Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Johann Heinrich von Schmitt

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Johann Heinrich von Schmitt edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Johann Heinrich von Schmitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. It is part of a series of articles I've worked on about the French Revolutionary Wars and the Wars of Coalitions. I will appreciate your input! auntieruth (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Ruth. Nice work, as always. I have a few very minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, suggest linking "Ottoman Empire" done
  • in the lead, "Feldmarshalleutnant Lieutenant-General": is this right? Or is lieutenant general a translation of Feldmarshalleutnant? done
  • in the Family and education section, this appears to be missing something: "The development of map making, and Carlos Pallavicini was at the forefront of this movement." done
  • "now an Oberst colonel" --> "now an Oberst (colonel)"? done
  • there is some inconsistency in capitalisation. For instance, consider "Fähnrich (ensign)" but also "Oberleutnant (Lieutenant)" done
  • in the infobox, "Lieutenant Field Marshal" seems inconsistent with the lead done
  • I saw some English variation issues, e.g. "defense" but "theatre" done
  • "This over-extension left his Corps' northern..." --> "This over-extension left his corps' northern" (lower case "c" for corps) done
  • "material on the Turk's military situation" --> "material on the Turks' military situation"? Wellllll, German sources, and many English sources, usually refer to the Turk (singular).
  • in the Citations and notes, citations 7 & 8 appear to be the same, and probably should be consolidated as WP:NAMEDREFS done
  • "Gazan's division lost over 40 percent of its men, colors, and several guns" --> "Gazan's division lost over 40 percent of its men, as well as its colors, and several guns"?
  • "One of history's great Chiefs of Staff": suggest that this assessment might need attribution in text, i.e. "Described as one of history's great Chiefs of Staff by X..." done
  • Archduke Charles is overlinked in the Assessment and legacy section
  • "File:Johann Heinrich von Schmitt.jpg": the current source does not seem to provide information about when the portrait was created. Is there a better source for this?
  • should Smith's Databook appear in the Bibliography? done
  • in the Bibliography, is the an OCLC number for the Egger work? no
  • in the Bibliography, "Napoleon Online.DE": should there be a space between the full stop and "DE"? not really, iot's Napoleon online.de....I've fixed the link to make it easier
  • same as above for the Wrede work?
  • "Die Österreichischen Generäle 1792–1815" probably should be presented in italics done
  • the promotions box probably needs citations done
  • @AustralianRupert: Thanks for the points. I worked on this more than a year ago and I'm always surprised how much degrading happens....auntieruth (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, Ruth. Thanks for your efforts. I made a few more minor tweaks here and there. These are my edits: [1]. Please check you are happy with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle edit

  • The article is titled Johann Heinrich von Schmitt, but there is no mention of him ever being known as "Johann". Also, there is a key difference between "Schmitt" and "von Schmitt". If his father had the nobiliary particle I assume he would have inherited it as well. Why this discrepancy? added the von He would have been called heinrich by his friends, but I don't think I use his first name anywhere else.
  • The first sentence should explain who he was before it says what he accomplished i.e. "Heinrich Schmitt (1743 – 11 November 1805) was an Austrian military officer who..." done
  • In 1799, his reputation was tarnished by the assassination of the French delegates to the Congress of Rastatt in 1799... This should clarify that his reputation was tarnished because he was rumored to be involved. As of now it stands ambiguous; when I first read it I was wondering whether he had been assigned to protect them and had failed to fulfill that supposed duty. Very little research done on the assassination. He wasn't assigned to protect them, but the treaties had obviously guaranteed their safety.
  • The first paragraph under "Family and education" should make it explicit that his father was in the employ of the Hapsburg Monarchy. linked
  • planned the basis of the famous 1796 campaign --> The word "famous" is potentially problematic. Considered "famous" by who? Also, what is the relevance of its fame to Schmitt? Hitler "famously" initiated a world war in Europe, but we don't need to say that it was "famous". If the military skill displayed by Schmitt and the Hapsburg forces was celebrated by other strategists or by historians than a separate sourced sentence should be made explaining as much. yes, good point....
  • The official investigation into the assassination placed enormous pressure on Schmitt... Did the authorities ever conclusively exonerate him, or was there simply just not enough evidence to find fault in him? No investigation definitively figured out what happened. Changed some of the wording....
  • Heinrich Schmitt was, in his time, recognized as one of the best and most distinguished officers of the Imperial Austrian army. Recognized by who? changed

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with all the responses to my comments except I still believe some of the "Assessment and legacy" statements aren't qualified. If it's all the opinion of Digby Smith, this should be made obvious. Also, in what context was he considered the most experienced Austrian leader. Among the military officers of his time? Amongst all Austrians of all time? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very reasonable point. I've adjusted the text. Thanks, @Indy beetle:! auntieruth (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the alterations made and the addressing of my comments and I support this article's promotion to A-class. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Johann_Heinrich_von_Schmitt.jpg needs a US PD tag added PD|US|1923
  • File:Battle_of_durenstein_1805.png: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Outhwait was a landscape engraver in the early half of the 19th century. The catalog that this print came from dates it at 1840. auntieruth (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second of the two, does the catalogue provide any further details about publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoping to confirm that the engraving was published, not simply created, in the 1800s. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Added book that image was published in to description, it was published in 1871 if not earlier. Kges1901 (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • It looks like Template:Infobox military person doesn't have a "father" parameter any more, so it's throwing an error. I don't see it....
  • "(1765–1763)": ? fixed
  • "Working alongside his deputy, Anton Mayer von Heldensfeld, Schmitt, as Chief of Staff to Archduke Charles, planned the 1796 campaign, which, after several initial setbacks, produced the Imperial victories at the Battle of Amberg (24 August 1796) and the Battle of Würzburg (2 September 1796), and resulted in the French retreat to the west shore of the Rhine.": Probably too much for one sentence. cleaned up.
  • "FeldmarschallLeutnant": I added a hyphen, Feldmarschall-Leutnant. Feel free to revert, but my understanding is, when we're using a word (in German or English) that has a different spelling today, but it's the same word, then we go with the modern spelling, so that readers don't get distracted over a trivial matter. I'm going with the hyphen because our article (see the link) says that's the way to spell it, and because (native speakers will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong) the triple-l looks wrong to modern German eyes. not a problem; i think it's without the hyphen but the wikifying of articles is often beyond me.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to help. When I click on "edit source" for the article, the first thing I see, in red, is: "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox military person with unknown parameter "father" (this message is shown only in preview)." I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I removed the two lines. It was in the original template, I guess it was changed. auntieruth (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • All the sources used seem reliable on examination. The Napoleon Series has an editorial board, some of whom are published historical authors. I assume the German-language version of that portal (www.napoleon-online.de) which is linked from the home page likewise, but it would be good if you could link to some editorial board information about the German-language site, as I am having trouble navigating it and it isn't apparent that any of the editorial board of the English-language site speak German. It appears that Ebert has been published in Germany, so AGF that he is reliable as an author. Egger has an OCLC, it is 500057034. Just need that info on the German-language site and the OCLC added and this should be good to go. If this is going to FAC, I strongly suggest using a short citation in the Citations and notes section for those sources that are listed in the Bibliography section. At present it is doubling up quite a bit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, PM, Nap Series is a peer reviewed site. added the OcL to Egger auntieruth (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2018 (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/Johann_Heinrich_von_Schmitt&oldid=855703162"