The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [1].

Third Silesian War[edit]

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the third (and longest) in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the two previous articles have received in their recently concluded FACs. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Which ones, and how much? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All except "Preparations for war" and Laudon - they have fairly intricate detail that's hard to see at default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted, let me know if this is pleasing. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional license. I have no idea who the artist is, and I haven't been able to discover it; let me know if that's a show-stopper for you, because I'll have to look for a replacement image. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding a note in the image description about where you've looked for attribution.
I'm not sure where you mean that this note should go on the Commons page. I can't find a free copy of the book the uploader scanned the work from to see whether there's an attribution in the book, and the website of the museum where the piece is held doesn't seem to have any browseable pages about its holdings, that I've been able to locate. I've added an English description to the file specifying where the piece is held. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly Germany, but I can't prove it. Let me know if I need to replace it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know it was published by 1920? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The artist died in 1920, and his various books of paintings of German scenes were published during his lifetime. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the license. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source comment

Any reason why the following sources aren't cited? Seems to me that they are recent, relevant works which would probably shed light on certain aspects, as well as being stronger than many of those which are cited in the article. buidhe 02:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first two pages of the article that I can access for free don't seem to offer anything other than general information about the context and inciting incidents of the war, and the assertion that Frederick had many "decision points" that might have taken the war to quite different outcomes if handled differently (undeniably true, but hardly groundbreaking). The title and this setup seem to indicate that the author will be exploring hypothetical alternate histories that might have arisen from different choices by Frederick and the other belligerents, which, though a topic I personally find interesting, doesn't strike me as something that needs to be explored in an encyclopedia article about the war. Do you think there's something in the rest of the article that ought to be here? If you have a copy, I'd be happy to read it, or maybe I can get a look over at WP:RX. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I don't have access to this either. Someone at WP:RX probably does though. buidhe 01:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be another history of the Seven Years' War, and this article already cites a general history of the Seven Years' War (Marston 2001), one focused on the European theater (Szabo 2008), one focused on the North American theater (Anderson 2000), one focused on the Anglo-Prussian alliance (Schwiezer 1989), and one focused specifically on Frederick (Redman 2014). Is there a specific gap in coverage that you see and believe this additional Seven Years' War history would fill? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN and then at Milhist ACR, so couldn't find much this time around. I have a few comments:

Hmm, I hadn't considered that "1700s" could mean either 17XX or 170X. I would definitely read that phrase by default to mean the century rather than the decade (unless context pointed to the decade), but maybe others wouldn't. Fair enough, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Russia and Sweden were the likely naval antagonists; I've tried to clarify. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HRE; clarified. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, great job again Bryan. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now...

Contemporary opinion was pretty effusive on the topic, even among his enemies, but I'll pull it back a bit since it seems to be in the encyclopedia's voice. How about "... a preeminent military commander"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's better - just a little more...sober....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; condensing to "... as a new European great power". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sort of language that was common at the time; one of the documents we have extant from Kaunitz says that his goal for the war was to return Brandenburg to its primordial condition as a "power of the third rank" in German politics. Does "first-rate power" seem more puffy than "great power"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does a little but I get the picture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise - reads well and appears to be comprehensive and well-written and on track for FA-hood (I am a neophyte to the area though). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb. I intend to claim points for this review for the WikiCup.

I may do some copy editing as I go, which you will want to check.

Isn't "defense" the thing that's wanted at the time of an "attack"? I don't understand what doesn't work, but "support" seems fine, too; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, maybe not obvious. Added. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon reflection I think that mention of Sweden comes too early; Sweden was still neutral at that time and only decisively took France's side in early 1757. I've eliminated that one and tried to add a bit more lead up to what is now the first mention of Swedish involvement. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible.
The sources contradict each other, probably differing on what support personnel they include and so forth. I'm softening the first figure. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Army of observation is a disambiguation set index page, and there's no page describing this particular "army of observation". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but I won't push it.
I mean, I'm not trying to be stubborn here; I read the Template:Set index article at the bottom of that article as discouraging internal links from pointing to it when they ought to refer to a specific "army of observation", but I'll link it if you think that's for the best. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan - it's "your" article. If I were being a stubborn reviewer, you would know. I think that the link would be helpful; if you disagree, well these things happen. I'm not going to withhold a support over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hope and pride see the promise of success where there is none. ;) I suppose I'll cut it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the whole of 1761, during which time his main army fought no significant battles. I've added a phrase. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent explication. Very sound work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely clear read. Top class work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire[edit]

It's an interesting read. I had one nitpick on phrasing but just changed it myself, should be quite minor, take a look (just on how to portray the other German states within the HRE). My other possible phrasing nit is saying in the lede that the war "ended in a Prussian victory" - kinda sorta, but I think the Infobox is more on point for calling it a "diplomatic victory". From a detached modern perspective, this is a war with a lot of losers and no winner since a ton of people died but nothing really changed, but it is true that it was sold as a Prussian victory and probably helped the cause of the eventual Kleindeutscheland solution to the German Question.

Just as you say, the end result was status quo ante, but, relative to what might have been expected given the relative forces on the two sides, contemporary observers emphatically viewed preservation of the status quo as a remarkable victory by Prussia. This has also been the consensus view of historians since, notwithstanding a small number who have taken the contrary view. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bit about contemporary observers is covered by the final sentence of the lede. I guess it depends on what exactly the goalposts are placed at, since if Prussian victory = survival and Austrian victory = Prussia is partitioned between Russia, Poland, and Austria, then sure, Prussia won. But from a more distant perspective, the result was the status quo ante was preserved, which doesn't really lend itself to saying any side won. Prestige is usually a minor prize. (For one example, Finland "won" the Winter War on the prestige front and the not-get-entirely-absorbed-by-the-USSR front, but lost it otherwise. I'm sure they'd have given up the prestige in a second for the territory and lives back.) SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I've added the "diplomatic" qualifier to the lede, and I'll just reiterate that the historiographic consensus from the 1760s to the present has consistently viewed the war as broadly having gone Prussia's way, and the article contains citations to that effect. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now, thanks. SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think this is an excellent overview of the conduct of the war itself as well as the eventual outcome. My main complaint is that I feel that wars are usually larger than that. There's no problem with the content that is in the article, but it feels like the article is missing content it really should have. To take another theater of the Seven Years War as an example - the French and Indian War covers quite a bit of "Background" and "consequences", and could easily spend twice as much space on it if it really wanted (e.g. the role of the war in Quebecois regionalism). I think the current article gives very little attention to any of that aside from the matter of diplomatic prestige. Which, to be sure, probably follows the interests of "classical" history writers who like writing about treaties, kings, and battles, but is there really nothing written on social impact? Or on battle-adjacent matters like logistics? Even if the social impact was absolutely zero, i.e. "Prussians loved it, didn't complain about the extensive losses, and it fueled proto-German nationalism". (Possible this would need to be a separate article, of course, since the Silesian War is mixed up with the Pomeranian War and the like too.)

Fair points. In the article's defense, the entire article Second Silesian War is basically the "Context" section for this article, as indicated by a hatnote. Or are you wishing there were more about the Diplomatic Revolution? Should I add Seven Years' War to the context section's hatnote? As for consequences, the article does discuss the generation-long enervation of Prussia's military after this war, not to be repaired until after Jena, at least. On the social impact in Prussia, I actually haven't seen much written; generally the people seem to have accepted their King's (true) claim that he never wanted the war and did everything he could to, first, prevent it and, second, end it as quickly as possible. I'll look around and see if I can add something substantive that isn't already here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking more about social impact. Did different classes of society support the war with different levels of fervor? Was there any notable internal opposition to conducting the war for any of the belligerents, whether from the peasantry or from unruly nobles? Did the war cause any reforms or changes in government (the article does hint at this by saying that the war proved the Habsburg monarchy would need to continue to modernize, but anything else? What problems did the war reveal)? Frederick apparently emptied the Saxon treasury, did that matter or was it no big deal? Prussia was Protestant and Austria/France were Catholic, did the religious situation change at all in the war, e.g. did Prussia attempt to present itself as religious liberators to the Protestant Bohemians? Or was it largely secular? Why was Russia's supply lines through Poland tenuous after the Battle of Kunersdorf, weren't they allied with the Polish king at the time? Was there just a bad harvest, or internal dissension, or just plain bad planning or the like? Prussia's officer corps was still depleted by the Napoleonic Wars, but were there other societal effects from the loss of so many people on issues other than soldiery (e.g. the post-WW2 baby boom, or mass state orphanages, or an expansion in government benefits)? Again, I realize this is an encyclopedia summary and not a book, and maybe not all of these have answers. And it sounds like some of the answers are "boring" ones ("The Prussian state rallied around Frederick with no substantial opposition"?). But that's the kind of subjects I think the article glosses over a tad at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding various bits to try to address these issues. I've put in a couple of references to currency devaluations enacted by Prussia to finance the war and their consequences for Prussia (and Saxony, which got the worst of everything). I've also put in more comments on the decline of war-making capacity on both sides going into 1761. I'll go back through and add more shortly, but I'm out of editing time. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more detail about the demographic and economic consequences of the war in Prussia and the steps taken by the state to repair the damage. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a paragraph about the second wave of Theresian reforms inspired by Austria's defeat. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the social side - even if all this comes down to "this is an era where nobility plotted against each other and started wars because they could and everybody went along with that," that might still be a helpful bit of background, go ahead and assert that Maria Theresa / Frederick / Elizabeth had essentially total control and people paid their taxes and went along with the national sacrifices 'cuz that's what they did. There's also a bit of this on logistics / non-battle related info with Frederick intentionally moving his army into Bohemia to "live off the land" so to speak, but it feels like there's more to be said here - armies being raised and transported. The article Early modern warfare is kind of a mess, but something similar that just simply describes how warfare worked in this era would also be helpful, I think. I recognize that sourcing may be patchy here, but I feel like the article feels a tad incomplete as it is. (Or maybe all of these already exist, but are in subarticles within Category:Seven Years' War ? If so, maybe link these other articles a bit more, as they're relevant.) SnowFire (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could work in a mention of this conflict's status as one of the last cabinet wars to give some of the context I think you're asking for? I can try to work in a link to Early modern warfare alongside it, too? Those seem like helpful wikilinks for the issues you raise. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinet wars seems like a great link and useful context to explain what's going on, as would any sort of background on how this war was fought (example: Nine_Years'_War#Weapons,_technology,_and_the_art_of_war), for some reason there doesn't seem to be a comparable section for the Seven Years War article), even if it ends up being mostly a link to another article. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it looks as though WikiProject Military History recommends including commentary about methods and technologies in the first (context and causes) section of an article on a war, so I'll try to put together a little blurb that can perhaps be incorporated into each of the articles in the series. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a summary of the nature of European land warfare in this period and added it. Does this seem like the sort of thing you were looking for? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this addition is the type of passage I was looking for, on the military / logistics side. (Outside the scope of this FAC, but including something like this on the main Seven Years War article would also probably be good too, or otherwise expanding / splitting the Early modern warfare article. But don't feel obligated to look into that, it's irrelevant to the Silesian Wars article, just a general musing.) SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - thanks for including more background. Support. I realize there are WP:SIZE concerns from including too many details, but this kind of thing like social welfare programs for veterans is actually pretty relevant IMO (e.g. stuff like the Bonus Army as a delayed consequence of World War I is rather notable, even if it happened a decade after the event). The article is stronger for including some of that. SnowFire (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pushing me to make the article better! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox comment by Factotem[edit]

A general note before I start on the source review: Please do not try to represent nuance in the infobox result. If it's not possible to simply state X victory then you should set this parameter to See Outcomes

Any comment on this? Factotem (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem - Support[edit]

On the sources:

Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It ceased active military operations in this theater in 1758 and made formal peace in 1762. Do you feel that the infobox should reflect the latter? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article France appears to have ceased active involvement in 1758, but still occupied Prussian territory in the Rhineland in 1762. On that basis I would conclude that France remained a belligerent until 1762. Unless the sources explicitly state otherwise, it seems to me that that is the correct year to use in the infobox. Factotem (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it has? I'm not seeing any maintenance messages, even in preview. Are you saying that you want all the sources changed in this way? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I suspect I'm seeing them because I have a script running. It's being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Citation-template_change. Up to you if you want to make that change. It's not going to affect the outcome of this review. Factotem (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:InternetArchiveBot replaced valid links with these Archive.org links for these three sources. Is there a way I can tell the bot to stop doing that? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've changed the archive.org link to a Gbooks link for Clark's work, but the ISBN still still relates to a 2008 edition while the Gbooks link and the year given in the Sources section state 2006. Either the year and the Gbooks link needs to change to conform with the ISBN, or the ISBN need to change to conform with the Gbooks link and year. Factotem (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I check every change the bot makes to 'my' articles, and Clark here is the first time I've seen it link to the wrong edition. Suggest letting it ride for now and checking if it tries to restore the link. Factotem (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GBooks is wrong; Da Capo Press has been bought by Hachette since the publication of the book.
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN fixed. Inside the cover it says "First published by Routledge. ... This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break here and will complete the review later.

But, the same Gbook links/ISBN mismatch issues were flagged to you in the ACR and FAC for the First Silesian War article. You are not required to provide Gbooks links, but if you do so, please, please can you ensure that what you are linking to is consistent with the rest of the details provided in the article's source information? It's a nitpick when the different editions have the same pagination, as is the case with the FYIs above, but it has the potential to become a significant issue with WP:V when the pagination is different. Factotem (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence! I'm juggling a lot of different editions of these books to try to verify and expand these articles while I don't have constant access to the physical books that I first used, so most of these are that I accidentally mixed references to the physical and e-book editions. The differences in page number are normally end material and don't affect the pagination of the body of the text. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A 21-page discrepancy in a 96-page source (Shennan) or a 67-page discrepancy in a 1008-page work is a difference in end material? I realise it can be a bit nitpicky at times, especially when the discrepancies are measured in just a few pages. But, not being well-informed on any given subject or its historiography, I'm basically left looking for indicators in any source review I undertake as to the quality. Incorrectly transcluding bibliographical information such as ISBNs does not tend to give me the warm and fuzzy feeling I'm seeking. Factotem (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, reliability and comprehensiveness of sourcing

All source issues addressed. Supporting on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More