Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Johann von Klenau/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [1].

---

Johann von Klenau

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Johann von Klenau/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because...it has passed all the requisite reviews (GA, WP Military History A), it meets the requirements of notability, comprehensiveness and focus. I think its illustrations are in line with requirements, and the sourcing is in order., Furthermore, the subject—Austrian general in the Napoleonic Wars—is of broad interest to readers. French generals are well-covered in Wikipedia articles, but the generals of the Coalition(s) are not. Thanks for reading! I look forward to your comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Black boxes {{convert}} violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. See the template's documentation to make it work properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither have I. Don't worry about it. Brianboulton (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, what national variety of English do they speak in Austria? Parsecboy (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the rules. It doesn't matter "what national variety of English they speak in Austria". What matters is that the addition of these conversion templates has improperly put those -re endings into the article, contrary to the usage in the rest of the article. It is a change that is improper according to the MoS. What matters is that when such a widely used template defaults to a particular variety of English, rather than requiring all users to specify the variety of English, then somebody better be watching or we could just as well throw the long-standing WP:ENGVAR rules right out the window. FA review is supposed to be checking whether articles are written in accordance to our policies; in this particular case, it doesn't seem to be done. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please identify one or more of these improper -re endings that have been introduced into this article as a result of the convert template. That might be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They had been fixed before my last post. Thanks to whoever did it; now just don't add any new ones without the sp= parameter. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed them. I'm still wondering what black boxes are, and what they have to do with the convert template. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When all else fails, try black box. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

waaaaayyyyy too esoteric for me.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just 'read' the picture. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I've only read the lead so far, but here are a couple of points:

• "Handschuhsheim" should be linked in the lead. "Wagram" could be linked to Deutsch-Wagram. The military unit "brigade" probablyprequires a link, too. You have linked the rank of "lieutenant field marshal" to "field marshal", presumably not the same rank.

No, Lt. Field Marshal is one of the variants of field marshal and covered in the article. The link to brigade would be to a modern brigade, which was not the same in the early 1800s. The article on brigade is clearly not about the early-modern and Napoleonic brigade, and there is nothing comparable in wikipedia that I could find. The rank of field marshal is a general, and more or less comparable. Also, the link to Lieutenant field marshal redirects to field marshal. Wagram could be linked to Deutsch-Wagram, however, I'm referring to the battles, not the towns. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am a bit worried by the sentence: "Klenau remains arguably among the best of the field generals...", particular as, so far as I can see, this is supported in the text only by the statement: "Many considered General of the Cavalry Count von Klenau one of the best Austrian corps commanders of his age,..." with no indication as to who these "many" are (there is also a tense issue with "considered", but leave that aside for now).

I can expand this in the text. Or I can remove it from the lead. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will try and give the article a proper run through later. Brianboulton (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comments: I have not been able to give this a thorough prose review, but I have read through it, with some observations listed below. I also made a few copyedits on the way. The military detail is extremely good and thorough, in line with the standards of your other Wikipedia contributions. However, I found that the article ended rather suddenly; it is common for biographical articles to conclude with some sort of assessment or "legacy" section, as is the case with other military figures who have reached FA status, and there seems to be a need for such a section here. How have the military historians assessed him, for example in comparison with the other commanders of this era? A shortish section dealing with Klenau's historical standing and reputation would round the article off.

• Early career: Strictly, Bohemia is not "the present-day Czech republic" but "within the present-day Czech Republic", of which it occupies about 65%. fixed.
• "plus Portugal..." etc is a little inelegant, and "in addition to " and "together with" are worse. Perhaps "and also Portugal..."? fixed.
• Most of the conversions in the article are from kilometers to miles. Suddenly we have "12-mile (19 km)". Any reason? fixed
• "In 1796, in the Italian theater, Klenau demonstrated again his field command flexibility and confidence." I feel that sentences like this should be more directly related to sources, so that they don't appear to be editorial judgements. it is cited.
  • I believe you...but the cite, presumably [18} (Boycott-Brown) is a long way away, so the sentence in question looks like a bit of editorialising even though it isn't. It would be better to rephrase. e.g. "In 1796, in the Italian theater, Klenau demonstrated again what Boycott-Brown describes as his field command flexibility and confidence." Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No the cite is directly after the sentence. Ebert. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What sentence are you looking at? The sentence I am querying is the first in the "Action in the Italian Theater" section, which reads as I have quoted above. It does not carry a citation. The nearest citation to it is about six lines further down, and is [18] which is Boycott-Brown, not Ebert. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I found what you meant. That was one of those transitional sentences. I just took it out. Probably not as smooth a transition, but... Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• "two-to-one" is normally written as three words, not with hyphens. fixed
• "but 2,000 captured,..." doesn't seem like a "but" clause to me. Connector should be "and". fixed
• Another miles to km conversion: 4.7 miles (8 km) fixed
• "the Charles' army" Odd use of apostrophe, and why "the"? You wouldn't refer to "the Rommel's army". Conventional English form would be "Charles's army". just a remnant from earlier revision. Fixed.
• Jarring prose: "requisite request". Perhaps "mandatory" or "obligatory" fixed
• "complete military defeat in 1813-1814 campaigns," sounds as though a "the" is missing. fixed
• The "Background" and "Third Coalition" subsections of he Napoleonic Wars section take the story away from Klenau's narrative, dealing as they do with events (e.g. Austerlitz) in which Klenau played no part. While I understand the need for background and context, perhaps a little too much has been included here. Links to other articles might be used to limit the need for explanatory prose here. considerably shortened, used notes
• Continuing this trend, the following section, "Danube campaign: Road to Ulm" mentions Klenau in the first line, and the last line mentions his release from capture. Nothing at all about what he did in the campaign. This lack of focus on the object of the article is beginning to seem a problem. there was some discussion of his single victory at Haslach, but it seemed lost in the text, so I've vamped it up a bit. It was a 3 month campaign, with a single victory (Klenau's), and the campaign concluded with the surrender of the entire Austrian army.

That's it, really. A fine article which I hope I shall be supporting soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

made notes on fixes. Re Legacy. There is very little about him. No definitive Biography, as yet, partly, probably, because the emphasis in Napoleonic literature is usually on the French, and only now beginning to focus on the generals in other armies. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though the material for a "legacy" section does not exist, did military historians assess his career and come to any conclusions about it? An earlier version of the article included a sentence: "Many considered General of the Cavalry Count von Klenau one of the best Austrian corps commanders of his age, for his aggressiveness, his confidence and his talent," cited to a German source. Is it possible to identify some of the "many" , and summarise what they said?

Response copied to article talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: responses to my various concerns, as detailed above, have been satisfactory. I am confident that the MilHist review process will have established the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the article. Any remaining concerns are likely to be niggles, and I am pleased to give support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments regarding the portrait in the infobox - The white square around the portrait doesn't look good in the gray infobox. Is this an original part of the portrait, or can it be removed, alt. coloured grey. (see for example File:Pontiac chief.png) Is there any information on the painter, perhaps an wikilink? Since nearly all historical paintings were pov, painter and an approximated creation date would also be good for the other paintings. See, for example Pontiac's Rebellion The Ministry (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't look that great. I have another copy in color, if you think that would look better. As far as where it is from... Approximate creation date would be 1813-1815, because of the medals he is wearing. I'll see what I can find on the others, but these are mostly lithographs from 19th century books on the Napoleonic and fr. Revolutionary wars which have been copied into web service. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

all the other images have (in commons or on the wiki page) complete and translated info. The portrait has no info that I can find, other than that it is widely distributed. . I have no other source information. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - I extensively reviewed this in the MILHIST A-class review and am satisfied that it now meets the FA criteria. One quick comment: in the "1800 Campaign in Swabia" section, can you pick one of the images to keep? One of the two will always be shoved into the following "Napoleonic Wars" section. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the images around so that they don't overlap with the following sections. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on refs need more than a little work, or perhaps simply need to be explained. Inconsistent etc., hard to know how to proceed. Forex, full refs given twice for books – once in notes, once in Bibliography. Why duplicate? And I've found a couple that are given in the notes but not the refs, but I can't tell whether or not this is deliberate. • Ling.Nut 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything cited in full on first mention. In some cases, as in the Digby Smith Databook, if I've cited a battle page, if it is not obvious which battle, I include the name of the battle. If it is the only battle on the page, I don't include the name. Bibliography includes complete citations of all sources. I don't use the ref template, makes me crazy when I'm using it, and it doesn't allow me to add explanatory notes, nor to add two citations in the same footnote. I don't like reading articles that have strings of numbers either. I'm just old fashioned. I also use the AHA style for citations and bib and they are (should be) consistent in the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - There are several instances where sentences like this one appears, “In his early military career Klenau demonstrated, not only at Zemon but also in the skirmishing and raids of 1778–1779, the attributes required of a successful cavalry officer: the military acumen to evaluate a situation, the flexibility to adjust his plans on a moment's notice, and the personal courage to take the same risks he demanded of his men.” I know that they have proper refs, but since they are value judgements I would much rather you wrote “According to ‘historian/writer/whatever’ Jon Doe, Klenau demonstrated...” (especially when the

source is the one hundred years old ADB) Just as we in an article about a movie writes "According to critic Jon Doe, the movie is funny" instead of just “The movie is funny.”

So and so said... They are all sourced to at least one citation, and in most cases, more than one, thus it is difficult to say a single historian said it, and cumbersome to say, Smith, Kudrna, Castle, Ebert, the ADB author who uses only his initials, and Gates say that.... Also, I've paraphrased the statement to accommodate what all of them have said, not what a single individual has said. This is a writing style that I use, rather than talk about what individual authors have said, I focus on the subject of the biography. In other types of articles, I handle the situation differently when I'm discussing an historiographic school, but in biographies, this is the rut I've adopted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Old sources. Just because they are old doesn't make them useful. The ADB is particularly interesting for its wealth of detail. I rely on sources like ADB for the basics—birth, death, promotions, campaigns, etc.—and on other sources for much of the other kinds of material: what units, etc. The great thing about ADB is its no nonsense character. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes napoleon-online.de a WP:RS? The Ministry (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source. Napoleon online is in part a collection of biographical material compiled from original sources (at least the part I used here) and is the German-language partner-site to Napoleon Series. The latter is peer-reviewed, and Burnham keeps a tight rein on what goes on the site, and the sites he partners with (when possible). Sometimes the writing isn't stellar —he often offers students the opportunity to publish on the site as well as people whose native language is not English—but the content is reliable. It is also a good location to find transcriptions of original documents. I talked with him (Burnham) about the policies at a conference once (we were both presenting papers), and he explained that he does require a peer review of the articles, from other contributors, usually. Some of the articles have been part of the Napoleon period writers contest. His contributors vary widely: John Gill, Ian Castle, among others. Ebert writes in German, and is compiling a substantial core of biographies on the Austrian generals. I've double-checked his material, and find it to be accurate and reliable. So, based on my evaluation of the site, my checking of his information, and the relationship with another site I trust (and that is trusted by many), I consider it reliable. I refer my students to it if they are looking for something on a topic covered there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Support I was the user that passed this article for GA, and it has significantly improved and expanded since then. I enjoyed reading it, but there were too many problems to support at this stage, although I would be happy to do so once improvements have been made. The problems largely fall into two categories 1) widespread prose errors, both in terms of grammar and typos and 2) Too much context in some places and not enough in others. In all, a very nice article, but not quite there yet.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Big improvements, but still a few minor points below to address. Don't worry about expanding or cutting context at this stage, but there are still some prose issues to deal with. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

do you think it needs cutting? The A-class reviewer wanted it expanded. Prose issues should be addressed now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think this article could do with cutting down, but that is only a matter of opinion and not something I consider actionable in this FAC. Otherwise it is a very good article that I am now happy to support. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The son of a Bohemian noble, he joined the cavalry as a teenager" - is something of a non sequiter - can you make it flow better with the sentances around it? fixed
• "In the early years of the French Revolutionary Wars, he distinguished" - say "Klenau" instead of "he" the first time you reference him in a paragraph. done.
• "main Austrian force after its defeat at Wagram" - repetition of Wagram changed

• "at Aspern-Esslingen and and its defeat at Wagram" - too many "and"s

• "on the first day of battle. After the battle" - repetition of battle I added the battle name again.
• The word "he" is repeated too often in the final paragraph of the lead, try to find ways to avoid using it as much. fixed
• I too am slightly uncomfortable about the "In his early military career Klenau demonstrated" section not being directly attributed, but I accept your response above and don't think any additional work is needed on this at this time. When someone writes a bio of him...
• "looked upon the revolution in France" - link to the French Revolution and give a date. I think that there is too much detail here on the causes of the war given that this is a biography of someone who was not involved at all at this stage, although again, I don't see it as a barrier to FAC, just something to think about. initially it didn't have this much, when you saw it at GA, but one of the A-class reviewers wanted more context.
• I think you have the wrong Battle of Wissembourg linked. Wissembourg lines, 12-13 October 1793? That isn't the right one?

• The article we are direct to says that the battle was in December.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AH, first battle of Wissembourg! Got it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• "and mowed down Dufour's infantry" - mowed down is not an encyclopedic term, find a different way to say it. generally it is described that way. I changed to cut.
• Out of curiosity, do you think that the Battle of Zemon, the Battle of Handschuhsheim, the Siege of Ferrara, the Battle of Büsingen deserve their own articles? Certain Handschuhsheim should. The others? Not so sure.
• "Bonaparte's victory there" - name and link the battle it's in the same sentence, but I repeated it.

• Town was linked, but the battle wasn't. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• "among others—achieved several victories" - is in the wrong tense "among others— had achieved several victories" fixed and reworded.
• "Peace and the Congress of Rastatt" - Klenau isn't mentioned once in this whole section. I understand the need to provide context, but I'm concerned that this section (and others like it) go too far off topic. see my comment above. I'll try to pare it down, but given the previous review....
• "Archduke Charles of Austria in the late 18th and early 19th centuries" - this doesn't make sense, do you mean "Charles, Archduke of Austria in the late 18th and early 19th centuries"? got it.
• "on 24 May 1799, Klenau captured the fortress at Ferrara, the lynch-pin in the French Po River defenses" - you have already described the capture of the fortress, and stated that is was the lynchpin. This repetition needs to be removed.done I think.
• "a strategically key point in the region" - you mean "a key strategic point in the region"
• "Despite the imperial losses" - Imperial is a proper noun in this context and should always be capitalised. done

• There is one in the 1799 section and one in the Eagle caption still to do.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

should be all now. Did you mean imperial city of Pfullendorf?

• "This not establish a lasting peace on the continent" - this is not clear, what do you mean?
• Most of the battles mentioned during the Ulm Campaign have their own articles that should be linked to. done

• Wertingen needs linking I think, otherwise good.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Wertingen is linked. At the first, near the Bavarian town of Wertingen, 40 kilometers (25 mi) northwest of Augsburg, on 8 October, Murat's Cavalry Corps and grenadiers of Lannes' V Corps surprised an Austrian force half their size.

• "The campaign started badly at the Battle of Eckmühl" -badly for who? for Klenau
• "16 mounted squadrons, which he led Archduke Charles lost the advantage in the battle;" - looks like something is missing here? A period?
• This article makes it sound like Klenau won the battle of Aspern-Essling almost single handed. Can you place his participation in a wider context? widened'

• It's still not clear that any other Austrians were engaged other than Klenau's force - how important was his contribution to the overall battle?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

added more.

• "Saxon campaign 1813" - Its a little odd, but having given extensive and not always relevant context to every campaign up to this point, the narrative suddenly leaps ahead four years with no context at all - please comment on events between 1809 and 1813, both in Europe and regarding Klenau personally. did some, but expanded at 1812
• "the Schwedenschanze, of the Swedish Redoubt," - what was the "Swedish redoubt" Schwedenschanz means Swedish defensive position, or the Swedish redoubt. Built by the Swedes in the 30 Years War.

• I think the "of" should be an "or" in that sentance (I think that is what is confusing me).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

will finish the rest tomorrow Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "under the command of Prince of Schwarzenberg" - "under the command of the Prince of Schwarzenberg" fixed.
• Again we suddenly leap ahead after the first day of Leipzig - what did Klenau do on the other days? fixed
• Can we have some more detail on what he did during the 1814 campaign? some
• "In preliminary skirmishing preliminary to the Battle of Leipzig, in the two days leading up to the battle," - give a dateexpanded Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Question - “Johann von Klenau, also called Johann Josef Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz,” should it really be “also called”, isn't the long one just his full name? The Ministry (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources usually refer to him as Johann von Klenau. Sometimes the longer name is used. Count of Klenau and Baron of Janowitz.

Support - Read the article & went through it mostly for the "French side of the story", i.e. linking to the right individuals, editing French words etc., I am leaving the technical discussion to the pros as I see that the small problems are being resolved the instant they are brought out. Un grand merci to Auntie Ruth for this new interesting article. Frania W. (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• Images:

• A question about the lead image, File:Johann Graf von Klenau Freiherr von Janowitz.jpg. It's on the Commons and seems old enough, so it should be okay, but I notice the author is unknown, and there is no first publication date. Is there anything that tells us its age, even roughly? I'm unsure about whether we can assume this particular image was made in his lifetime.

It's at least pre 1819. It is the type of picture usually contained in a miniature, and given the medals he is wearing, it was probably done after he received his Commanders' Cross.

Personally, I agree with you, but I've been challenged myself in the past for not providing an author or a publication date that shows the image really is that old, and isn't something that was created more recently and made to look that age. I'm new to image reviews and therefore unsure how strict we're meant to be, so I'll have to leave this one to the delegates, but if you can track down more information about it, it would clear up the uncertainty. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• This image has been released by Luca Giarelli, but we don't say who that is. If it's a Wikipedian, we should link to the user page. I checked the English WP and she's not here.

It says right on the page who she is, so I'll link it to her using this: Photo by Luca Giarelli / CC-BY-SA 3.0 Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I hope I'm not being obtuse, but how do we know this map was created before 1923? The source doesn't say anything about it that I can see.

• this looks like an image from the Baedecker guidebooks. Not entirely sure. I can replace it with an image of the castle itself, but this little map explains better how Klenau could take the city, but not the castle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, something showing a publication date or source would establish its age. Without that, strictly speaking it shouldn't be used. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this image was taken and released by Peter Stein, but the image page doesn't say who that is. There's no user on this WP with that user name.

He is a photographer living in the Bodenseeraum (in Radolfzell). I added his website to the description. I added Photo by Peter Stein / CC-BY-SA 3.0 to the caption. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• This one needs a link on the image page to say which website it came from. It says artnet, but we need a link to the page, or some more precise citation.

• added. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is a check on all the images down to, but not including, the section called "Napoleonic Wars". The images in those sections not listed above are fine. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• To add, File:Ulm capitulation.jpg does not list the date of creation of this work. We need this in order to find out if it is really PD or not. The rest of the images not checked by Slim I did check and they look OK to me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Charles Thévenin is the painter of the above, and he died in 1838, so that's fine, but it would be good to add his dates to the image page.

• I added his dates.

• I've tagged the painting with the pd-old thingie. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Another concern: File:Napoleon.Dresden.jpg is a 19th-century painting, and there's no problem using it, but the person who took the photograph has tagged it as his/her own work and cc-by. Should it not be the painting that's tagged, rather than the photograph of the painting? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know. ?? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's the painting's age that matters. The photographer didn't add anything creative, so in addition to the release by the photographer there should be an appropriate tag for the painting. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just to clarify what I wrote there, a release from the photographer isn't needed at all unless there was creative input, but given that we have one, it would make sense not to remove it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've tagged the painting with the pd-old thingie. Left the photographer's release. We okay now Slim? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. The only remaining issues are the lack of authors or known publication dates showing they're PD by virtue of age for File:Johann Graf von Klenau Freiherr von Janowitz.jpg and File:Ferrara Lombardy town and fortress.jpg. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you look at this and see if it suits our needs better? It is not as good a map (not as clearly marking of the fort), but perhaps...? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say it does, and if you have more information about it, it would remove the dating problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) I also found the documentation on the original. At least I think it is. Andrea Bolzoni. I added it to the commons file. I'd rather keep the older one, that's in there now. I've found the Klenau portrait in a modern book and it appears to be in public domain, since they do not credit it to a museum, or another book. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain here, but is there a page number for the Bolzoni book? I can't get that doi to work, by the way. It says not found. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

no page number, it was in the executive summary of the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could email your source and ask where he got it from. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I did that, but I added a source on the map, and it seems that should be sufficient.

I heard back from him: he found it on a website with PD images. He doesn't remember which one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the Klenau image. I found a copy of it in Hollins, Austrian Commanders of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815, Osprey, p. 22. He gives no attribution for Klenau's picture, or anyone else's. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a paper copy of the book? If so, there should be an acknowledgments section somewhere for images. I just tried to look on Google books, but it's only letting me see a few pages. One of them (p 2) thanks the Austrian National Library Bildarchiv, so that's probably where this image comes from. You could email them, or email the author, David Hollins, via the publisher: info at ospreydirect.co.uk. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the Austrian National Library's website [2] Their general email address is generaldirektion at onb.ac.at Other addresses are here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do have a paper copy, and Hollins has credited Ian Castle with providing the picture, so I've written to him about it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect we're taking this too far. It is an old picture of a man who died in 1819, and who probably posed for the picture himself. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I partly agree with you, but the image rules on WP say that we must know both the source of an image (where the Wikipedian got it from), and its provenance (who owns the copyright; have they licensed the image; or if copyright has expired or was never appropriate, name and dates of author and/or date of publication, so we know how old it is. I believe all you have to do with this image, and that of the map, is show that they were published before 1923. You don't necessarily need the names of the authors or first dates of publication. This is one of my first image reviews, so I really don't know how strict the delegates are. I'll look around to see what others are doing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an article here about reviewing images for FAC. If you look under "policy-mandated elements," it says images at FAC require: an image summary, which you have; a source, which you have; and a copyright tag along with sufficient information to determine that the tag is the right one. That's what you're lacking for the lead image and the map. See point 3 under "policy-mandated elements." I'm sorry, I know it seems strict and is frustrating, but there's a real risk that these images will be challenged in future by someone else, so it's worth getting it sorted out. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have one more source I can ask. We'll see what he says. He uses it in his page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) SlimVirgin is correct. Per WP:IUP#Requirements, sources for the image to help verification of title, author, and date(s) should be provided. Also remember that creation does not equal publication, and that under US laws, centuries-old photos/paintings might be still be copyrighted if published at the "wrong" time (see WP:Public domain#Artworks). Images of paintings should either have the location of their gallery stated, or the site from where the digital image is gotten (remember to point to the page where the image is displayed, and not to the image themselves). Publication data should be stated. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the portrait out and substituted a picture (Handschuhsheim charge) in its stead. When I finally get a lead on where that portrait came from I may switch it back. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like the best solution for now. I hope you get it sorted so you can use the image you want. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What about fair use? (Untill we know if it is PD or not). The Ministry (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So all the images are okay now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source showing that Andrea Bolzoni was the author of File:Ferrara Lombardy town and fortress.jpg or, more importantly, when it was published? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

swapped for a different pc Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Image review completed. That's all the images in order as far as I can tell. Well done for sorting them out, AR. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. All of my concerns have been addressed. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from Binksternet. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The sentence "After their defeat at Wagram, the Austrians withdrew into Moravia, leaving the French in control of that part of the Danube valley; Wagram was the largest European land-battle to-date, engaging 262 battalions and 202 squadrons—153,000 men—for France and her allies, and 160 battalions and 150 squadrons—135,000 men—on the Austrian side" has how many em dashes in it? I count four, but two are the limit suggested by the guideline at WP:DASH. The same guideline suggests two per paragraph as a good limit, but your paragraph beginning "Although the Coalition forces" contains four em dashes.

Two are the limit suggested, but in this case, for parallel structure, I used them.

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • What's the deal with all those non-breaking spaces? They are not all necessary.

I have been told at previous FA reviews that they are. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia:MOS#Non-breaking_spaces or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Non-breaking_spaces does it specify that a date needs a non-breaking space between the day and the month? Or between "1813" and "Battle of Dresden"? Or between "2008" and "version"? The list goes on and on. Using such non-breaking spaces when not specified in MOS sets a worrisome precedent. None in the article can be said to be useful except for the ones preceding the word "million" or the word "percent". Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • At your phrase "the position seemed unsustainable", could you use the word "untenable" instead?

Sure. Done.

• • In one reference by Vann, you have two page ranges with one a subset of the other: pp. 291–310, pp. 297–298. Same with Sked: pp. 175–193, p. 176; and Leggiere: pp. 39–84, p. 64. I suggest deleting the subset pages since they are included in the larger range.

The general page ranges are for the article, the single page is the page cited.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! You can easily drop the article page range and just go with the page(s) specifically cited. Down in the bibliography section, you already have the article page range defined, so they are not needed twice. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of that. I'm old fashioned, and a citation when it first appears should be complete. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Your en dashes include a combination of HTML coded ones and single characters. I suggest converting the HTML ones to characters for consistency. The reader will not see the change but an editor who uses this article as an example of FA style will.

That just means the auto-ed hasn't gone through it again, since someone did some editing. Auto ed has now gone through, and all are converted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• • One instance of the words "to-date" has a hyphen linking them. Is this purposeful?

It wasn't for me, but I'll check it.

• • I see a mix of British and American spellings. The convert template specifies U.S. but the hyphens in east-south-east and counter-attack are British. The spelling of "storey" is British.

The spelling of "storey" is also American. East-south-east are also American, as is counter-attack. As far as I know. I live in the US, and use them/read them all the time. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Storey" is a variant on the primary American spelling of "story", per Merriam-Webster online. "Southeast" is the only spelling of "south-east" for American usage, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Directions and regions. "East-southeast" is the American form of "east-south-east", per Merriam-Webster. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Southeast is spelled with one word when it is a place (such as Southeast United States). Locations of the compass east–south–east are not a single word, but indicative of a range, and therefore, as I understand the guidelines, should be hyphenated. So perhaps the MOS has a contradiction in it.

In any dictionary I've read storey is the proper way to spell the word for horizontal levels in a house, not "story", which is a tale told at the fireside. I understand that it may be "story" in the United States but it is not necessarily that way in the United States. This may be a generational issue, also.

'Kay. Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Once more in WP:DASH, the guideline talks about mixing prepositions with dashes when discussing a date range. The use of "from 1778 to 1779" is fine, but "from 1778–1779" is not, as it mixes the two. Also: "between 1801–1805". These could be fixed by deleting the word, or changing the en dash to a word. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• I am doing a close proofread and copyedit; I am 80% through. Writing is generally excellent, as usual.
• There seems to be some confusion around the battle of Aspern and Essling though:
  • In Johann_von_Klenau#Aspern_and_Essling, Klenau takes the villages against Masséna, in May.
  • In early July, in the Johann_von_Klenau#Wagram section, Klenau takes the same villages again from Masséna (even though nothing we say implies that Austria lost them in the meantime), only to then lose them to Masséna.

that would be yes. A couple of nights in both battles, when the fighting stopped for the night, the French and Austrians were within pistol shot from one another. One source I read said that they could smell each other's cigars and cooking. Given the standards of 19th century hygiene, they could probably smell each other, too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

:)) cracking me up. --JN466 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Both times we say he got his orders late but made up the time.
• Are we somehow telling the same story twice? Or did France retake Aspern and Essling between May and July, and Klenau really did get his orders late on both occasions? --JN466 23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Aspern-Essling and Wagram were fought on the same territory—within sight of the Vienna ramparts—a few weeks apart. The same armies were there, plus more French brought up in the meantime (from Italy). Austrians didn't get additional men because Archduke John dawdled along the way (didn't understand the urgency). And in the meantime, the Austrians didn't learn to do staff work any better. The Austrian command structure was very cumbersome, so it often took a long time for orders to be written and delivered, unless Charles gave instructions himself directly to a commander, which in this situation did not happen. I wondered too if Klenau got his orders late on both battles; my sources re Aspern refer to late orders and my sources re Wagram refer to late orders. So I wrote about late orders. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I am still confused (and so, I am sure, will readers be) how Klenau could take Aspern and Essling from the French in July, when he had already taken them from the French in May, and there was a lull in fighting between May and July. Perhaps we should dig for some sources and close that gap. I am sure we'll get this fixed though and am happy to support. --JN466 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

see if this clarifies it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this sorts it, thanks. :) --JN466 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary Supports from Brianboulton, Jackyd, Ed, Frania W, JN. Binksternet has struck issues. Slim Virgin did image review. (her first, YAY, throws confetti). Ealdgyth -did sources. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet struck all my comments. I would not like to see the non-breaking space overuse issue remain in place and thus reinforce continued non-MOS requirements pushed down the throats of FAC nominators. I can't find one non-breaking space that must stay in this article. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked: yikes ! We do *Not* need nbsps on dates. They should be removed, but I'm not going to hold up promotion over that. There was once a long discussion on the MOS talk pages, and we put to rest the idea of NBSPs on dates-- they are not needed, and really clutter the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your wish... I have removed all of the non-breaking spaces, including the ones in front of the words "million" and "percent", because there was no confusion with monetary symbols or the percent sign. I now fully support this FAC. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Query: is that infobox really only 300px? It is seriously huge on my browser, and really jamming the text into only a few lines. I don't know how/where to check this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The image was set to be 1.75 times as wide as your personal choice for thumbnail width. What is your setting? Mine is still at 180px, wiki default, and the resulting image measured out to about 320 pixels wide. Your width is probably gigantic because you like bigger thumbs. ^_^

I changed the image to be hard coded 300px. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this Binksternet. And for fixing the dates. I have crossed this off my Wikiwoops list...things I didn't do right initially and was told I must do. Glad to have it clarified. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.