Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Austerlitz/archive1

Battle of Austerlitz[edit]

Often called "Napoleon's Greatest Victory," Austerlitz was one of the finest tactical masterpieces of all time. I've worked hard on this article for the past few days and have taken it from a relatively average piece of work to at least a quality worthy of a good article, and hopefully worthy of FA after peer review. Let me know what you all think.UberCryxic 03:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative and well written. Jeffmatt 06:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. One thing- see WP:MoS- non-proper nouns in headings should not be captalized unless it is the first word (for example- "Popular Conceptions" -> "Popular conceptions"). The external links in the references should be cited according to WP:CITE (consider using {{Cite web}}). Finally, I don't believe "History" is an appropriate section heading for the section. Thanks, AndyZ 02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Andy. About the external links: they were not used to support any point, so they're not being cited in any way because they're just there for people to look at other places for information. A bazillion featured articles have "External links" sections without providing the information required by WP:CITE; that's because that info's only needed when it actually supports some statement. I'll take care of the rest though, thanks a lot.UberCryxic 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because External links, by definition, aren't sources for the articles; I was referring to the external links in the references section. Thanks for taking care of the problems. AndyZ 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. Minor nitpick: I am sure there is a way to link Napoleon's Speech at Austerlitz in the main body and thus remove the see also section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's now under the Rewards subsection.UberCryxic 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Yes I'd say it's FA-worthy. There were just a couple of very minor points:

By "Ulm Manouver", did you mean "Ulm Maneuver"? Or perhaps "manœuvre d'Ulm"?
Was the "Liechtenstein" mentioned in the early stages section actually Johann I Josef, Prince of Liechtenstein? If so that could be linked.

Finally have there been any media representations of this battle? Novels? Films? I know there has been a wargame or two produced. Thanks. — RJH 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the things you brought up RJH. I'll need to expand that popular conceptions category somehow; still thinking about that.UberCryxic 23:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The last item would just be an option: I think the article can get by without it. But it can be interesting sometimes to find historical fiction related to a topic. — RJH 17:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]