Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Silesian Wars

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Silesian Wars

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Bryanrutherford0 (talk)

Silesian Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the last in a series of four articles I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century, a top-level summary of the other three. 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 the other three have recently undergone A-Class Reviews here, and I'd like to take this one further up the quality ladder with help from this project! Thanks for your help! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed at GAN, and tend towards a pretty detailed look there, so I haven't much to add. I only have a couple of comments:

  • the sources are of high quality and reliable. The issue of the age of Carlyle has been discussed in previous ACR's of this series, and I consider it has been accepted that it remains an important detailed source on the subject. Page numbers have now been provided, so I believe that just about wraps it up for the sources.
  • generally, I believe year ranges should be in full, per MOS:YEARRANGE
Thanks for pointing this out.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Realpolitik→realpolitik
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Maria Theresa's contested succession to the Habsburg Monarchy under the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 provided an opportunity"
Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. This is a great capstone for the series, and summarises it all very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for your efforts! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Optional: The infobox image. It may be my eyesight, but that "blue" looks green to me.
Huh! To my eye it clearly reads as blue, but GIMP agrees with you; there's more G than B in the pixels. Er, what if I changed it to "blue-green"? (The components are almost equal.)  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.
  • "considerations of Realpolitik and geostrategy played the leading role in provoking the war" Lower case r.
Ach, another one. Fixed!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frederick Augustus II, who ruled Poland in personal union" Should that be 'who ruled Poland in a personal union'?
I'm seeing both used in academic writing; when I Google "in union with" I get more hits than when I search for "in a union with", and most of the latter have to do with labor unions. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK
  • "King Frederick began secret peace negotiations with Maria Theresa; with British urging and mediation" That should be a comma, not a semi colon.
I guess you're saying that you think the semicolon should be moved to the end of "mediation", and I suppose I agree!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the allies were reluctant and uncooperative" This implies that all of the allies, including Prussia, were "reluctant and uncooperative". If this is not what is meant, can I suggest 'but his new allies were reluctant and uncooperative'.
Yes, it should clarify that Prussia's allies are meant.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or occupy the Prussian capital at Berlin" Should "at" not be 'of'?
Er, I think either would probably work? I would say that "at" emphasizes that Berlin is the location of the Prussian seat of government, whereas "of" more emphasizes that Berlin is the name of the Prussian capital, so I prefer the first, but the difference is pretty minor. If you feel strongly that it should be "of", then I'm okay with that. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I definitely prefer "of", but certainly not enough to insist.
  • A minor stylistic point: a lot of victories seem to be "solid" or "decisive". To my eye they would be better unadorned, but if you differ, then so be it.
I agree that it's better not to overstate in such a matter; I think the only battles whose outcomes I call "decisive" are Pfaffenhofen (which completely ejected Bavaria form the conflict), Hohenfriedberg (which totally ended what was meant to be the triumphant Austrian counterattack into Silesia), Rossbach (which completely ejected France from the war), and Leuthen (which once again totally reversed control of Silesia). I would say that certainly Pfaffenhofen and Rossbach "decided" the outcome of the war for two particular belligerents, and Hohenfriedberg "decided" the outcome of the Second Silesian War. Leuthen was probably the least strategically "decisive" of the four (though not the least tactically dramatic), but note that the first paragraph of the (Featured-quality) article Battle of Leuthen calls that battle a "decisive defeat" for Austria. Given the sheer number of battles and engagements that took place in these wars, I don't think highlighting these four as particularly notable in determining the outcome is excessive. I've cut "solid" from the description of Soor, but I really think it fits for Liegnitz. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, four "decisive victories" weakens their currency, but as you are clear that that is what you want and have a sound rationale, then OK.
  • "that proved very costly for both sides" very costly - how so? The casualty rates seem lower than those at several other battles mentioned.
I've cut "very".  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and made peace with Prussia with the Treaty of Saint Petersburg" "with" twice in three words; possibly change the second to 'by'?
Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a century until the Austro-Prussian War of 1866" A picky point, 'for a century until after the Austro-Prussian War of 1866'.
I like the exactitude!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I shall try to take that as a compliment :-) .
  • "Prussia's rise to the status of a new great power" Is "new" not redundant?
Fair point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a series of military, educational and administrative reforms, many carried further by Emperor Joseph II" Optional: It would be interesting to hear of the long-term effect, if any, of these reforms.
I need to get access to some more journal articles and add some content about the wider historical context and significance to the whole series of articles. I'm having trouble figuring out how to access Jstor through my local public library, but when I get that sorted I hope to expand on these sorts of things a bit! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you find out, do let me know. That lack is the bane of my Wiki-life.

An engaging and educational article, excellently written. I am jealous. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to offer your guidance on the series! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just picky points from me. Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful responses. I am toying with a Seven Years' War topic, I shall be happy if it turns out a third as good as your Silesian set. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up most of the maps
As noted previously, I don't think that this would be an improvement, but I'll bow to the judgment of the project if everyone thinks this. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an English-language title to the image file on Commons. I don't know the history of the physical painting, I'm afraid. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria, are there any outstanding licensing issues here in your view? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image has a tag indicating publication by 1924; unfortunately at this point we don't have any demonstrable proof of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, the reason we can feel confident that the painting was completed before 1924 is that the painter died in 1914, which the license on Commons clearly states. Are you saying you don't believe that Richard Knötel painted this work? I think it's likely that this work and some of the others by Röchling you've taken issue with were originally published around the time that the two of them collaborated on Der Alte Fritz in 50 Bildern für Jung und Alt, a children's illustrated history book that they published in 1895, if that more specific guess helps. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that the painting's authorship nor its creation date, but the licensing tag at issue refers to publication rather than creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this is a disqualifying issue, then could you be happy with File:Johann Christoph Frisch - Death of Field Marshal Schwerin.jpg, File:Battle of Leuthen 2.jpg, or even File:Schlacht von Leuthen.JPG (which is currently the infobox image in the Featured Article Battle of Leuthen)? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the first of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • The Silesian Wars (German: Schlesische Kriege) Unlink German.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • leading state of Protestant Germany, while Catholic Austria's Unlink Catholic and Protestant because of common terms.
Fair enough.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Russia in conflict with Sweden; Bavaria and Saxony Unlink current countries.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austrian surprise and superior numbers.[35][33] Reorder the refs.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as the leading power of Protestant Germany Unlink Protestant because of common term.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The region's border were thus confirmed You mean "was thus confirmed"?
Oops, switched to "borders were".  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me.

Thanks, again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Silesian_Wars&oldid=911625503"