Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/War of the Fifth Coalition

War of the Fifth Coalition

Self-nom. In 1809, two empires collided to determine the fate of Europe. This is their story. The article has been peer reviewed and all suggested changes have been implemented. Any and all comments and criticisms are appreciated. Thank you very much and enjoy!UberCryxic 19:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, all the issues raised during the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent read. Bit copyediting needed, though. Rama's arrow 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It is hardly far to list 40,000 British troops in the infobox when they didn't show up until after the war was over. At least a footnote is required. Rmhermen 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the war wasn't officially over until October 14, 1809, and the British were "fighting" in the Netherlands long before that. I do think the force needs to be mentioned because at the time it was viewed as an integral part of British strategy on the continent. Britain had more men in the Walcheren Campaign than in Iberia during this time. After the failure of the expedition, there was a huge hullabaloo in Britain. So clearly it was a significant event for the British.UberCryxic 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not reflected in the infobox; however, which clearly give an end date of July 12. Rmhermen 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. Shouldn't the date in the infobox be that of the final treaty in October, rather than the end of fighting in Austria? Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been changed now, although effective fighting stopped in July (still I see the distinction).UberCryxic 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support But is it not a little misleading to include those British troops. Looking at the battles both on Wkipedia and in Dupuy, there's no mention of British combat participation, and yet in the infobox the UK is mentioned before Austria! Raymond Palmer 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The British and the French did have some engagements in the Netherlands, but mostly very minor affairs. British combat casualties were just over 100 if I recall correctly (about 4,000 died due to the fever). It seems to me like they have to be included because their presence on the continent was fundamentally tied to the larger war between France and Austria. The Walcheren Campaign would not have existed otherwise, so consequently it should not be thought of as a separate operation or entity from the War of the Fifth Coalition. But I have reversed the order between Austria and the UK in the infobox; that was my mistake.UberCryxic 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

*Comments Neustadt goes to a dab page of some 20 odd places with names spread over Germany, Poland, Hungry, Austria and Czech (Also Canada but its probably not that one ;) ). Ratsinbon redirects to Regenberg there are other wikilinks that goto to dabs or rediects, these two are significant. Besides the links its a good article. Gnangarra 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Also Sixth Coalition is a redirect Gnangarra

Neustadt and the Sixth Coalition have now been fixed. I left the name Ratisbon to correspond with what it was called then. Right now it is known as the German city of Regensburg. Most histories of the war that I've read call it Ratisbon.UberCryxic 02:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support changed to. One side point Regensburg(Ratisbon) article doesnt refer to this event yet it was a pivotal point. Gnangarra 08:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it does, "Between April 19 and April 23, 1809, Regensburg was the scene of the Battle of Ratisbon between forces commanded by Baron de Coutaud (the 65th Ligne) and retreating Austrian forces. It was eventually overrun after supplies and ammunition ran out. The city suffered severe damage during the fight with about 150 houses being burnt and others being looted." The history is a little colorful ("after supplies and ammunition ran out"...ugh huh....ok), but it refers to it.UberCryxic 12:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: great article to read. Very well written. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 21:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rlevse 16:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Let's look at the opening as an example of why the whole text needs a good massage. Redundancy is a particular problem.

The War of the Fifth Coalition, occurring in 1809, was a large military conflict between an alliance of the Austrian Empire and the United Kingdom against Napoleon's French Empire and Bavaria. Major engagements between France and Austria, the main participants, unfolded over much of Central Europe, witnessed horrific casualty rates, and lasted from April to July. Britain was already involved on the European continent with the ongoing Peninsular War, but sent another expedition to the Netherlands in order to take pressure off the Austrians, although this had little impact on the final outcome of the conflict.

• • Remove "occurring". Perhaps "The 1809 War of the Fifth Coalition was a ...".
  • Unsure what "large" adds to the meaning. Large compared with what other conflicts?
  • Major engagements witnessed casualty rates?
  • Involved in, not with.
  • "But" indicates that you're about to contradict the previous statement. But you don't. Same issue with "although" in the next clause. The three quite separate ideas in this sentence are jammed in uncomfortably.
  • Remove "in order" as redundant.
  • Remove "final", unless you want to subtley distinguish between final and intermediate outcomes. At this point, the readers won't know about intermediate outcomes. Tony 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your concerns now. Thank you for your comments!UberCryxic 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, although I would like to see more references.--Yannismarou 09:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)