Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Army of the Rhine and Moselle

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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Army of the Rhine and Moselle edit

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Part of a series on the French Revolutionary Wars, in 1796. My drop down menu doesn't work, so I have to create this page manually. Hope I did it right. auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

There's some significant sandwiching of text between the Evolution diagram and the campaignbox - would it be possible to default collapse the campaignbox, or otherwise rework the layout to avoid this?

Hmmmm, it shows up fine on mine. auntieruth (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle_of_Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim_1795.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Pichegru.jpg
File:Gouvion-saint-cyr.jpg is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added source info on saint-cyr, I'm not sure of proper tag for Pichegru and this one. Book from which the prints came was published in 1865. Artist died in 1831. auntieruth (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they were published in 1865 {{PD-1923}} would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

everything updated and tagged. auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 edit

G'day Ruth, I have a few comments/queries:

the lead is a bit light-on given the size of the article. I'd expect to see two to three fair-sized paras summarising the exploits of the army fixed
is there a surplus e in levée en massee? fixed
generally, I would try to avoid placing phrases or sentence fragments in parentheses, as it impedes the flow of the prose eg (which would protect the regime in Paris) and (Flanders Campaign) I suggest you just use a comma or semicolon or a conjunction fixed
consistency in the initial caps with the nomenclature of formal armies ie Army of the Moselle, army of the North. Suggest that if they were the formal names of the armies, an initial cap for Army is appropriate fixed
also, if these were armies that existed for any length of time, should they be redlinked? fixed links to articles
Pichegru is introduced in the body without his full title and name with link title is general

I mean that he is just mentioned by surname, not having been previously introduced. When he is first mentioned, it should be in full with his rank, and his name should be linked done
@Peacemaker67: my leads do tend to be light. Fixed what you've suggested. :) looking for more feedback! auntieruth (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Note 1 should have the page range instead of 111+ done
in the Order of Battle table, is Commander a title or a position? Also, it seems to me that their full names should be shown, not piped to their surnames. Is there a reason for this approach? The rationale was that the brigades/divisions took on the names of their commanders. Brigade Smith, Division Jones But I've linked to their names directly
also in the table, 15th Regiment cavalry(four squadrons) needs a space, also there appears to be two instances of 15th Regiment cavalry and 2nd Regiment cavalry fixed
also in the table, Reserve Commander probably doesn't need to be bolded, and was Saint-Cyr the commander of both Center and Reserve, ie Bourcier's boss? No, the reserve usually followed the Center column in the line of march, because the reserve and the center were smaller than the wings. St Cyr commanded only the center.
also in the table, there is some inconsistency with the descriptions of regiments, some are rendered Dragoons with an initial cap, other such as hussars and infantry have an initial lower case. I don't know the troop types well enough to have an opinion, but in more modern regiments, they would probably be rendered 6th Dragoon Regiment, for example? fixed (I hope)
also in the table, there are two 10th Demi-brigades of infantry and two 3rd Demi-brigades of infantry? That could have been bloody confusing... :)

Yes I'm sure it was. One was de ligne, and one was de légère, which were two different types. auntieruth (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also in the table, some regiments are just listed as cavalry, I thought in those times, all cavalry were of a type, dragoons, hussars etc? Source does not specify
is there an article for Army of the Lower Rhine and Army of the Upper Rhine? or redlink? no, and need not be an article--they were in place less than 6 months, on paper only
Jean-Charles Pichegru should be moved up to where he is first mentioned, and this instance should just be Pichegru (see my earlier comment) done
in the 1795 table, Mannheim is listed as a French victory, but the narrative suggests otherwise? yes french victory then Austrian one

This still doesn't make any sense, all the narrative in the table against Mannheim indicates a Austrian victory, there is no mention of French success it was complicated. does this revision work better?

link Army of the Holy Roman Empire where Reichsarmee is used done
when the 74th etc are mentioned, I suggest the term Demi-brigade be used as well not all units were demi brigades. I think these weren't.
link French Directory done
suggest The Rhine Campaign of 1796 opened done
link Rhine at first mention and drop this one done
Kléber should be in full and linked at first mention, then Kléber thereafter done
Jean-Baptiste Jourdan is already linked, but Jean Baptiste Jourdan is also linked, one is a redirect, second one should just be Jourdan I think I've fixed this
first Wetzlar? Should that be First Battle of Wetzlar? Reads a bit oddly at present first battles of Altenkirchen and Wetzlar, I cleaned it up a bit
Army of Sambre & Meuse is also rendered as Army of Sambre et Meuse, same issue with Army of Rhin-et-Moselle. Suggest standardising with English versions yep I thought I had them all
When stating which Landgraviate etc places were in, use the past tense, as those political subdivisions no longer exist updated
suggest Altenkirchen was only a distraction done
Archduke Charles has already been linked, move the full name up to first mention, leave this one as just Archduke Charles done
Jean Victor Marie Moreau has already been introduced above, unless there is another Moreau to differentiate him from, suggest just Moreau after that done
the bit about the distraction isn't clear. If Jourdan was supposed to draw Archduke Charles away to let Moreau cross the Rhine, how does Kleber come into it? This section of the para needs some work to make clear the scheme of maneuver. The whole para could benefit from some tightening up of the explanation of what went on. done
who was the Condé? link? done
demi-brigade should be linked at first mention in the article done
what were the 68th, 50th and 68th line infantry? Demi-brigades? It's just they are not mentioned earlier done; it's really not clear what they were, but since they aren't part of Smith's Order of Battle; Graham mentions them, and I think they were part of Ferino's lot: added a note to that effect
similarly, the 3rd Hussars is mentioned, but doesn't appear in the orbat table, was it a new inclusion? no I think but I'm not sure that they were part of Ferino's wing

@Peacemaker67: I think I have them all! thanks for such a careful read through! auntieruth (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suggest defaulting the War of the First Coalition side navigation template to "hide", it currently creates an enormous amount of whitespace not sure how to do this
in addition several the French is missing a word I think fixed
Not sure about the initial caps on Left Wing in the table consistent with the rest
link Malsch, and state it is a village, otherwise it might be thought it was a person done
in the table, Neresheim says French victory, but reads like Charles won clarified
in the table, Upon reaching a few miles XXXX of seems like it is missing a cardinal point here (ie east etc) fixed
in the table, the Kehl narrative begins abruptly and in lower case, something is missing fixed
in the table, there are random double square brackets in the Kehl narrative fixed
what is 21 Nivôse? fixed
the sentence beginning "The resurrection of the marchalate" is too long, needs to be split fixed
there's a Sambre-et-Meuse in the commanders table update
Military Affairs needs an ISSN or similar done
Phipps needs an OCLC or similar done

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Peacemaker67:! auntieruth (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7 edit

The lead doesn't summarise the article; it contains matter that is not in the article anywhere. I weeded some of it out.
"Principle Conflicts of the Army of the Rhine and Moselle 1795" Should be "Principal" (Consider tossing these headings, as they duplicate the table headings) done
Why are some books in the references and some not? fixed
Italicise Ancien Régime done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Hawkeye7:! auntieruth (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, Ruth, this article looks quite good to me. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

refs 34 & 35 should probably be combined with a named ref done
same as above for 28 & 33 done
there are no dab links, and I think I got all of the duplicate links
I made a few minor tweaks to hopefully improve internal consistency (please check you are happy with these) done
unless I missed it, the disbandment date of 29 September and the merger into the Army of Germany does not seem to be mentioned in the body of the article (suggest adding this in) added. :)
these are my edits: [1] thank you! auntieruth (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2017 (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.