Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Silesian War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Second Silesian War

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Bryanrutherford0 (talk)

Second Silesian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Second Silesian War/archive1

This is the second in a series of four articles I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. The "Silesian Wars" are mainly a feature of German military historiography, since from other perspectives they seem to generally be thought of as theatres of wider wars (the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War), but they mark a watershed in German history, signalling the rise of Prussia to parity with Austria in German affairs. This article, along with the others in the series, was recently promoted to GA (after a helpful review by Peacemaker67), and I'd like to take it further up the quality ladder with help from this project! I'm particularly interested in help getting it into European English (I'm an American and can't tell when I'm noticeably writing like one). Thanks for your help! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Given I reviewed at GAN, and I tend towards a detailed look there, I haven't got much new to comment on:

• you can drop the citation in the lead, as the preceding info is covered by citations in the body

Got it.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be moving towards reducing the use of tertiary sources as you progress towards FAC, eg Britannica, esp if the content is available from secondary sources

Indeed, thanks for the guidance. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• War of the Austrian Succession is duplicate linked, as are Alsace, Elbe, Prague, and Third Silesian War. There is a script that will spot these for you, instructions for installing it are at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt

Those should all be fixed. I'll try that tool!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• all the external links are good

That's all I have. Nicely done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

• "which confirmed Prussia's control of the region of Silesia." Optional: Add ', in eastern Germany' or ', in what is now western Poland'.

I agree that many readers will not be immediately clear about the location of "Silesia"; in these cases I'm usually inclined to let the wikilink to Silesia provide clarification if a reader wants it, but I guess I could see adding a little more context at this first instance. Do you think this detail should be added to the leads of all four articles in the series? I'd like to preserve the parallel style, if possible. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, it probably should be standard across the articles. It is not a deal breaker at ACR. How about leaving as is in the lead, but explaining briefly where it is at first mention in the main article? Ie towards the end of the first paragraph.

I think it probably goes better in the lead; I'm adding a brief gloss to all four articles' leads.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That works for me.

• "in mid 1744, and it ended in a Prussian victory with the 1745 Treaty of Dresden" Suggest 'with the Treaty of Dresden in December 1745', to match "mid 1744" and to allow the lead to communicate a sense of the war's duration.

Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "crown land".

Done.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "even threatening Vienna" Suggest a preceding 'and'.

Good advice.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Austria conceded the majority of Silesia" I think that should be 'ceded', linked to cession.

Fair enough.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Any chance of linking ceded, as suggested above?

Ah, sorry; done!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• "in return for Prussia's neutrality in the continuing War of the Austrian Succession" Suggest deleting "of the Austrian Succession"; readers have probably remembered which war it is.

Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "King Frederick apprehended that" → 'King Frederick was apprehensive that'.

Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "the invading Prussian army, numbering around 70,000 men" "numbering" is redundant.

I think I had structured the sentence that way in part to create a comma after "men" so that the reference could follow a punctuation mark, but I agree that it slows the flow of the sentence.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "entered Bohemia in three parts" "parts" doesn't, IMO, work. Could you use another word? ('columns' would do nicely.)

Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "all three forces converged upon Prague by the beginning of September" "upon" → 'on'.

Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "and gave up Bohemia for lost" "for lost" is redundant.

Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "which they defended against Austrian incursions through the winter" Suggest 'which they defended through the winter against Austrian incursions'.

Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "signed 18 May in Leipzig" Could you insert 'on'?

Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Austria prepared for a more determined invasion of Silesia" Optional: Is "determined" the best word here?

The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper "invasion", meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense "invading" the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the "invasion" of spring 1745. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah. I see your point. Leave it as is if you wish then. Or, possibly, 'large-scale'?

How about "...more forceful"?  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine.

• "agreed on a more offensive alliance against Prussia" Suggest either "a more" → 'another'; or explain just what was more offensive about it.

The contrast is with the earlier "Quadruple Alliance", which was (at least rhetorically) defensive in character and aimed at preserving the integrity of the Habsburg legacy against Hohenzollern depredations, whereas this new Austro-Saxon alliance spelled out both parties' hopes of actually gaining territory at Prussia's expense. I've attempted to clarify.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "from multiple quarters toward Brandenburg" "quarters" → 'directions'.

Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "once again sent envoys to Maria Theresa and Frederick Augustus II to make peace" A genuine question: Is that correct? Or would ' offering to make peace' be more accurate?

How about "...to propose peace"?  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Very good.

• "were thus confirmed at status quo ante bellum" Optional: I believe that it would be more normal to say 'were thus confirmed at the status quo ante bellum '.

Seem fair!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

An impressive article. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the informative article. One minor query above and then I would be happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the lead image and both maps

Do you mean doing something to the image files themselves on Commons, or do you mean displaying the images at a higher thumbnail resolution in the article? None of the images currently has a resolution specified, so they're showing up at whatever size you've set your images to default to; that seemed to me to be the safest policy in light of the wide range of display resolutions people might read the article with. I don't think there's much chance of a reader getting any real detail out of a map without blowing it up to fullscreen anyway, and scaling up the infobox image also widens the infobox and would make it no longer match the other images in the article. Do people here think the article would look better with only those three images set to a hardcoded resolution different from all the others? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't do it with a hardcoded resolution, but with |upright= - this functionality respects the default image size setting, ie. if you've set your default to 240px and I've set mine to 260px |upright=1 would display at 240 for you and 260 for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Template:Infobox military conflict takes the parameter |upright=, and I'm not seeing another parameter that allows for that sort of image sizing; the parameter |image_size= just sets a pixel width for the image (and the parameter |width=, which sets the width of the entire infobox, is also set in pixels). As for the two maps, I don't personally think they would look better or be more useful if made slightly larger (and they would then stick out and not match the other images in the article, which I think would look sloppy), so if there's a size you think the |upright= parameter should be set to, you're going to have to tell me what value you think it ought to take. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• File:Preußische_Grenadier-Bataillone_schlagen_die_Sachsische_Garde.jpg: what is the date of the actual work? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea. Commons says that the original work is at the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, but I wasn't able to find a reference to it on their website, which is quite sparse. The date would presumably be somewhere between roughly 1880 and 1920. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Any chance of narrowing that down with other sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not turning up any dated lists of Röchling's works in my searches; he doesn't seem to be very well documented. He co-illustrated a children's book of the life of Frederick the Great "in fifty images" around 1807, and it's possible that this image could have come from that work. I think the best I can do is narrow it to the time period during which this artist was alive and making historical military art. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria. Could you indicate if there is anything outstanding from your perspective? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• (German: Zweiter Schlesischer Krieg) was a conflict Unlink German.

Er, the language template does that; wouldn't it be better to stick with a style consistent with other Wikipedia articles? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• You could use |links=no in the template but no worries I already did it for you.

Okay then!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• region of Silesia (now in western Poland) Unlink Poland.

Haha okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• improved greatly in the continuing War of the Austrian Succession Link the war.
• resurgent Austria from taking back Silesia Link Silesia.

Both are already linked at their first appearance (in the previous paragraph); I've previously been asked to remove all duplicate wikilinks. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI died in 1740 without Blue see here.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Can you clarify? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sea blue by MOS:SEAOFBLUE means try to avoid more than three links next to each other (same with red links). This is handy to not confuse the readers because they think it is one link even they're three links.

Alright, I've reworked the phrase a bit to turn it into two non-adjacent links,  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Prussia, France, Spain, Bavaria and others Pipe Spain to the Bourbon Spain.

Good catch.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Try to avoid seasons here.

A good point; I've pulled all the references to "summer", but the coming of winter was a pretty important factor in the structure of an early modern military campaign, so I really think those need to stay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• with Bavaria, Sweden, Hesse–Kassel and the Electoral Palatinate Unlink Sweden.

Er, why? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Current countries' articles should be linked. However, if we're speaking about a past article like for an example the Kingdom of France that country should be linked. In this case, it would be Age of Liberty as its past article. If we use it then it will become MOS:EGG and that means we should let the readers know where the link goes so if you want Sweden and Age of Liberty then you could use "Liberty Sweden" here and pipe it to the Age of Liberty.

Okay, I've removed the wikilink.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• his forces back from southeastern Bohemia to face American southeastern.

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the European convention: "south eastern"? "south-eastern"? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• It depends on what we're talking about if it part of a noun then it should "south-eastern" if we're talking about the direction then it is "south eastern".

...So, which would you say applies here? In this phrase, southeastern refers to a direction as an adjective modifying a noun; does that mean that it's "talking about the direction" or "part of a noun"? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hey Bryanrutherford, It's part of the noun so it should be "south-eastern". Cheers

Haha okay,  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• the Austrian surprise and superior numbers.[37][34] Re-order ref in numerical order.
• multiple directions toward Brandenburg.[37][34] Same as above.

Both  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• of Habsburg Bohemia in mid 1744, and it ended "Mid 1744" needs a hyphen.

I wasn't sure; sources say that both "mid " and "mid-" are standard usage in various cases (it's used both ways in WP:MoS), and I can't spot the pattern that decides which is better in a particular case. Since I don't hyphenate "early 1744" or "late 1744", it seemed most consistent to also neglect the hyphen in "mid 1744". Is there a reason you feel that it should be present in only that case? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Cambridge Dictionary uses "mid-". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Source review

All the sources appear of high quality and reliable. The reliance on Carlyle was discussed at length at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Silesian War, by both Auntieruth55 and Factotem, and they seemed to be ok with it, but just pinging them to be sure. I will say that the lack of page numbers for Carlyle may be a stumbling block at FAC though due to the difficulty in verifying the material cited. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I can only repeat the position stated in the First ACR: I'm not comfortable with the reliance on such an old source. I find it difficult to believe that there isn't more recent research, even in an area that is perhaps not well served specifically by English-language sources; this is, after all, the dawn of Prussian hegemony in Germany. But, I could not find any better myself, and defer to AuntieRuth's more informed opinion. Of more concern is the lack of page numbering, and I think this is an issue at ACR, not just FAC. I thought the nom had found a full scan of a 1901 print edition of Carlyle's biography with pagination on Google. Why isn't that being used? Factotem (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it will be quite a bit of work to change over all the Carlyle citations across all four articles. I'll start switching them all over now. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Done for the first and this one, forthcoming for the third and the summary.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, this is good to go now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.