# Talk:Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty

This review is transcluded from Talk:Étienne Marie Antoine Champion de Nansouty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Andynomite (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
All right, here are my observations regarding this article:

Section "An officer in the 9th cavalry regiment": It is unclear against whom the French were fighting.
Fixed. Prussians.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Section "Commander of the 9th Cavalry Regiment"
-You said: Moreau reorganised the army into three corps, plus a reserve (of which the 9th Cavalry was a part), the latter commanded by Generals Bourcier and Forest. I presume one of them was commanding the infantry reserve and the other the cavalry reserve?
Clarified. Bourcier was in command of the Cavalry Reserve, Forest was probably commanding the infantry. I've deleted Forest altogether, since he is not relevant in any way. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
-You also said that Nansouty was criticised by Saint-Cyr, but you didn't mention when was Nansouty transferred under his command.
Done. He was attached to Gouvion St. Cyr's corps just before the action.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
-Are you sure the image in this section is in the public domain?
Replaced. I recall seeing somewhere that it appeared on a post stamp, about a century ago, so it should be in the public domain. Since I can't recall where I found that info, I've opted to replace the image altogether with one of a heavy cavalryman, an example of what a trooper from the 9th looked liked in 1795.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Section "Charge at Austerlitz": I guess the strength of the artillery company attached to Nansouty's division should be given in number of guns, not men, as they are not so relevant.
Changed.I agree, but I can't find the number of guns. I left only the company name and regiment.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Section "Campaign in Poland: Friedland"
-You said: Grouchy received orders to incessantly harass the enemy, in order to prevent Bennigsen from reinforcing his left wing, and also to try and silence the enemy guns that had started to pound the French left. Bennigsen's left and the French left were on opposite sides of the battlefied and it seems unlikely that Grouchy was tasked with actions on both flanks. But maybe I'm wrong.
Clarified. I agree, it was awfully unclear the way I phrased it. I've clarified this, in explaining that Napoleon was intending to launch a main attack against the Russian left. He ordered Grouchy to harass the Russian right, in order to prevent Bennigsen from transferring troops from his right to his left.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've also taken the liberty of making some minor corrections, so please be sure to check them in case I misinterpreted some of your ideas. Other than that, all I can say is that this article is a masterpiece and I'd like to congratulate the author for all his hard work. Cheers, Andynomite (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for you comments and corrections! --Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Since all my comments were addressed, I consider the article worthy of receiving GA status. Andynomite (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

most of my comments to date have been addressed (such as the dates on the bibliography, etc).  I'm continuing to read the article and am about half way through it.  A couple of questions so far:

The opening paragraph of the fifth coalition is very awkward.  This could use a better over all setting of the war and its goals.
Fixed --Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Eckmuehl:  you refer to the German cavalry, but it is unclear which "German" this means--the Prussians?
Fixed --Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There are varieties of takes on Nansouty's comment to the emperor, after all you are not going to teach me .....  you might delve into this a little more.  The other generals were quite critical of him (horrified?).
Done. I added MacDonald's criticism of Nansouty's actions.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the sixth coalition similarly is weak.  Hadn't Walther also died?  Hilliers died of grief?  I know the old sources say that, but people don't "die of grief" in 20th - 21st century explanations. His son had just been killed, he was very sick, very fatigued, and I think Smith says he died of exhaustion....?
Fixed Developed first paragraph. Walther died in late November, a few months after Nansouty superseded him at the command of the Guard cavalry. I haven't added any comments about Walther's death, as it seems secondary and article is already quite long. I said Baraguey d'Hilliers died of exhaustion (fatigues de guerre as Thoumas puts it).
general comment about the use of the word endowments and its link to financial endowments. That link is misleading, as the article is about charitable endowments.  Could you use another one (financial gifts, financial rewards, income from trusts, etc.)
Fixed Delinked endowments from the financial endowments wikipedia article. My Oxford dictionary says endowments are : "an income or form of property given or bequeathed to someone". So it should be ok, I guess. If it really bothers you, I'll change it.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
just a few comments to keep you busy.  Keep at this.  It's working into a very fine article.  It was already very good, let's keep at it!  auntieruth (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good article, hell, this should be a featured article!
As one who knows military bios, I have never read one on WP better than this!
Nor can I claim to have written or contributed to one better.
My compliments and high regards to those who have put so much, obvious (but apparently not obvious enough) fine work into it!
--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it in its 2025 form, I concur that this is still the case. Long, but incredibly rich and well organized, like a late 2000s Wikipedia historical entry would have been on a much larger topic, and like few articles on mid-senior military personnel have ever been. It remains excellent. Random noter (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

At the end of a long para on the 1814 Battle of Craonne, Nansouty is described as not wanting his men to die in vain in a futile assault commanded by the emperor. In this context, to die in vain is a straightforward phrase in English and simple concept in the west, indicating death that accomplishes no purpose or gain. It need not be explained or complicated. The embedded link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_in_vain a brief discussion of concepts in Chinese history, is irrelevant. I give it here for completeness and in case anyone disagrees enough to think it should go back, but will remove it from the article. Random noter (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)