Talk:Siege of Hüningen (1796–1797)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 22:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I will review this one some time today. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, Ruth. Great effort. I believe it is close to GA standard. I have a few comments/suggestions in this regard: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the lead probably should be expanded a little as it doesn't currently fully summarise the article. A couple of paragraphs seems like it would be sufficient;Y
I suggest chaning the title of the "Background to the 1796 siege" to just "Background" as it seems to be a bit of a self reference at the moment;Y
be careful of overlink. The duplicate link checker tool suggests the following examples of overlink: Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser, Aulic Council, Louis XIV of France, Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban, French Directory, Siege of Kehl (1796), Siege of Mantua (1796-1797), demi-brigade;Y
I wonder if the section on the Fortress should be expanded a little...against the other sections it seems quite small. If not, maybe the paragraph would be best just worked into one of the other sections somewhere;Y
this seems slightly repetitious: "He advised his brother of this offer, but it was flatly refused by his brother..." (brother...brother) Is there a pronoun that could be used to vary the language slightly?Y
please check your English variation. I see "kilometres" (British) but also "defense" (US). It might just be the template, in which case it can be fixed by adding "|sp=us";Y
"so-called "observation" at Hüningen..." not sure about the wording here. "So called" appears to be one of the words we are meant to avoid as per WP:ALLEGED;Y

so-called -- armies of observation aren't alleged, it's military jargon, so I add "so called" to set that up.

G'day, Ruth, I understand your reasoning, but I still think that this is problematic. In the case of the "remained in so-called observation" phrase, this will make the reader question what you mean as it implies either an expression of doubt or use of jargon. In this regard, I'd suggest just removing "so-called" and leaving "remained in observation" as most readers will be able to understand what observation means. The "so-called Rhine ditch" phrase is probably fine, but equally would probably just work as "...enters the "Rhine ditch" (Rheingraben), part..." (using quotes to denote that it is a name). Happy to discuss further, if you are still uncertain, and at the end of the day it's not really a war-stopper for me at GA so if you are wedded to the wording, then I can live with it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove it if it gives you the willies, but it's commonly used in writing of German history. I guess it is a Germanism.auntieruth (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ruth, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some of the image captions may need refs if they provide more details than just what the image is displaying. For example the captions of the key figures;

the captions usually summarize what is in the text, which is referenced....does it need more?

yes, I'd suggest just repeating the references to make this clear. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I referenced the 30 % losses. And then I removed the image of Abbatucci. And then I added data to the image at wikicommons see here But the image still isn't in there.

to avoid the language becoming dated, I suggest changing "The Rhine River itself looked different in the 1790s than it does in the 21st century..." to something like "The course of the Rhine River has changed since the 1790s...";Y
"In terms of casualties, at Kehl, the French lost almost 30% of their force" --> do you mean at Huningen?Y
are the strengths and casualties mentioned in the body of the article? I couldn't seem to find the numbers that are in the infobox in the article at all. Would it be possible to work these in somewhere?Y
in the Sources section, is there a year of publishing, a publisher and location for the Alison work? Y

I have added this based on what I could find on Worldcat. Can you please check what I have added matches your copy? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in the Notes section there is a slight inconsistency. For instancfe "Phipps, Ramsay" v. "Digby Smith" (Note 2 v 13). I suggest changing "Digby Smith" to "Smith, Digby" for consistency. Same same with "Phillip Cucia" in Note 11 and 17 and Hansard in Note 7;Y
in Note 6, should "S. 159–167" be "pp. 159–167"?Y
regarding "File:Huningue - Place Abbatucci.jpg": probably needs a Freedom of Panorama licence as well as what is currently on the image description page;

Per the guidance at Commons, I don't think France has freedom of panorama, so unfortunately I think the image may need to be removed: [1]. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

taken off. New one added from the BNU. Proper citations etc. It was originally published in 1905.

"File:Fortification of Huningue.jpg": probably needs some sort of indicative date of publication, otherwise it can't really sustain the life of author plus 70 years claim in the licence; Y

I have added a date, which I think satisfies the requirements. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"File:Général Jean Charles Abbatucci.gif": this one appears to be lacking signficant details on the image description page such as the original publication date, original source and author. Without these the life of author plus 70 years licence can't be sustained. Is it possible to dig up some details in this regard?

I had a look, but couldn't find anything, sorry. Unfortunately, unless some details can be added, I believe the image will need to be removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the label on a bottle of wine. see here. and see this see here But the image still isn't in there.

"File:Archdukecharles1.jpg": this file is lacking date of publication and author details but relies on life of author plus 100 years. Can you add something about these details so that it supports the licence? Y

this image has been removed, so there is no longer a problem with this one (in this article anyway). AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"File:Belagerung Brueckenkopf Festung Hueningen 1796-1797.jpg": I wonder if this image couldn't be cropped to allow a larger view to be presented in the article. In its current size it is hard to see much without clicking on the image, but if you cropped the large border, it would probably allow a more detailed view (suggestion only).Y AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ruth, your changes look great. I've made a couple of minor tweaks (please check that you are happy with these changes). I think that there are a couple of minor things left to discuss, though, mainly in relation to the images, but all-in-all the article is looking great. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this one is ready for promotion. Thanks for your hard work. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]