couple of my students have had their papers published on it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
We bow down to the god of Digby Smith. :) Whereas I would prefer to use his book publications, I do understand your reasoning for using the web versions. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
actually, the only thing I've used of his online is the Kudrna/Smith bios on the napoleon series. The rest are hard copies in my library. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "Michel Ney". New international encyclopedia, Volume 17. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1914–1916" surely something more recent is available for information on Ney!
Sure there is. This one is surprisingly detailed, though. And the basic facts don't change. Born, promoted, injured, executed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, occasionally facts CAN change. Granted, not often, but when you exclusively use older references, you leave yourself open to comments that you haven't done a good comprehensive survey of the available sources. I could sorta understand if you linked to the googlebooks page on this, but you're not even doing that. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I did give a preference to sources that are available online, either at Googlebooks or Gutenberg, but I didn't link to the pages, because that would make it appear that we are promoting one online book source over another, which I'm told we don't want to do. For the Unification of Germany article, I was told to remove all the googlebooks links, which was a real chore!, after I had taken great care to put them all in. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And I echo LingNut's comments above.
if named refs are made a requirement for FA, I probably won't be nominating any FAs any more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean the named refs, but the other bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you using this source for the details you mention or the basic facts? If you are using it for the basic facts, I would suggest using the modern EB. One of the major flaws of the 1911 EB is that it includes interesting anecdotes that are completely unreliable. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a 1990s print copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as an online subscription to britannica.com. If you need something checking, let me know. --JN466 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the only remaining question I have about the article. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Removed. Cited to Bravest of the Brave. Reliable standard (if elderly) bio of Ney. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I"m going to leave these out for other reviewers to consider. I'm not sure who told you to take out the googlebooks links, because it's never been required at FAC as far as I know, but I'm not going to tell you to put them back in either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I went through this Google book links question before; we decided that there was no rule against them. • Ling.Nut 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
seems there is no rule for it either, so I'll leave it to readers to fetch the books from where-ever they wish. I've added another paragraph with some more up-to-date sources, but there really isn't much. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

  • I think that this article needs another copyedit. As I was reading it, I found a lot of little typos. I fixed them, but I am by no means sure that I found them all. A single pass by another person should help find all of these.
I passed through again and several others have as well but. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
J has gone through it (he's a copy editor, and very good), and I've gone through it again. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A map of the battle would help. I wasn't exactly sure where all of these towns were. My understanding of European geography is perhaps better than the average American, but it is still not stellar.
there had been a map once, and it had been deleted. See if this one helps. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It would help if there were some surrounding context to the map. What are the surrounding countries, etc.? Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
new map. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That helps, yes. Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that the casualty figures should be mentioned in the text, not just in the infobox. Perhaps these should be placed in the "Aftermath" section?
added.Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, I found the article comprehensible and thorough, particularly the "Clash" section, which I thought was particularly well-written. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I am doing a proofread and copyedit now. --JN466 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks - just indicate here when you are done, and I'll cross that off above. Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • There's a sentence I can't resolve: "That night, 26 May, Hotze camped 30 kilometers (19 mi) between Frauenfeld and Hüttwilen". Could you have a look, Ruth? --JN466 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I've now completed the run-through. Unfortunately, I had work coming in, so it took a bit longer than I'd anticipated. The revised graphic is helpful! There is one more thing which I think could be made clearer, namely that Ney stayed with his rear guard (he must have, because he was wounded by the musket fire directed at his rear guard). When I came to that bit of the narrative, I at first did a double-take, because I expected Ney to be safely on the way to Winterthur, his retreat covered by Walther & Co. Otherwise, like Awadewit says, it is very engagingly written. --JN466 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My remaining concerns with the article have to do with the sources - see questions above. Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I will be happy to support once my last question about the encyclopedia is answered (see above). Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My issues about the sources have been resolved. I am now happy to support. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support; well researched, well written. --JN466 01:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments - background information needed on this point: you refer to a rivalry between Ney and Soult, but could you elaborate more? The infobox image is, for me at least, extremely confusing at that resolution. Consider moving it down and increasing its size? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
apparently Soult was not a team player. It isn't particularly relevant, the rivalry here, but just that Soult didn't do what he was told to do, and Ney didn't forget it.
image. Well, I could but I don't have a info box image to put in its place. Suggestions? Location map? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well it seems to me (from just reading the article and having no other knowledge of the topic) that the French might have won if Soult had showed up, so I just want to know more :)
A map would be good. I can't get any useful information out of that image unless it is blown up, which I believe would be prohibited by MOS:LEAD(?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
they might have, but it would have been a close run affair. Hotze had a lot more men than Ney, and Nauendorf was on his right. Massena didn't have a lot of flexibility to move guys around because of the circle Charles was building around him. Or semi circle. But certainly, if Soult had followed his orders, which apparently he developed a habit of ignoring (see his actions in the Iberia campaigns later), then it might have taken a day or two to push them out of Winterthur, not 11 hours.
re the image. I'm not being difficult, there just aren't a lot of relevant images. The Swiss and German campaigns have been largely ignored due, I think, to Napoleon's absence. Jomini gives it quite a bit of coverage, but he was interested in mountain warfare, or at least upland warfare, and the Austrian problems with it at that stage of the military's organization. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Haha "a habit of ignoring orders" -- not normally a thing you want to see out of your commanders. ;) I just think you could add a sentence or two on the rivalry, as otherwise a mention of a rivalry with nothing else attached leaves me, and I presume readers, wanting a little more.
Indeed! I actually don't know much more about it. One source mentioned it in passing, so I used it. I have read, though, that Soult made life difficult in Spain for Suchet and others. I'm reluctant to go into more detail. Seems to me that could be another article, or an addition to the Soult article. Apparently he was unpopular with the other generals. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay then. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I know you aren't being difficult! Perhaps the map you made that is now in the clash section would work? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
the map that is in the clash section needs to stay there I think. There is a location map in the Winterthur article. Perhaps that would work? I don't know how to insert it though, with the long/lat marker on it. Do you? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm. To me, it looks like {{coord}} and {{Infobox Swiss town}} are interacting to produce that? I'm really not sure. Does anyone else know? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thanks, that wasn't there 5 days ago. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it doesn't seem to have been fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Did it again!  !Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Summary
Support from JN, Ed, Sturmvogel 66 and Awadewit
Ealdgyth reviewed the sources and left a few for others to decide for themselves. He also checked the links, and they were fine. With Awadewit's help, this is cleared up.
Ed doesn't like the main image in the box, but neither of us can figure out what to do to add a specific kind of map, and there already is a map, so....
Parrot thinks the citations are messy, but hasn't presented any other objections to text. The citations are standard, and consistent, Parrot just doesn't like the style of them (wants named refs).
Dabomb87 has checked for Dabs, and I fixed the one he found.

: Needs image review, which I asked for on project talk page Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Media review from Charles Edward
These are done. Plus added additional information on the other marshals' images.
will find. Swapped image for one that I could verify with date and location. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
swapped this for one that wasn't from someone's personal archive. But I did add the english. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
HELP!!!! Why doesn't it display. There is a red box in front, does this mean there is an error?
I fooled with a bit and can't get it to show either. I am not sure what is wrong? It must be the syntax of the code somehow. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Alt text is showing now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
These are the district maps from the Swiss project. 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Good luck. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - nice map in the infobox; it gives very useful information to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. I can't see any other problems with the article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment- Main image alt text requires some work. Currently reads 'Topographic map of battle ground'. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
New text below. 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Topographic map of battle ground shows the many lakes and rivers of the Swiss plateau, which stretches southeast to west-northwest, from the Switzerland's border with France, to the shores of Lake Constance. On the southern flank of the plateau, the alps block access to the Italian states; on the north flank of the plateau, a series of moderate hills rim the Rhine River. The battleground, south of Lake Constance, is depicted with a star.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Winterthur_(1799)/archive1&oldid=343710744"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export