Talk:Battle of Schellenberg

Miles?

hello,

I wonder why "miles" is ahead "km"? Is this a standard? I mean, this is after all an war which took place in Europe. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 08:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Britain is in Europe

I have altered the wording of the sentence "The engagement, fought on 13 August 1704, would become known in Europe as the Battle of Höchstädt, and in Britain, as the Battle of Blenheim." to "The engagement, fought on 13 August 1704, would become known in German as the Battle of Höchstädt, and in English, as the Battle of Blenheim." The previous wording was wrong on two levels:

1. Britain is in Europe!
2. There are other European languages that call the battle Blenheim (see the list of foreign language names to the left of the battle page.

The two sentences would be better combined: Template:Quote --PBS (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Location

Hello, given position is false. Schellenberg hill is on the left bank of Danube. Slightly north-east of Donauwoerth town. There battle took place. Not at Nordheim, which is south nearby Donauwoerth - on the right bank of Danube. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

A few sentences lack citations. File:March to the Danube 1704.png is also unsourced. If we find a source, this map would benefit from an SVG version. A455bcd9 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Quite a bit of uncited text.
• There is inadequate explanation of why the allies felt it necessary to launch the attack.
• There seems to be no information on how the soldiers involved were armed, otherwise equipped or organised. Nor anything on their tactics or the comparative effectiveness of either the different arms or the different units or the different nationalities.
• There is excessive information on the "English forces" (sic) which includes seven out of twenty designated as either "Irish" or "Scottish". But nothing on the majority of the attacking force who were not in any way "English".
• The chronology jumps. Eg the first paragraph of "Schellenberg's defences" refers to the fortification's construction and jumps straight to the day of the battle ("When the unexpected attack took place ... the angle where Marlborough's attack was delivered"). The next paragraph starts a year before the battle.
• Both sides seem to be referred to as the "allies". Eg consecutive sentences start "Once the Allies had combined their forces" and "The Allied commanders ... passed round Dillingen": each sentence refers to a different side.
• There are duplinks.
• The background is skimpy. Which is strange as one could pretty much cut and paste in the Background and much of the Prelude from Battle of Blenheim. Which was taken to FAC by the same editor.
• There are multiple examples of MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.") not being followed. To the extent that large parts of the text are only comprehensible to aficionados. "Grape-shot" is not even linked.
• Some prose is unencyclopedic. Eg "fizzing hand-grenades". (The opportunity to mention why they fizzed is missed.) "their stalwart defence was over". "vainly endeavouring to avoid the Allied sabres".
• Several sources don't seem to be RS, never mind HQ, eg cite 7 or multiple cites to la Colonie, who is a primary source, or cites 56-59. Is cite 55 really from 1818?
• Unsourced information is given in the infobox and not mentioned in the main article.

I am stopping now, this is depressing me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping I think this article needs some work, but I notice it was given an A-Class Review in 2006. Can I just go ahead or do I need to get it down graded first? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Robinvp11, I remember this one. I doubt very much that it would survive an A class review, but there is no necessary need to nominate it for one before getting on with some much needed improvement. Will you be aiming at getting it back up to FA? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd envisage similar to the article I updated on Battle of Malplaquet, which is currently assessed as B, but I think could be FA. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

One of my favourite bloodbaths and in a passably decent state. If you need a collaborator, you know who to call. File:Face-smile.svg Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind :) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)