Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Kehl (1796–97)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kehl (1796–97)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Siege of Kehl (1796–97) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the format and content of other similar articles. I look forward to some constructive critique. Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Ruth, I've done some copy editing. Please check my changes and adjust as you see fit. I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria, but I have a couple of suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • please check your time format, I think per WP:MOSTIME "1000" should be "10:00" etc.
  • fixed
  • should the article be re-titled as "Siege of Kehl (1796–97)" given that it spanned the two years, and also given how the lead starts?
  • sure, but my wikimagic didn't allow me to name a page with an – in it. Or to rename it. If you can do it, please .,...
  • Thanks! And when I find the info below, if I find it, I'll add it in. auntieruth (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Clark..." do we know this officer's full name? If so, can this please be added.
  • If you know it, please add it, but I've not found it.
Found in the course of tweaking my manuscript. Added! auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent presentation: "21st century" v. "twenty-first century";
  • fixed
  • this sounds a little repetitious: "Charles advised his brother...refused by his brother".

AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I copyedited down to Background. That section looked a little rough: "an event between the French king and his subjects", "the situation surrounding his sister", "in consultation with French émigré nobles and Frederick William II of Prussia, he issued the Declaration of Pilnitz, in which they declared" (the nobles declared?) - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked. Thanks.  :) auntieruth (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can do more if this is headed to FAC ... is it? - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, yes probably. I'd like to get the whole set of Rhine campaign 1796 at FAC, DJ's done a lot on those articles also. auntieruth (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The fortunes of Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach, and those of the Alsatian city of Strasbourg were united by the presence of bridges and a series of gates, fortifications and barrage dams." I do not understand this. Fortification covered both so if one fell the other would?
  • exactly
  • How about something like "Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach, was connected by bridges to the Alsatian city of Strasbourg on the other side of the Rhine, and the fortifications covered both towns so that the loss of one was likely to lead to the loss of the other." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twiddled with it, and the related part in the article. Hope it's clearer now. auntieruth (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you take another look - your revision has gone wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jean Victor Marie Moreau, almost upset the siege" Perhaps almost broke the siege?
  • fixed
  • "The defeat of Jourdan's army at the Amberg, Würzburg and Altenkirchen" "at the battles of Amberg..." would be clearer.
  • "Even though the French still held the crossing at Kehl and Strasbourg" crossing or crossings?
  • yes. several.
  • "maintaining control of them had been critical in relative ease of the French crossing to the German side of the Rhine." This does not seem grammatical - had been critical to the relative ease with which the French had crossed?
  • "Clarke, their envoy" I would give his first name.
  • it's linked, but I added his full name.
  • "Most commonly, armies established positions around a city and waited for the surrender of those inside. Quite commonly," Repetition of commonly.
  • fixed.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their control of these provided essential positions from which the French established their operations." A bit clumsy.
  • Fixed.
  • "This allowed Austrian marksmen close access to the bridge works, where they could, ostensibly, pick off French defenders." What does ostensibly mean in this context?
  • fixed
  • "The arrival of General Desaix earlier in the month had strengthened the French garrison" Just the general or him and troops?
  • thanks for looking.
  • lol. yes both. fixed.
  • A first rate article. Of course revert any of my copy edits you are not happy with. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - close to a support, but some concerns over the lead.

  • I'm not at all sure about the way the lead is structured. The first paragraph ends in a sentence which is hard to place chronologically - is it a statement that comes before the siege or after it? The second paragraph is primarily background, and doesn't actually get to the siege until the very last sentence, and isn't written in a way that focuses on the siege in question. It then ends in a paragraph with a couple of brief sentences on the actual siege itself. I'd recommend trimming the background back, and then expanding it with the details of the events in the siege itself (e.g. it would be good get phrases like "action of 22 November" in there, as it forms a section heading, or information on the expansion of the siege).
  • fixed

"The Siege of Kehl lasted from October 1796 to 9 January 1797, during the War of the First Coalition (part of the French Revolutionary Wars)." - starting the first sentence of the article with parenthesizes looked a bit ugly to me; there's probably an easier way to express it.

  • fixed
  • " Habsburg and Württemberg regulars, numbering 40,000," - as it's the lead, would suggest "regular forces" to make for easier reading.
  • "Initially, the rulers of Europe viewed the revolution in France..." As this is the first section, it isn't clear which revolution the article is referring to (there have been several).
  • fixed
  • "He and his fellow monarchs threatened ambiguous, but quite serious, consequences if anything should happen to the royal family. " - "quite" isn't needed here to carry the meaning
  • fixed
  • "The Coalition's Army of the Lower Rhine counted 90,000 troops. " - suggest "comprised"
    • fixed
  • "observing the French bridgehead at Düsseldorf. " - the verb gave me images of the whole 20,000 men observing it; there might be a better verb.
  • "The garrisons of Mainz Fortress and Ehrenbreitstein Fortress counted 10,000 more. " - again, the "counted" verb felt out of place in this construct.
    • Ok.  :) fixed
  • "At this point, the inherent jealousies and competition between the French generals came into play." - "inherent" in what way? I'm not sure you need the adjective here, and it does raise questions about its meaning which aren't answered.
    • fixed
  • "a position scarcely less impregnable than that which it had abandoned" - if the French were forced to abandon their previous position (see the beginning of the paragraph), then it wasn't an impregnable position.
    • It was nearly impregnable, except that Charles was about to encircle him.
  • "The Austrian army occupied a line which passed obliquely across the extremity of his right, and another line which passed along his left; they both intersected in front of him, where the main force of Charles' army blocked any movement forward. " - I found this description a little bit difficult to follow.
    • probably not necessary for this article.
  • Worth checking the wikilinking of the Imperial locations - some aren't linked I think.
    • some really cannot be linked, unless I go to the German wiki....?
  • It takes a long time before the article explains what Kehl is - you have to wait until "diplomacy and politics" before it is explained that it is a village, and even then it's thinly described. Is it possible to get a sentence or two on the location of the siege earlier on?
put it lead
  • "The process of laying siege was complicated." - I'd suggest "The process of laying siege in this period was complicated." would make it clear that the statement is about sieges in general, rather than this particular siege. Were many fortifications betrayed during this period though?
  • The fortress by Stockach was (at least by local repute), but not sure of many others.
  • "Until the invention of gunpowder-based weapons (and the resulting higher-velocity projectiles), the balance of power and logistics definitely favored the defender. With the introduction of gunpowder, cannon and mortars and howitzers (in modern times), the traditional methods of defense became less effective against a determined siege." - very true, but I couldn't see the relevance to this siege, as gunpowder had been around for many centuries by now.
    • fixed
  • "Schutter" - I wasn't sure what this; I'd suggest "the River Schutter"?
    • fixed
  • "16,000" "3000" - "1,000" - check the consistency over how thousands are expressed
    • I think I've got them all.
  • "3000–4000 " - typo in the formatting
  • " twelve Imperial battalions " - I think the MOS would have this as 12.
    • fixed
  • "and following 50 days of open trenches," - I don't think you've explained what an open trench day is. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! I've rebalanced it somewhat, removed wht might be extraneous stuff and put in a section on an earlier attack at Kehl. auntieruth (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hchc2009: did you want to revisit before we list for promotion at the Coords' page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did a minor CE, removing some unnecessary whitespaces. You may want to check into the use of vague terms. - "some", "several", "a few", "many" ... MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reviewed once more and removed a few extra words.  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review -- all licensing looks satisfactory.
  • Source review -- references appear reliable; formatting-wise I'm not sure everything is consistent given the lack of templates, so suggest you revisit before nominating at FAC if that's the next step, but shouldn't hold up promotion here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Siege_of_Kehl_(1796–97)&oldid=644835885"