Talk:First Silesian War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Bryan. Thanks for all the effort you have gone to with these articles on the Silesian Wars. This article is in good shape, but I have some comments/queries:

Firstly, there is a lot of nobility involved here, and a need to make clear who we are talking about. For example, Frederick seems to be a common name in this period, so we need to ensure that each one has a singular appellation to avoid confusion for the layperson. There are 40 instances of "Frederick" in this article, and I think that contributes to the confusion. I suggest consistently using "Frederick the Great" or "Frederick II of Prussia" when talking about Frederick II of Prussia (not just Frederick or King Frederick), "Frederick Augustus II of Saxony" when dealing with Frederick Augustus II of Saxony, "Frederick II of Legnica" when dealing with him, "Frederick William of Brandenburg" (not Elector Frederick William, if this is the same fellow) when dealing with him, "Joachim III Frederick of Brandenburg" when dealing with him, "Margrave George Frederick of Brandenburg-Ansbach" when dealing with him, "Frederick III of Brandenburg" when dealing with him, "Frederick William I of Prussia" when dealing with him. Once this has been dealt with, I'll look at the rest of the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this! I've made a few immediate clarifications in the article, and I want to get a little more instruction here before I do anything else. The principal figure named "Frederick" discussed in this article is, of course, Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia, and every instance in which the article says "King Frederick" or just "Frederick" unqualified refers to him; all others receive qualifiers. The only other "King Frederick"s referred to at any point are his father, Frederick William I of Prussia, who is named only once, at full length, and his grandfather, Frederick I of Prussia, who is only referred to prior to his coronation, as "Frederick III of Brandenburg". I see that there is some potential for confusion between the "Great Elector" Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, and King Frederick William I, so I've shifted in favor of referring to the former as "the Great Elector". Frederick Augustus II of Saxony is currently always referred to as "Frederick Augustus", but we could shift toward referring to him as "Augustus III" (his regnal name as King of Poland), though I prefer using his name as Elector of Saxony, since it's in his role as a Prince of Saxony that he's involved in the Silesian Wars.

I agree that there is a potential for confusion between all these repetitively named monarchs, and I'm just wondering what solution would actually make the text more clear. I think I'm counting seventeen references to Frederick the Great; do you really mean that the article would read better if it said "Frederick II of Prussia" in all seventeen of those cases? Would it be less disruptive to the prose if we did some sort of "(henceforth referred to as "Frederick")" situation? I'll implement whatever you judge is best. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(henceforth referred to as "Frederick") or (henceforth referred to as "King Frederick") might work, but I think there is still some potential for confusion with the former. I have to say all the Frederick names was a major obstacle for making sense of the article, given I do not know this period well. FWIW, I think using titles instead of names is just as subject to confusion as using names, so I suggest introducing people by title and name, and just using the name after that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the only person ever referred to as "Frederick" unqualified or as "King Frederick" is Frederick the Great, and only he and Frederick Augustus of Saxony appear anywhere in the article outside the "Context and causes" section. Maybe I just need to make that explicit at the beginning of the section on the course of the war? I've now made sure that all three of Frederick Augustus's mentions are followed by "of Saxony", and I've made sure to refer to Frederick II as "King Frederick" wherever Frederick Augustus is mentioned nearby. We can shift to making all references to Frederick the Great read "King Frederick", if you like; I think I can keep the prose relatively smooth and incorporate that, with a "King Frederick II (hereafter referred to as "King Frederick")" at the first mention in the "Course" section. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the best solution. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Bryan, you might like to implement a similar arrangement with the other Silesian Wars articles if they have multiple Fred's. I'll have a crack at the rest of the review shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already duplicated some of these changes into the other articles in the series, and I'll take another look at them in light of this feedback. Thanks! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-arrange the Context and causes section to put it in chronological order. Currently it talks about 1740, then drops back to earlier periods. It would read far better if it provided the background, then got to what "King Frederick" decided to do based on the previous machinations. Essentially, with some minor introductory adjustments, taking the first three paras and putting them at the end of the Context and causes section. I think this would be far better than the current arrangement.

Fair enough; done! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better in terms of chronological structure, IMO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Habsburg when first mentioned

Please let me know if you spot any more of these—it's hard to keep straight the first instance of each term when I'm moving blocks of text around in the article! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start at the top again, and try to ensure I get them all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with Maria Theresa's accession isn't properly introduced in the body when it is first mentioned. It should be said that it was contested at the very least. I appreciate it is described in detail later, but it needs to be explained why it was an opportunity for Prussia.

I think with the new sequence the first mention of Maria Theresa now includes more detail; is this what you wanted, or do you think it needs more? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through again, but it should do the job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"extinct" jars a bit. I thought these things were usually described as having "died out"?

It's common to refer to a noble line as "extinct" when it has no legitimate heirs; for examples, search for the word "extinct" in the articles House of Bourbon, Carolingian dynasty, House of Sverker, Duke of Burgundy, List of current pretenders, etc. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on second look I think my concern actually relates to them being called "Silesian Piasts". Which assumes some knowledge. Perhaps "Silesian Piast dynasty"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Silesian Piasts" is the standard way of referring to that noble line in English, as seen in the linked article about them. I agree that it's certainly not obvious from context who the "Silesian Piasts" are if the reader doesn't already know, but I was letting the wikilink cover that; if you feel that a wikilink is not enough, then I can try to slip in some clarification. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added a bit to hopefully clarify. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

are Hohenzollern and Brandenburg being used interchangeably? It is confusing that Joachim III Frederick is described as having inherited Jägerndorf, but then the Electors of Brandenburg are asserting their claim to it?

"Hohenzollern" is the name of a dynasty, while "Brandenburg" is the name of a title (a fief) held by one branch of the House of Hohenzollern (the branch whose heads became the kings of Prussia and German Emperors). Saying "the Hohenzollern Elector" and then "the Elector of Brandenburg" is like saying "President Macron" and then "the French President"; they refer to the same person. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now clearer as the link between the two is made immediately in the first sentence of the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"nevertheless, in 1675..." is out of chronological order, as we quickly go back to 1603. This makes it hard to follow. I suggest moving this bit to the beginning of the third para of the "Brandenburg-Prussia's claims" section.

So, there are two parallel stories in this section, currently each in its own paragraph: the first is the story of how the Brandenburg Hohenzollerns came to have a claim to the Duchies of Liegnitz, Wohlau and Brieg (through a treaty with the Silesian Piasts), and the second is the story of how they came to have a claim to the Duchy of Jägerndorf (through its seizure by the Holy Roman Emperor after the Bohemian Revolt). These two processes developed in parallel during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I told the two stories according to their own chronologies in the first two paragraphs and then joined them in the third paragraph, which discusses efforts by the Hohenzollerns to get the Habsburgs to recognize those claims in the late 1600s. Here's what it might look like if the two stories were remixed to follow a single chronological sequence, at the expense of making it less clear which events are relevant to which claims:

Brandenburg–Prussia's claims in Silesia were based, in part, on a 1537 inheritance treaty between the Silesian duke Frederick II of Legnica and the Hohenzollern Prince-Elector Joachim II Hector of Brandenburg, whereby the Silesian Duchies of Liegnitz, Wohlau and Brieg were to pass to the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg if the Silesian Piasts should become extinct. At the time, the Habsburg King Ferdinand I of Bohemia (Silesia's legal overlord) rejected the agreement and pressed the Hohenzollerns to repudiate it. In 1603, Hohenzollern Elector Joachim III Frederick of Brandenburg also inherited the Silesian Duchy of Jägerndorf from his cousin, Margrave George Frederick of Brandenburg-Ansbach, and installed his second son, Johann Georg, as duke. However, in the Bohemian Revolt and the ensuing Thirty Years' War, Johann Georg joined the Bohemian estates in revolt against the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II. After the Catholic victory in the 1621 Battle of White Mountain, the Emperor confiscated Johann Georg's duchy and refused to return it to his heirs after his death. The Electors of Brandenburg continued, nevertheless, to assert themselves as the legitimate rulers of Jägerndorf. In 1675 the "Great Elector" Frederick William of Brandenburg laid claim to Liegnitz, Wohlau and Brieg, over Habsburg objections, when the Silesian Piast line ended with the death of Duke George William of Liegnitz.

Does this seem like an improvement? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement in my view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, done! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"concern to prevent this outcome..." is also out of chronological order. I suggest it would be better to move everything after fn 10 to the next subsection.

Hmm, alright, let me move some things around... Alright, I've reorganized that section more chronologically (and added a few more bits of context, with citations). What do you think? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest moving the images of both Frederick and Maria Theresa down a subsection each to better link them with the text related to them.

Okay, I've attempted to do that. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemia is duplicate linked, as are Russian Empire, Moravia, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Great Britain, Oder and Duchy of Jägerndorf

Thank you! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Not waiting for a response, he then led his troops across the lightly defended Silesian frontier on 16 December 1740, beginning the First Silesian War" and "The Prussian army had massed quietly along the Oder River during early December 1740, and on 16 December, without a declaration of war, King Frederick moved his army across the frontier into Silesia" are a bit repetitive. Perhaps trim one or the other a little?

That was meant as a kind of match, picking up where the story left off after the section on alliances and goals; I'll try to trim them a bit. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"After Austria's defeat at Mollwitz" seems a little strong, given it seems to have been a bit of a stalemate and the Prussians "portrayed" it as a victory?

Later historians have questioned the degree to which the Prussians "won" at Mollwitz, but contemporaries saw it as a Prussian victory, if only over expectations; the failure of the ostensibly larger, richer, more powerful Austria to immediately swat away an invasion by a small neighbor was viewed by Bavaria, Saxony, et al. as a signal of Austria's weakness, and the larger War of the Austrian Succession began when the Austrians "lost" (or at least failed to win) at Mollwitz. I'll add some nuance. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As the Franco-Bavarian allies advanced on Vienna" seems out of place, as they have already marched on to Prague?

Good point, changed. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Kurt von Schwerin's army" should just be "Schwerin's army" per MOS:SURNAME

Done. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Britain declared itself neutral to prevent French or Prussian attacks on Hanover" and "British–Hanoverian forces a free hand" seems to indicate something is missing about the machinations of the British–Hanoverians?

Good point. Britain took a more active role in the War of the Austrian Succession starting shortly after Prussia withdrew (the first time) in 1742. It's not necessarily relevant to this article; I'll remove the reference. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a few of the sources lack numerical identifiers ISBNs or OCLCs, some lack a place of publication, and the formatting of the ISBNs is inconsistent, with some hyphenated and some not. The sources all look reliable.

I think they all have all the parts now. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

all the images are appropriately licensed and are of value for the article.

That's me done, placing on hold for the remaining points to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the feedback! If there's anything not yet addressed, please let me know! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I learned a lot about this period through reviewing, which is a nice side effect. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]