Talk:Johann von Klenau

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Johann von Klenau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• Lead issues: Be absolutely clear who he is in the first sentence, so "Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz (13 April 1758 – 6 October 1819) joined the Austrian army," becomes "Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz (13 April 1758 – 6 October 1819) was a cavalry officer who joined the Austrian army,". I've also tided some other minor problems in the section. he wasn't a cavalry officer who joined, he joined and became a cavalry officer.

• I see your point, but the first sentence of the lead needs to establish who he is not, not give a narrative history. so say "Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz (13 April 1758 – 6 October 1819) was a cavalry officer in the Austrian army."

• You are using the "Main articles" tags incorrectly - they are only required when the article in them is of direct contextual relation to this one. In this case, all of these links are better presented as simple blue links within the text. The main article links are superfluous and clutter the article.

The French Revolutionary War tag is unecessary, although the Aspern Essling one could perhaps stay. fixed

• "For this brilliant exploit" - avoid terms like "brilliant", they give a value judgement on a man's actions. If you really need to say it then quote an eminent or contemporary historian.
• "After the war (1815)," should be "After the end of the war in 1815"
• "24 September 1795, the French and Austrian forces squared off in battle. After a lengthy cannonade, and what looked like the beginning of a long battle,[3] Klenau led a battle-winning charge." - repetition of battle, try to find another way to say this. fixed
• "George Joseph Dufour (1758-1820)" - no need to give dates. done, but dates are needed at least in note, since Smith contradicts himself.

• That note is a good addition that explains the need for dates more clearly than having it in the text, good choice.

• Make sure that in this context "Imperial" always has a capital "I". it does (i used search feature to find all incidences of "imperial" and "Imperial", but then I decided to take out the translation.

I found one small "i" and changed it, so perhaps that was the only one (I just wanted to confirm that was the only example). If a quote uses a small "i", then always go with what is written in the quote.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• The Smith/Kudra reference needs to be properly formatted like any other web reference and placed in the bibliography since it is not an internal link. I recognise this as a reliable source, but it is not obviously so, so be prepared that others may object to it without realising the expert nature of its contributors.
• Try to ensure that references all come after punctuation. they do. If you find one that doesn't, show me (or fix it).

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• This is probably the article's biggest problem: it is very skimpy on detail other than his military activities (and even these are not extensive). For example "His distinguished action at Semlen earning his promotion to Major in 1788" - what ditinguished action is this referring to, and what was the battle? This has to be expanded.

Huge improvements here, well done. I have one question, relating to his family: were they significant nobility? don't know. Sources don't say.

Fair enough.

• "He was captured at Offenbach," - by whom and was this a battle? - context needed here, what campaign was the army he was serving with fighting and what was his part in it? (you do this well in the following paragraph)
• "At the beginning of the War of the Fifth Coalition" - give a date. you did that?
• "Promotions" section is unhelpful where it is. It should either be incorporated as a footnote, or perhaps in a box as in the example below.
• "Family" section should be incorporated into the appropriate place in the text (1800). done

• the Later career" is too short to be listed seperatly. Perhaps as a level three heading (with ===, oon either side) within the Napoleonic War section.
• I really would like to see more information on his specific actions at various battles and on how he was considered by the military establishment. At the moment, this article is too lacking in detail on these issues.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• I have a high screen resolution, and those images are messing up the text badly. I strongly advise moving them both up one paragraph.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Good improvements, but still some work to do. Nice job so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, huge improvements since nominated making this a very fine article that I am happy to pass. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Box example

Promotions Major: 15 January 1790 Lt. Colonel: 12 February 1793 Colonel: 8 August 1795 Major General: 1 May 1797 (effective 13 June 1797) Lt. Field Marshal: 29 October 1800 (effective 18 November 1800) General of the Cavalry: 26 July 1813

Napoleonic Wars-Battle of Wagram

I'll have a close look at the content of the part regarding the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. So far, I've had a closer look at the battle of Wagram and I think some major rewriting of this part is necessary:

• • von Hiller actually left his post because he had become disgusted with the strategy adopted by Charlers after Essling. He motivated his gesture by saying that he was ill, but actually wasn't.

• this is not really relevant to Klenau's biography. It, and most of what you've written here, belong in an improved article on the Battle of Wagram. Why don't you do that, and if you can provide me with citations for some of the info on Klenau, I'll update the bio?Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Here's what happened on the 5th, in the morning and early afternoon, when Klenau's forces saw their main action of the day. Klenau's VIth Corps, together with Nordmann's Advance Guard, in all about 26,000 men were ordered to delay the French advance. Klenau's Corps was initially (up until 10 am) placed between Aspern and Essling and after 10 am began to be pushed back with some difficulty by Legrand's Division from Masséna's IVth Corps. Nordmann's Advance Guard was further east and southeast and by 10 am was already being pushed back violently by Masséna, Oudinot and Davout. Part of the problem was that Klenau and Nordmann were left in an advanced and isolated position, with the order to slow down the French advance, but then the rest of the Austrian army did not move forward towards the river line but manned the earthworks of the Russbach line. A few regiments of Liechtensein's cavalry reserve were indeed sent forward to support Nordmann but remained inactive and then retreated under heavy French bombardment. Klenau was able to fall back northwestwards and extricate his men with relatively few casualties but Nordmann, retreating nortwards and facing the onslaught of the main French thrust, was mauled and faced horrendous casualties of up to 50%. By mid-afternoon both Klenau and Nordmann had retreated behing the main Austrian line and would not see significant action during the French night attack.

• some incorporated into article, but I need a citation for this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• • On the 6th. Klenau received Charles' orders with more than 3 hours of delay. These orders provided for a general offensive of the Austrian army, which was supposed to take the shorter French line in double envelopment. Klenau, whose forced had pulled back to Stammersdorf during the night, was ordered to advance southeast towards Aspern. Klenau did and arrived in position at around 8 am (perhaps 7:30), at the same time as Kollowrat, who was deployed further north. They were both more than 3 hours late, as the Austrian offensive was due to begin between 4 and 5 am. Indeed Rosenberg and Bellegarde had advanced and attacked on time and by the time Klenau arrived in position, the Austrian offensive on the left had been repulsed by Davout and there was heavy fighting going on around Aderklaa. Klenau nevertheless attacked Aspern, which was defended by Jean Boudet's division only (Masséna's Corps). Boudet was isolated from the rest of the Corps and desperately sent his guns forward to try and stop Klenau from coming through. However, Austrian cavalry captured the guns and then Boudet was pushed out of Aspern by Klenau's advance guard, commanded by general Vincent. Klenau then set up his artillery and began bombarding the French position, while deploying his men between Aspern and Breintlee. He halted his advance as the fire from the French batteries and heavy mortar from the island of Lobau had become too intense. He then took Essling too, despite some stiff French resistance. Klenau had now pushed the French left back and was able to either attach the essential bridges towards the island of Lobau or strike in the back of the French force. Klenau did none of these: his orders did not provide for such actions, the fire from the French batteries on Lobau had become too intense and his force was probably too weak for such an action. Crucially, Klenau was not in contact with Kollowrat's line and the Austrian system discouraged commanders from taking the initiative. By mid day, Klenau became aware of the fact that Masséna was moving his three other divisions, together with huge cavalry support towards him. He risked being cut off, as he was in a very advanced position and by the begining of the afternoon Ledru's brigade from Legrand's division from Masséna's Corps had retaked Essling. Klenau began to pull back but the French kept themselves in close contact, with the cavalry of Lasalle and Marulaz menacing the Austrians, who had to form squares or masses to fend them off. It was during this action that Lasalle was shot in the head by an Austrian infantryman and Marulaz was wounded. Masséna continued his pursuit and Klenau continued his retreat but could only reach relative safety by late afternoon, retreating northwest towards Stammersdorf.

• Here is a somewhat detailed summary of Klenau's action during the two days at Wagram. In my opinion, the main improvement that needs to be done is to distinguish and clarify between the actions of the two days. The current versions seems to be mixing them up.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to modify if you can provide citations for the above. Some of this will be relevant, but much of it should instead go into the article on Wagram. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read your edits and I think it looks fine now, detailed enough and accurate. Just a couple of suggestions:

• First, I believe that, for the second day, you need not speak about Nordmann any more, as it tends to suggest that he was still close to Klenau's position or still cooperating in some way just like the day before (e.g. "Charles watched from his command post at Wagram as Nordmann and Klenau's forces stubbornly clung to their positions, but they were overwhelmed"), while actually, on the 6th, Klenau formed the extreme right of the Austrian army, while Nordmann's Advance Guard had been interated in Orsini-Rosenberg's IVth Corps and formed the extreme left of the army, more than 10 km away from Klenau.
• Second, you should mention the fact that Klenau managed to take Essling as well as Aspern but lost both and began a hasty retreat when Massena's main force attacked him, towards midday. As a source for this, I quote Naulet, Frédéric - „Wagram, 5-6 juillet 1809, Une victoire chèrement acquise”, Collections Grandes Batailles, Napoléon Ier Éditions, p. 70.

Thanks for all your hard work, I will read through the rest of the Napoleonic Wars part and give some more feedback.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• okay, thanks for clarifying that. Also, need a date on that issue. was it 2001? Perhaps you could update, expand, improve the articles on Battle of Aspern-Essling and Battle of Wagram. This would be very helpful! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is 2009. I do intend to translate the detailed article I've written on ro.wiki about Wagram, just can't give you any date for that unfortunately. But I will definetly do it. Aspern-Essling is on my priority list too, for expansion.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

need for a legacy section bought up at FAC process

Comment re legacy section from Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I wish! That was the gist of a sentence in a 19th century German biography. Even Petre, who studied these things, has little say about Klenau except he went somewhere, fought a battle, and then went someone else. This highlights an historiographic problem: most study of Napoleonic generaliship has focused, first, on the French generals, indeed, primarily on Napoleon, and on the English generals, primarily on Wellington. Understandable, given the events of 1815. However, even now, there is little contemporary work on the Austrian generals, or if there is, it is largely encyclopedic, not analytical. The work done on the Ulm campaign, for example, has focused largely on Mack's inability to accomplish much, but it relies largely on Ferdinand's letters and his own memoirs of the campaign, written in 1806, and Ferdinand was heavily into shifting responsibility for the debacle on to Mack. Mack had some serious problems (indeed, one of them was Ferdinand), including his age, mental health, and over all acuity, but in terms of a critical analysis of the Austrian Generalship, this doesn't seem to have happened yet. There is quite a bit of first this happened, and then that happened, but unlike the Peninsular Campaigns, the critical analysis is only now emerging. And Klenau hasn't been included yet.

• Clearly, Archduke Charles thought highly of him: the creation of the Korps Klenau—the naming of a Corps after him—was an indication of that, but I cannot provide a direct citation of this. However, the Austrians had a tradition of naming units after successful or wealthy/important nobles (Proprietors, they were called). Klenau essentially became the proprietor of the Corps. Klenau was also thrust into several situations in which he had to negotiate something, and, in the case of Haslach, in one campaign he was the only guy to win a battle. The battle-winning charge at Handschuhsheim and the action at Brescia also indicate he was quick to take advantage of a situation and he had a great presence of mind. I can source the facts, but not what their overall meaning. As an historian I would do this without hesitation: his previous actions at such and such and such and such else indicate this and that. But that is my assessment, based on these facts. Ebert says: "General der Kavallerie Graf von Klenau war einer der besten österreichischen Korpskommandeure seiner Epoche. Er war sehr aggressiv, umsichtig und talentiert. " General of the Cavalry Count von Klenau was one of the best Austrian Corp Commanders of his epoch. He was very aggressive, confident and talented. (translation mine). But Ebert doesn't source this either. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that assessment could be included in the lead. If there isn't enough for a legacy section, that statement in the first or second sentence with a citation could be beneficial to the article IMHO. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Portrait in infobox

Hello, I think the article needs to have a portrait of Klenau in the infobox rather than a battle scene. After all, the article is a biography of the man.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

the portrait that had been there did not pass the image inspection. Do you have a portrait of him that can be documented as to publication date? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look in my books and magazines about the 1809 and see if I can find anything which I can upload legally. I'll get back to you on this very page.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

is the only one I can find, and it doesn't have a sufficient provenance. There is another online that is this one's reverse, but it also has the same problem. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything in my books, after a first look. I'll have a look again tomorrow.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on Being A Featured Article 2013/04/12

• Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristineBushMV (talk • contribs)

link refers to non-existent section

I'm surprised that a featured article has dodgy link in it's second paragraph. Handschuhsheim refers to a section "City_districts" that does not exist, and would better be Handschuhsheim, though if there isn't a separate page for the Battle of Handschuhsheim the link would better go to the article on the campaign for which the battle was a part.

Jlittlenz (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johann von Klenau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020202040926/http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/index.asp to http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020202040926/http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/index.asp to http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)