Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Silesian War/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [1].

---

First Silesian War

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe this article should be nominated. It has no big problems, it is crucial to European history, and is already rated at good article. This article has no ongoing conflicts and a great lead. It shows no bias and has npov. Kaiser Kitkat (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I was going to nominate this (and the others I wrote in the series), but I've been trying to find a way to access some scholarly articles relevant to the topic without paying for them. Anyway, I'll jump in as co-nominator here and help to address any concerns. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bryanrutherford0 Kaiser Kitkat (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KeeperOfThePeace

Just looked at the GAN and it all looks good to me, but a few points:

• Is the tertiary citation in the first sentence necessary? The fact that the war happened between Prussia and Austria doesn't seem controversial or challengeable according to MOS:LEADCITE.
• "In January 1742 the Imperial election was held at Frankfurt, where Bavarian Elector Charles Albert was chosen as the next Holy Roman Emperor." If a reader didn't know better, this might not seem all that noteworthy. Maybe give a mention to how this was the first time a non-Hapsburg had been elected Emperor in centuries?
• "capitulating to a lesser German prince significantly dented the House of Habsburg's prestige. The House of Hapsburg was defeated in the Imperial Election..." Seems like an overuse of "House of Hapsburg", maybe replace one with "Habsburg Dynasty" or "Habsburg Monarchy"?

First comments on an FAC, feel free to tell me if I'm not making any sense. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 1:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited everything you said. You made great insights, thanks for your support. Emicho's Avenger (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me like the majority of points presented in this FAC have been resolved by the nominators, I do believe some additional work is required on minor issues, but overall I'm confident this is FA-quality. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Factotem

I'm curious. The page info indicates that 98.8% of the article was authored by Bryanrutherford0. The nom has made only three edits to the article, all three in reponse to the comments made in this FAC by KeeperOfThePeace. I guess this is somewhat moot, given that Bryanrutherford0 has now co-nominated, but isn't the nom by Kaiser Kitkat, aka Emicho's Avenger, who has not consulted Bryanrutherford0 before nominating as far as I can see, out of process, and shouldn't Bryanrutherford0 be the nom? Factotem (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Of greater concern is Bryanrutherford0's statement about (if I've correctly understood it) their original intent to get access to scholarly articles relevant to the topic before nominating. I did the source review for this article at its MILHIST ACR, where I was concerned about the heavy use of old sources, especially Carlyle. The possibility that there are scholarly sources that have not been consulted has implications for WP:WIAFA 1c. ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature...") Factotem (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The scholarly articles I have in mind have things to say mainly about the nomenclature of the war (the difficulty of deciding where one war ends and another begins, is this a "war" or just a "theatre" of a larger war, and so on); they wouldn't change or even substantially add to the existing substance of the article. I'll probably just break down and buy access while I've got some time over the break, but it won't address any of your concerns about the sourcing for the bulk of the material here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: @Bryanrutherford0: I get online access to a lot of journal articles through my university alumni account: if there are any journal articles you are after, pop me a message with the DOI, and I can see if I can save you some money. Harrias ^talk 00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. In the ACR we discussed the possibility that Anderson's The War of Austrian Succession 1740-1748 might be relevant. @Auntieruth55:, who also reviewed the sourcing at ACR and found no problems, indicated that it might be and would check. It does not appear in the bib now; was that check ever done? Other than that, I think I was satisfied then that the article was a comprehensive survey of the sources as best I could tell. Factotem (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you happy with this edit by Kaiser Kitkat/Emicho's Avenger, which inserts the text ", the first Non-Hapsburg ruler in centuries" in response to the comment above by KeeperOfThePeace? I have only a GBooks snippet view of p. 106 in Fraser (2000), the source for that sentence, but it really does not look to me like it supports that addition at all. Factotem (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Fraser supports that addition, but the fact that the Hapsburgs monopolised the imperial election is easily verifiable. Just look at the lead of the Hapsburg's article, or the Holy Roman Emperor article. I cannot find a scholarly citation that specifically states their dominance in the Imperial Election, but there are plenty of tertiary ones, like [2] or [3]. Moving Fraser's citation before the addition of the "first non-hapsburg ruler in centuries" clause and adding a tertiary citation after said clause would work fine I believe? KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think it's contentious that Charles Albert was the first non-Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor in centuries, but there are two issues at stake here:

1. Someone who has made no contributions to the article's development prior to FAC has added information without a source. I don't think this is right or proper, and not something to be encouraged for the sake of the integrity of the rest of the article;

2. This is FAC, where the standards are rightfully high. Personally, I think every statement except for the-sky-is-blue kind should be reliably sourced. I believe policy supports me on this, though I'm open to correction on that.

Another thing to consider is whether the fact that Charles Albert was the first non-Hapsburg emperor in three centuries has any significance to the First Silesian War. If yes, then there should be no problem finding a reliable source to support it (and of the two links you provided, I don't think the first counts as a reliable source, whilst the second does not explicitly support the statement). If no, then why state it? Factotem (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that at FA all points must be appropriately sourced, and I am not to any degree a master on the subject nor am I particularly knowledgeable in regards to literary material about the period other than what I have learned from reading through the GAN, ACR and this FAC. I suppose it is up to the two nominators to find scholarly sources, though I must say I would be much more comfortable with User:Bryanrutherford0 being the driving force between any push to FA here seeing as he has made the overwhelming majority of edits. And I also agree that there are much better sources than the ones I presented, but I’m sure with more tools than just google books and ten minutes of time something reliable could be found that directly references such a well known and prominent part of HRE history. KeeperOfThePeace (talk)

All good points. A similar statement abut the imperial election is made in the last section of the article, this time cited to p. 133 of Fraser. I don't have access to that page to verify it, but if does presumably that can be used, although I don't see the need to repeat the same statement. Factotem (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The citation to Fraser, p. 133, is for the first half of the succeeding sentence, about the difference in competence displayed by the two armies during the war. There's a citation to p. 106 of that source in the portion of the article that mentions Charles Albert's election, but the citation there is to confirm the date of the election, rather than the fact that the election of a Wittelsbach broke the chain of Habsburg emperors running back to 1440. I don't see the fact mentioned in any of my sources, which, as Factotem says, suggests that it's not an essential point to an understanding of the First Silesian War; the material point is that Albert was not Maria Theresa's husband, her preferred candidate, and therefore his election represented a setback for her and her house, and that point is amply covered by the citations already present. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

So if there's no support in the source cited for the statement about the first non-Hapsburg emperor and that statement is not important to our understanding of the article's subject, the statement has no place in the article and should be deleted in both places it appears. Agreed? Factotem (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review Support on sourcing by Factotem

Having completed a source review for this article at ACR, I'll repeat that here over the next few days. @Bryanrutherford0:, have there been any significant changes in the sourcing since the ACR? Factotem (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The diff looks as though the only sourcing change since August is the removal of the Britannica citation in the lead section in response to feedback earlier in this review. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

General

• Ref #34 to Browning (1993) missing page number

There's a lengthy section in the book on this theater of the war, and I suppose I won't cite the entire section in the interest keeping the page count on the citations down. I've chosen a page that specifically describes Spanish and Neapolitan cooperation to stage an invasion of Habsburg northern Italy. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Some of the page ranges in cites to Carlyle are quite long.

• Ref #25 cites pp. 291–298, which is eight pages to support a ten-word statement that also has a second ref
• Ref #46 is twelve pages, Refs# 50 & 52 six

N.B. I'm not aware of any policy that specifies a limit for page ranges, but WP:PROVEIT requires the source to be cited "clearly and precisely". Personally, I think longish page ranges are occasionally warranted; can you check the above to see if that really is the case here (especially as the age of the source makes it, I have found, quite a difficult read)? Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. In my defense, Carlyle's prose is a bit, er, discursive, and it sometimes does take him eight pages to say something that could be summarized in ten words! I've trimmed #25 (about maneuver prior to the Battle of Mollwitz), #46 (about the Moravian expedition), and #50 (about the Battles of Chotusitz and Sahay). The last (about the Treaty of Breslau) I really can't reduce, because Carlyle talks through the negotiations (often in the form of hypothetical dialogues) for the full six pages. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I know it! I checked Carlyle to find out why such a simple statement as "Brieg surrendered to the Prussians on 4 May" needed a 3-page range in the ref, and found that actually it pretty much did. Kudos to you for wading through it all for this article. Factotem (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Technical checks: OK Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

External link checker: no issues Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ISBN Links

• As per the ACR review, there is a mismatch between Gbooks link and ISBN link through to Worldcat for Black's European International Relations 1648–1815. If you really want to provide Gbook links, then you really have to ensure the editions linked to match the editions represented by the ISBN. In this case there is a pagination mismatch between the two, which may affect the page numbering in the cites.

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I rechecked the other ISBN issues identified at the ACR, and everything else is all good. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality/comprehensiveness of sources

• This was discussed in some detail in the ACR review, where I expressed concern about the age of some of the sources, especially Carlyle. For the most part, the rationale given was entirely satisfactory, and it's good to see the number of Carlyle cites reduced.
• I searched for sources myself during the ACR, but found only one, Anderson's The War of Austrian Succession 1740-1748, which has a chapter of some 30 pages on the First Silesian War. I'm still not comfortable that either:

A. This source has not been used (WP:WIAFA 1c. "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature...", or

B. No acceptable explanation has been provided for why it has not been used.

I'm fine with Anderson's work not being used if it offers nothing new beyond the sources already used, or if it is deemed to not meet the standards of reliability expected at FAC, but I would like to see some sort of statement to this effect. Hopefully Auntieruth might be able to help here. Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to look into this other source over the weekend. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it does need to be checked. I looked up the author, and I doubt very much a case can be made for his work not being reliable. Factotem (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the process of reading through it, and I'll add any details and citations that seems helpful; I've already added one on the background of the Habsburg–Hohenzollern conflict. I'll finish going through it by the end of the day tomorrow. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. I've been able to access some of Anderson's work via Gbooks preview. I'm no expert and bow to your superior knowledge, but it seems to me that Anderson's version of the lead up to invasion is more detailed and nuanced than this article suggests. From what I can tell, Frederick hoped to avoid armed conflict, and sought to have Silesia ceded to him by diplomacy. This included offering a three-way, Prussia-Russia-Austria alliance that would have bolstered the failing Hapsburg hegemony against its more powerful enemies. That's a little more than the diplomatic support for the Pragmatic Sanction and imperial election that the article currently suggests. There is also some detail on Prussian fears about Russia, to the extent that Frederick later claimed that the death of the Empress of Russia on 28 Oct 1740, and the ensuing internal turmoil in Russia, was the deciding factor in his resolve to attack Silesia. Factotem (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That helped! The book had a handful of details I hadn't seen in other sources (many relating, as you say, to the lead-up to the outbreak of armed conflict), and I've tried to add them in without radically rewriting the article, with citations. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good job. I'm more comfortable now that the article is a comprehensive survey of all available sources, as best I can tell. Factotem (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Spotchecks for verification and plagiarism

• To come Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Spot checks at the time of this version:

• Anderson refs #8, #11, #21 #42 All OK
• Carlyle III #6 OK
• Carlyle XII #26, #32 OK
• Carlyle XIII #33 OK

So far, so good, but then I started checking against Clark, and found multiple issues:

• #61. On p. 192, the context is pre-war, and Clark is discussing the motivation for taking Silesia. There's no mention of any post-war settlement, of Prussia gaining control of lands in Glatz and Silesia, or of the substantial manpower and taxes that the territory would contribute to Prussia (Clark does say that Silesia yielded a significant amount of tax to the Austrians, but that does not directly support the assertion that it also did so to the Prussians).

The fact that the outcome of the war was Prussia's acquisition of Glatz and the majority of Silesia is covered by citations elsewhere in the article (e.g. in the discussion of the Treaty of Breslau); I've added one this paragraph, as well. As to the fact that Silesia benefited Prussia, how about this, from Fraser, pp. 130–131: "<Silesia was> a province ... which would add greatly to <Prussia's> size and prosperity. ... In a very few years a quarter of all Prussian state revenue would come from Silesia." Is that satisfactory? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• #62. On p. 196, I do not see how the source supports the statement "...marking the beginning of Prussia's rise toward the status of a European great power."

I've added a citation from Schweizer, p.250: "<Prussia won the Silesian Wars>, thereby confirming indisputably Prussia's claim to great power status." Schweizer is saying that this new status was established by victory in the Third Silesian War, which is why victory in the First only marks the beginning of Prussia's rise. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• #64. On pp. 210-211, I do not see how the source supports the assertion that Frederick's unilateral withdrawal from the Nymphenburg alliance in the first two Silesian wars turned the French against him. The source appears only to state, "The Prussian invasion of Silesia was the real revolution. Without this powerful stimulus, the Austrians would not have abandoned their British allies to embrace their French enemies." (My emphasis) It's also not clear that the source supports the final assertion, that France would later oppose Prussia in the Third Silesian War.

I've updated to a source that spells out that the Treaty of Breslau upset the French court and another that supports a weakened version of the other statement, that this was one in a series of "betrayals" of France that ultimately contributed to putting France in the opposing camp in the Third Silesian War. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• #65 (pp.192, 196). I'm not sure that these pages support the statement being made either. Does the fact that Silesia provided more tax revenue "than any other of the hereditary Austrian lands" (according to the source) mean that it was the Habsburg's "wealthiest province" (according to the article)? Also, where on those pages is there support for the statement, "...capitulating to a lesser German prince significantly dented the Habsburg Monarchy's prestige." I don't see it. Factotem (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I think we can dispose with p. 192. As for the latter, Clark, p. 196: "The Austrians absolutely refused to be reconciled to the loss of the monarchy's richest province..." (emphasis added); for the former, "What amazed contemporaries ... was the apparent mismatch between ... Prussia, a third-rank player ... and Austria, the leading dynasty of <Germany> and an established <great power>". If that doesn't convince you that Austria's defeat was embarrassing, then let's try Fraser, p.135: "<French Cardinal> Fleury's interest <in the First Silesian War> had been in dealing a blow to Austrian prestige as Frederick had done." Shall I add that in? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Apologies. I missed the "richest province" bit. My bad. Yes, that Fleury reference would be useful. There's a fine line, I think, between extracting the meaning behind the sources and paraphrasing it which, if crossed, becomes asserting something not supported by the sources. My feeling was that the above straddled that line a little. But your responses are all good. I looked up Schweizer's credentials and found him to be well-credentialed academically. I'll do the same with Fleury when you add that source, just to be sure that it is of the standard expected at FAC. Just the one comment above and the Hirsch issue below still to be sorted and I will be happy to support the sourcing on this. Nice work. Factotem (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I clearly misunderstood what you wrote about Fleury. All good now. Factotem (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I also notice that a cite to Hirsch appears in the References section, but details of that work do not appear in the Sources section. Factotem (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)'

The full citation is currently in the References; it's a single article in a biographical encyclopedia, rather than a page range in a book. Do you mean that you'd prefer a shortened version there and the full version in the Sources? What would be the best way to do that: to put the encyclopedia in the Sources and then cite the article and article's author in the References? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Yes, I think it would be best to format it like the rest of the refs and sources. Cite Hirsch p. xxx in the article, and add the full details of the work in the Sources section. You can specify Dunder & Humblot as the publisher, and Leipzig as the publisher location. I'll try and find an OCLC ref on Worldcat tomorrow, but with the link to the actual article in Wikisource, it's no biggie if there is none. Also, you can split the ref in two. The first instance (currently a) can be cited to p. 175, the second (b) to p. 176. Finally, for the second I'm pretty sure the source says that Johann Georg joined the Silesian rather than Bohemian estates in revolt. Factotem (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I think that's in order now. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I enjoyed this article, but I think the prose could do with a polish here and there before it is ready for FA:

• Lead

• Does it add anything of value to be told that the German for "First Silesian War" is "Erster Schlesischer Krieg". Seems to me mere clutter, though I'm quite used to being told I'm talking rubbish.

MOS:FORLANG says that "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence." If you feel very strongly that it needs to go I'll remove it, but I think it helps a non-German-speaking reader to know what the native-language name for the topic is. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• If we're bandying German terms around, shouldn't "Realpolitik" have a capital R? The OED's preference is for one.

Done by another editor. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Brandenburg–Prussia's claims

• "However, in the Bohemian Revolt" – this is the first of eight "However"s in the text and one does begin to notice the repetition. Most howevers are unnecessary and can be deleted without harm to the meaning of the text: all but one (or arguably two – the last one) in this case.

Eight out of 3300 words doesn't immediately seem immoderate to me, but I'll reduce them if they seem obtrusive. Can you be more specific as to which you feel should stay and which should go, and perhaps why? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"However" is one of those words that usually add nothing to the sentence. It continually leaks out from one's pen (mine too) unbidden but more often than not it is just woolly padding. Where it clearly means "but" it's fine, but in my view you could lose at least the first, second, third, and seventh howevers here without any damage to the sense and with advantage to the flow of the prose. But if you disagree, well it's your prose, not mine and I certainly wouldn't press the point. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed or rewritten several instances. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Austrian succession

• "hereafter referred to as "King Frederick"" – this reads more like a will than an encyclopedia article. It is perfectly clear throughout whom you mean. Moreover, why call him "King Frederick" when you call the Empress merely "Maria Theresa"? He should be Frederick tout court. (If we're being pedantic, as in Erster Schlesischer Krieg, he was Friedrich, but in an English article Frederick is clearly what is wanted.)

This is my view as well, but in the good article review I was instructed to insert that clarifying statement to distinguish Frederick II of Prussia from other men named Frederick who are mentioned in the article. I bow to the community's judgment. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just copied the whole text into Word, turned all the "King Frederick"s to plain "Frederick"s, and (from an admittedly swift skim-through) found nowhere where there seemed to me the smallest doubt whom you meant. At the moment we seem to have the GA reviewer on one side and you and me on the other. I call that a strong working majority, and (unlike the howevers, above) I think this point worth pressing a bit. May I suggest you invite other reviewers on this page to express a view? Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Losing "King" does not harm comprehension. I would suggest you be consistent about Frederick Augustus II of Saxony. The first two mentions you specify the numerals, the last two you don't. That might conceivably be confusing, but it's not something I feel strongly about. I quite like the way you add "of Saxony" in the later two mentions, and think that helps clarity. You don't add "of Saxony" on the second mention, and I don't think you need to either. Factotem (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• "soon after taking the Prussian throne in May 1740" – sounds like a coup d'état. Acceding or succeeding or some such might be more appropriate.

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Moves toward war

• "Tsaritsa Elizabeth" – why Tsaritsa when Maria Theresa is not Kaiserin?

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Course

• "Colored woodcut" – probably doesn't matter in alt-text, but "coloured" would be the expected form in a BrE article.

Apologies, hard to write in an EngVar I don't speak! Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Bohemia–Moravia campaign of 1741–42

• "so, he repudiated" – unexpected comma (but nice to see "so" not masquerading as a conjunction as it usually does nowadays). Losing the "so" and the comma wouldn't harm the meaning.

The "so" indicates causation, which seems an important part of the content of the sentence to me; I'll remove it if you feel strongly that it must go. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

As above, it's your prose. I have made my point and if you don't agree with me that's fine. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• "In December, Schwerin's army" – you seem undecided between AmE practice (otiose comma after temporal references) or BrE (putting commas in only when needed to avoid ambiguity). You have a BrE commaless type in the next para: "In early 1742 King Frederick organised"

I also prefer to neglect that comma, but other reviewers have disagreed previously, and the text is a bit of a mash. With your support, I'll try to eliminate those that remain. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Treaties of Breslau and Berlin

• "The British treasury had financed much of Austria's war effort" – it isn't really clear from the existing text why the British wanted to subsidise the Austrians. The Hanover connexion? A word or two explaining would be useful.

Because Britain and Austria were conventional allies, and the opposing alliance in the wider War of the Austrian Succession included France. That sentence already includes a wikilink to the Golden Cavalry of St George, but I've added a phrase to indicated that Britain's goal in the affair was essentially to prevent any profit by France. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Excellent – v. helpful, thank you. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Outcomes

• "However, by making a separate peace" – this, I think, is the only truly useful "however" in the current text, and I'd recommend keeping it when culling the rest.

This one and which other? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments above. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I take Factotem's point about the missing up-to-date sources, but I hope to support this article for FA at some point, and will look in again to add my twopenn'orth when you have had the chance to consider my suggestions as well as Factotem's point. – Tim riley talk 13:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

On the final point, I'll direct you to comments by me and Auntieruth55 in the Military History A-Class review; there simply isn't another English-language source on this topic with remotely the level of detail that the Carlyle biography provides, and it's either for the Hohenzollern family history or for dates and details of the campaigns that it is used here. I haven't seen another source that could cover those facts, new or old. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

As one who knows next to nothing about the period I bow to your expertise on this point. I dipped into the Carlyle volumes many years ago but recall only this from them: "Two dogs, at meeting, run, first of all, to the shameful parts of the constitution; institute a strict examination, more or less satisfactory, in that department. That once settled, their interest in ulterior matters seems pretty much to die away, and they are ready to part again, as from a problem done". I put that into my commonplace book, but it is, I admit, not much help here.

In the light of the above exchanges I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. I hope "King Frederick" will end up as just "Frederick", but whether he does or not the article is a very good read, evidently balanced and impartial, well illustrated and well referenced. Clearly of FA quality. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered putting your name in nominators? Emicho's Avenger (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Could we have alt text for the image at the top of the infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The current alt-text reads "Painting of Frederick the Great standing on a dais surrounded by Silesian nobles". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You are of course correct. I had trusted the alt text tool without manually checking it. The tool is still showing it as missing, but I have checked, so:

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit

I hope you don't mind that I've done a bit of a copy edit. Marco polo (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Western Poland => south-western Poland is a definite improvement in precision, thank you! I think your phrasing on "lay along" the frontier rather than "marked" the frontier is fine. Your larger edit moved a citation so that the text was no longer supported in places, as well as changing the emphasis and flow of the paragraph, and I'd prefer to discuss such a change here first. I also think that your fourth edit ("several other European powers made similar preparations") makes the sentence awkward by repeating "prepare" so soon after it appears earlier in the same sentence. But, I see your point about the implied alliance; how about "similar moves?" -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the process. It's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia. You're right that "similar moves" would be better to avoid repetitiveness. As for the paragraph that I reworked, I think that it would be stronger and clearer if the main point—that Frederick wanted to pre-empt a likely move by Saxony—came at the beginning of the paragraph rather than at the end as a clause after a semicolon. I wasn't clear which points the citation was meant to support, and I'm not sure how best to position it to maintain that support. As you are the de facto author, I'll just suggest that the paragraph should begin with the main point it wants to make. Alternatively, if it is going to end with that main point, I feel rather strongly that it should be an independent sentence rather than a clause following a semicolon. But I will let you make that edit (or not) as you see fit. Marco polo (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"Similar moves" changed. The first sentence of the paragraph in question contains what I consider to be the main idea of the graph, which is that Bavaria and Saxony were also hungry for Habsburg territory; that fact the Frederick knew this and it influenced his decisions is a second-order effect, and I disagree with your preference for a period, since my goal was exactly to indicate that Frederick's reaction was a secondary result of the moves made by other actors. In historiography of these wars it's a constant struggle not to make the whole story be about Frederick's motivations and decisions and state of mind, since most of the historians writing about it have been heavily interested in Frederick personally and Prussia generally (because of its subsequent importance in European history), and this is me trying to make this article not be entirely about "how Prussia beat Austria"; other players also participated in these events, and this paragraph is about them. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Prose review by Factotem - Support

Most of these comments relate to concision. They may seem nitpicky, but generally if a word can be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence, you have to question why that word is there.

Lead

• "It was the first in a series of three Silesian Wars..." (concision)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...all three of which ended in Prussian control of Silesia." It seems odd that each of the three wars ended in Prussian control of Silesia. It implies that Prussia lost control between each of the wars. Would it be better to state that all three ended in victory for Prussia and gave it control of Silesia?

Prussia frequently did lose control of Silesia during each of the wars, but it ended each war in control of the region. Is there a phrasing that you think would communicate that point more clearly? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of "...all three of which ended in victory for Prussia, securing for it control of Silesia." ? Factotem (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

...That seems like just the sort of phrase that elsewhere in your comments you're telling me to shorten in the interest of concision ("...all three of which ended in victory for Prussia, securing for it control of Silesia."). I'll make the change if you insist. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Victory and control are two entirely separate things. One is result, the other is consequence, and concision like that would degrade the meaning. But I found the phrasing more odd than a FAC-busting failure and won't press it. Factotem (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Context and causes

• "... Brandenburg–Prussia's ruling House of Hohenzollern held dynastic claims to various of the Silesian duchies within the Habsburg province of Silesia..." (concision)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Brandenburg–Prussia's claims

• "...if the Piast dynasty in Silesia should become became extinct." (concision) You might also cast this is "...should the Piast dynasty in Silesia become extinct."

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...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." -> "...refused to return it to his heirs after his death, but the Electors of Brandenburg continued to assert themselves as the legitimate rulers of Jägerndorf." (concision - I'm not sure the semi-colon is appropriate here, and the "nevertheless" adds more to the word count than it does clarification)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "However, a After the accession of the Great Elector's son and successor..." (concision)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Austrian succession

• "Austria, by contrast, was in financial distress..." (concision - the contrast is quite clear from the information conveyed in this passage; we don't need to be explicitly told it)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Moves toward war

• "...while France, which viewed the Habsburgs as traditional rivals, sought control of the Austrian Netherlands and viewed the Habsburgs as traditional rivals." (flow)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Austria, for its part, was supported by Great Britain..." (concision)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Silesian campaign of 1740–41

• "...Frederick moved his army troops across the frontier into Silesia." (repetition)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...while all of Silesia was defended by an Austrian garrison of only 8,000 men." (concision)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Negotiations of Mid-1741

• "...joining the Bavarian Elector's forces on the Danube and advancing toward Vienna..." (concision)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bohemia–Moravia campaign of 1741–42

• "In mid-October, Charles Albert of Bavaria and his French allies were encamped near Vienna, ready to besiege it, but the Bavarian Elector he became concerned that Saxony and Prussia would seize parts of Bohemia, which he had also claimed, and on 24 October his force he turned north to instead march on Prague." I think it might be confusing to write "the Bavarian Elector" when a pronoun works perfectly well; it's not immediately obvious that "Charles Albert of Bavaria" and "the Bavarian Elector" are one and the same. The pronoun also works better later in the sentence, to avoid giving the impression that his force acted unilaterally rather than on his command.

• I'm not sure where we stand on split infinitives these days, but I do think "to march instead on Prague" is better. Factotem (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Frederick became concerned that Prussia might be sidelined in the eventual peace agreement; so, he repudiated the Convention of Klein Schnellendorf, accusing the Austrians of violating its secrecy, and joined the general advance southward into Bohemia and Moravia." The second clause is more closely related to the first, making a comma more apropriate than a semi-colon after "agreement", I think, and I agree with Tim Riley that the comma after "so" is unnecessary.

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...; the French, however, were reluctant and uncooperative, and, after the seizure of Iglau on 15 February, they withdrew into Bohemia." This clause would, I think, be better cast as a sentence in its own right, i.e. replace semi-colon with a full-stop. And I tend to agree with Tim Riley on the use of the word "however". You might also usefully add "allies" after "uncooperative", but not something I feel strongly about.

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "This The Moravian campaign achieved no significant gains..." (unless there was another Moravian campaign that needs to be disambiguated, but I see no evidence of that in the article)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "... Charles Alexander of Lorraine (Maria Theresa's brother-in-law) led a renewed Austro-Hungarian army of 30,000 through Moravia toward Bohemia..." Renewed? Seems odd to describe the army in this way. Would "reinforced" or "new" be better?

"Reinforced" works. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...followed shortly by the defeat of another Austrian army at the 24 May Battle of Sahay on 24 May..." (slightly awkward phrasing)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Treaties of Breslau and Berlin

• "..., concessions which Maria Theresa was reluctant to make; however, the British envoy..." I think this can be simplified by making it a sentence in its own right: "Maria Theresa was reluctant to make such concessions, but the British envoy..." (flow and concision, and agree that "however" is not right here)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...Hyndford threatened now to withdraw Britain's support if Maria Theresa refused to give up the Silesian War for lost concede Silesia. (simplify and concision)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...Austria conceded to Prussia the large majority of Silesia..." (concision - debatable; I'm not sure you can have a "large" majority, but mainly the scale of the concession soon becomes clear with the next sentence)

There are absolutely such things as "large majorities" and "small majorities": "Former PM Theresa May lost her party's small majority in Parliament after a disastrous snap election, but the latest poll has returned the Tories with a much larger majority, making Brexit more likely..." etc. The territory conceded made up around 90% of the land area of Austrian Silesia, whereas, if Prussia had only gotten Lower Silesia (as at times seemed likely), then that would have been a "small majority" of the region (around 60%). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

And debated it was. Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Outcomes

• "The First Silesian War ended in a clear victory for Prussia; Prussia , which secured new territory in Silesia, greatly enhancing its and the kingdom's resources and prestige were greatly enhanced." (avoid repetition and a potentially ambiguous reference to "the kingdom")

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The seizure of Silesia also ensured continuing conflict with Austria." This aspect is repeated in more detail in the next paragraph, so is not really necessary here.

A fair point. I've rearranged a couple of sentences. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Prussia

• "This success planted the seeds of future challenges, however." This sentence adds only to the word count. It can be deleted without any degradation to our understanding of the subject.

Changed- Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentSupport from Mimihitam

• "after which the main Prussian force encamped through the succeeding months near Neisse, facing off against Neipperg's Austrians but fighting little" --> I have a question with regard to this part. So the Prussians basically managed to stop Neipperg' advance in Mollwitz. But the next time Neipperg is mentioned, he suddenly already appeared in Neisse and facing off against the Prussians (although only fighting a little). There seems to be something missing in between? Mimihitam (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As the Austrians advanced toward Neisse, the Prussian force besieging it retreated and regrouped for the battle; so, the Austrians had already relieved Neisse before the Battle of Mollwitz. After the battle, the Austrians regrouped near Neisse, and the Prussians set up lines facing them, where both forces proceeded to do very little for months. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you add this detail to the article then? Mimihitam (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The text currently reads "An Austrian force ... under ... Neipperg crossed ... from Moravia to break the siege of Neisse on 5 April, and the main Prussian force manoeuvred to oppose its advance." Would you find the sequence more clear with "An Austrian force ... under ... Neipperg crossed ... from Moravia and broke the siege of Neisse on 5 April, after which the main Prussian force manoeuvred to oppose its advance."? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the second one is much clearer :) I think the misunderstanding is caused by using the infinitive "to break" instead of "broke". Mimihitam (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Changed, thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The Moravian campaign achieved no significant gains, and the effort was finally abandoned on 5 April, after which the Prussians withdrew into Bohemia and Upper Silesia" ==> where did the Saxon army go? Mimihitam (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, a good detail. Added. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Infobox: shouldn't we add France and Saxony in the infobox together with their commanders? Their involvement is extensively discussed in the article, particularly in Bohemia and Moravia. Mimihitam (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tough question; it's hard to say where these multiple interlocking wars begin and end. The historiography is pretty unanimous and clear that the "Silesian War" is fundamentally the war between Prussia and Austria. My opinion is that France should not be included in the list of belligerents for this war, since they had no direct interest in the Silesian question and were essentially fighting a parallel war against Austria for Bavaria's claims (and largely failed to make good on any proposals to coordinate actions with the Prussians). I could maybe see listing Saxony on the Prussian side, since Saxony was directly interested in contesting some of the same territories that Prussia aimed at (Upper Silesia, northeastern Bohemia); on the other hand, they played almost no role in the actual conflict, offering mostly theoretical support to the Bavarian and Prussian campaigns and dropping out of the war mostly unnoticed after the Moravian foray. I'd love to get some opinions from other editors before making a change. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"The historiography is pretty unanimous and clear that the "Silesian War" is fundamentally the war between Prussia and Austria." ==> I think this is already a good reason to keep the infobox as it is. Thank you. Mimihitam (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding the new information about the Saxon army, but now there seems to be a contradiction. On the one hand, "The Saxons abandoned the effort on 30 March and returned home". I would assume that "returned home" means going back to Saxony instead of Bohemia. On the other hand, "Saxony withdrew its forces from Bohemia after the Treaty of Berlin", which would be after 28 July 1742. Which one is the correct one?

Good point; Carlyle is eliding some detail there. This is the last point at which the Saxons had any impact on Prussia's campaigns, but they did sit around in Prague until quitting the war completely at the end of the year. I've tried to further clarify. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• "in the Diplomatic Revolution of the 1750s" --> didn't it happen in 1756?

The treaties that formally established the new defensive alliances were signed in 1756 (Westminster Convention and 1st Treaty of Versailles), but the process of the realignment was going on from the Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle all through the early 1750s. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• "exiling the Bavarian Emperor Charles to Frankfurt" ==> consider rephrasing it to "Charles Albert" to avoid the impression that he is the "Emperor of Bavaria"

Okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I have finished reading the article, happy to support now. Mimihitam (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• Hungary/Hungerian is overlinked.

Fixed, along with a couple of others. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• retreated into Bohemia and Upper Silesia.[57][55] Re-order the refs here.
• for diplomatic unreliability and double-dealing.[45][36] Same as above.

Both changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not much to say. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Are we done?

I feel we have edited and perfected this article significantly. Does anyone object at this point to this article not becoming a FA? Emicho's Avenger (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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