Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2020 [1].

---

Second Silesian War

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the second 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 previous article received in its recently concluded FAC. 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) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Emicho´s Avenger

I support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emicho's Avenger (talk • contribs) 20:02, January 15, 2020 UTC (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by but, for the record, declarations of support without accompanying commentary that addresses the FA criteria don't carry weight when it comes to determining consensus for promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59

Are the following publications not relevant to this article?

• Reed Browning, "New views on the Silesian Wars", Journal of Military History, vol. 69, no. 2 (2005), pp. 521-534.
• Michael Hochedlinger, Austria's Wars of Emergence: War, State and Society in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1683–1797, Modern Wars in Perspective (London: Longman, 2003). (Especially that part of chap. 11 on the Second Silesian War, pp. 257-9).

Browning's article is historiographical and cites quite a number of works, mostly in German. I don't know how relevant they are. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC).

"New views on the Silesian Wars" is already cited in First Silesian War and Silesian Wars to discuss Frederick's motives for seizing Silesia, as well as to confirm that the historiography has always considered the wars to have ended in Prussian victory. I felt that since this war merely defended the territorial status quo ante bellum it would be less relevant to include a detailed discussion of why Prussia wanted to control Silesia (beyond obvious points like taxes and manpower); if reviewers here feel strongly that more should be added, I can try to adapt some of the material from "First Silesian War", but I figured that that material made more sense in that article. I'll look into "Austria's Wars of Emergence" and see if there's anything new. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There were a few good bits in that book! I've added a citation from it to this article (as well as a couple in other articles in the series), and I'll keep looking for bits it has to offer that weren't in my other sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I've added a citation from Browning to support the general consensus that the outcome was a Prussian victory. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• The map and the infobox image do not have alt text.

The infobox image currently has the alt-text "Painting of Prussian infantry marching in formation across a field at the Battle of Hohenfriedberg"; the map's alt-text was accidentally missing the "alt=", which has now been fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "By the middle of 1743 Austria recovered control of Bohemia, drove the French back" Should that not be 'By the middle of 1743 Austria had recovered control of Bohemia, driven the French back ... '?

Yes, I suppose the perfect is better there. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "which established a new "Quadruple Alliance" among Austria, Britain–Hanover, Saxony, and the Dutch Republic" I am not sure that "among" works here; perhaps 'between'?

This seems to be a vexed issue. Style guides pretty much all agree that "between" is typical for two items and "among" for more than two, but it seems that "between" can be preferred when the items are specific and "among" when they are more generic. I incline toward the more concrete rule relating to quantity, but I could live with either word if the consensus among other editors is that "between" sounds better. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

My vote is for 'between', but it's "your" article.

Changed to "between". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "not long after relocating there, however, the Emperor died on 20 January" Is "however" necessary?

I've restructured the sentence to make it unnecessary. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "in late April Austria prepared for a more forceful invasion of Silesia" "more"? More forceful than what?

Quoting from our previous conversation about this phrase (in the A-Class review): "The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper 'invasion', meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense 'invading' the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the 'invasion' of spring 1745." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Merely a suggestion: 'in late April Austria prepared for a large-scale invasion of Silesia'. or 'full-scale'?

Changed to "large-scale". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "a major Prussian victory, sending Prince Charles's army retreating in disarray back into the mountains they had just crossed" Getting a little word-to-watchy. Consider losing "major" - its importance seems clear enough from the context - and "they had just crossed" - a reader knows that, you told them in the previous sentence.

Respectfully, this is the battle that decided the outcome of the war, and I don't think it's peacocking to describe it as a "major" victory, though I've changed it to "decisive". This is a famous victory in German history, the inspiration for Der Hohenfriedberger march. If you insist, I'll remove the adjective completely, but I think it's justified. I've removed "they had just crossed". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am convinced, feel free to replace "major".

I've changed it to "decisive". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "ended in a solid Prussian victory" What is a solid victory? Maybe just a victory?

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Prussia and Britain hoped that the Austrian defeats at Hohenfreidberg and Soor would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate its efforts against France" I am unsure that this makes sense. Whose efforts are being concentrated?

"...would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate <Austria's> efforts against France". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "On 29 August Austria and Saxony had agreed on a more offensive alliance" More offensive than what?

When Saxony rejoined the war on the Austrian side in late 1744, it only agreed to participate in a defensive capacity by helping to drive Prussian forces out of Bohemia. It was at this point (August 1745) that Saxony changed its stated goal in the war to the offensive conquest of Prussian territory and committed an army to a northward march aiming at Berlin. Maybe I should emphasize the ostensibly defensive character of Saxony's participation up to that point somewhere earlier? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that that would be helpful to a reader.

I've tried to make the contrast more clear with changes here and earlier, when Saxony first joins the war in 1744. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "a new advance from multiple directions" Does the multiple bit not imply that the advance(s) were plural?

Er, it was one strategic advance made by multiple forces? I don't have a military background, and I may not be using the terminology as clearly as possible. The point is that two armies were moving in a coordinated fashion toward the same destination; I don't know if that should be spoken of as one "advance" or two. I bow to the expertise of others. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are trying to say. Perhaps replace "advance" with 'offensive'?

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "by repeatedly making separate peaces" I thought that he only made one peace in this war?

Yes, but also two others during the First Silesian War (only a few years before), and this occurrence was more significant in that it fit a growing pattern. The two previous separate peaces are discussed earlier in this article, so I think it's fair to expect the reader to be aware of them? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense in the context of the sentence, but the previous sentence, the opening one of the paragraph, starts "The Second Silesian War" and the rest of the paragraph is something of a list. If you are convinced that the paragraph is clear to a reader then I won't push it.

I've changed it to "...by making another separate peace...". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Frederick's repeated unilateral withdrawal from his alliances in the War of the Austrian Succession deepened the French royal court's distrust of him" You said more or less the same thing two paragraphs earlier.

That's true; it's structured as summary and then detail, just as the lead section says things that are later repeated in greater detail (with citations) in the body. If you feel that they're too close together, then I can try to reduce the overlap. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a major issue, but the closeness of the wording of both is eye catching. Possibly be briefer under Outcomes or give more detail under Prussia?

I've changed the first instance to "by making another separate peace ..., Frederick damaged his own diplomatic credibility." Does that seem better? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• "his next perceived "betrayal" (the 1756 Convention of Westminster)" The nature of that could probably do with a little more detail for non-experts.

I've changed it to "(a defensive alliance with Britain under the 1756 Convention of Westminster)". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That works well.

What a fine article. The trivia above was all I could find. The balance of background-main event-aftermath was within acceptable limits and both focus and breadth were good. Without actually dusting off some very old textbooks the article seems to include all of the main events and not miss any that I was expecting. And, as a bonus, it is readable. Good work.

Thank you for your time and feedback! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bryanrutherford0, some further comments and responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that discussion and/or action is ongoing regarding a couple of my minor niggles above, but I don't see that their resolution need hold up my support for this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good Bryan. Sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Source Review--Support-- Auntieruth55

• This is an excellent article. I reviewed the sources (not necessarily text) on this (the subject matter is in my academic wheel house) and I'd say that it is a good balance of old, middle aged, and new sources. There should be no way to write an article about this war without citing Carlyle, despite the aged source. The article has appropriate sourcing from new and newer work as well. Difficult to make anything on Frederick readable--especially when it's one d-battle after another. The nature of Frederick's deployment tactics, and his ability to move his army at incredible speed is clear from this article, and these attributes play important roles in the Third Silesian War. So source-wise, I support this article. auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (U

Article Review --- Support---Auntieruth

A couple of minor suggestions, after reading the article.

Under section on preparations: Maria Theresa, for her part, aimed at the same goals This is awkward. Marie Theresa established the same goals?

How about "Maria Theresa pursued the same goals she had from the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's better. MT's goals never really changed. Consolidate the crown for her husband and later son, and get Silesia back. Loosing Silesia had long-term impact on Austria/Habsburg economic growth. auntieruth (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Under outcomes.... densely industrialised region (for the time period) also awkward. In what was, for the mid-18th century, a densely industrialised region...

Maybe the qualifier isn't needed at all. What about just "a densely industrialised region with a large population and substantial tax yields"? Should we trust the reader to understand that no part of the world in 1745 was "densely industrialised" by the standards of the 21st century? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's good.  :)

Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Prussia's seizure of Silesia made Austria into a lasting and determined enemy ....made Austria into its(?) lasting and determined enemy auntieruth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That construction seems to me to suggest that Austria was Prussia's only or principal enemy. Are you saying that it seems unclear that the enmity meant is toward Prussia? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

seems to me that other enemies came and went, but you are setting up the dichotomy of Austria and Prussia contest for dominance in German states. Greater Germany, lesser Germany. Russia was the occasional enemy of Prussia, as was France, especially when allied with Austria, but generally, Austria and Prussia were going to duke it out with one another over the next 120 years. Except during Napoleonic Wars. But that's another story.

Fair point. I feel like "make an enemy of X" is the phrasing that just "sounds right" to my ear (as opposed to "make X my enemy"), and I'm not sure I can give a great grammar or sense reason why. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Made them lasting and determined enemies....? Although they had an uneasy and unsuccessful alliance during the French Revolutionary Wars, and more successful in the last campaign of the Napoleonic Wars. auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

So then, "The seizure of Silesia made Prussia and Austria into lasting and determined enemies"? I guess that works; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not married to any of these suggestions. I agree the qualifier in the first case isn't needed at all. I still support. Either way.  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I am conscious that I reviewed this at both GAN and Milhist ACR, so may not be able to see the woods for the trees now. Anyway, the only point I have is:

• "By early 1744 both Prussia and Austria..." seems redundant, as we next go back in time from early 1744 and are told what these alliances were. I suggest deleting it.

Changed. Thank you for all your input and guidance in this process! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Great job on this, Bryan. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Hi, I think we still need an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I started going through the article with a view to promotion but I paused on reading This conflict can be viewed as a continuation of the First Silesian War in the lead. It comes across to me as editorializing and, while it might well reflect the view of historians, I couldn't see in a quick scan of the article where this view is supported -- can you help me out here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's see... The First Silesian War only "ended" for Prussia; everyone else kept right on fighting while Prussia had two years of peace, and the context and stakes of the "second" conflict were exactly the same. One or two players switched sides (notably Saxony), but that sort of thing was common in eighteenth-century wars. The sources already cited are full of the idea that, for Prussia, the "Peace" after the First War was really only a pause in the fighting (Fraser, 164: "These last two years since the Peace of Breslau had been an interlude, an armistice.") In a journal article that I haven't currently cited, Levy (1988) asserts that all three(!) Silesian Wars should really just be thought of as campaigns of the War of the Austrian Succession. I've added a little more of that flavor, and I'm trying to spot the place in the article where it would make sense to add a citation to Levy. Any suggestions? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Tks for your prompt response, Bryan. I have to hit the sack but let me think on it -- it might even just be a slight re-wording of what's in the lead so pls bear with me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, I appreciate your guidance. I've added the Levy citation; let me know if you think it needs more. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Bryan. Tks for the additions. So when we say now Some historians have argued that the First and Second Silesian Wars should be thought of as campaigns within one continuous War of the Austrian Succession and cite that to Levy, is Levy actually writing that several historians have said it's one continuous war, or is he saying it's one continuous war and we're using him as an example of "some historians"? You see what I mean: if the former then this is fine, if the latter then I would say it's editorializing because WP is saying "some historians" rather than our source explicitly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a valid distinction. Does it help that all of the sources currently cited with titles that don't relate to Frederick (Browning, Black, Clifford, Hochedlinger, Holborn) do exactly that: present the first two Silesian Wars as campaigns within the WotAS? Should I cite all of those books as evidence of numerous other historians portraying the wars this way? The only source I've found that specifically and explicitly addresses the question is Levy's article, and it's just him asserting that they all ought to be thought of as parts of the same war. If you feel that we can't include that idea without a more explicit source, then I'll regretfully remove it, but I think the fact that the second war was for all intents and purposes just more of the first is a fairly important thing to know about this war. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I don't want to be a bother, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: It's been some time now. Please reply and let me know what needs to happen to complete this process. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Bryan, I think I was preparing to respond to this earlier and then got waylaid. Anyway, based on the above I think a few tweaks (which I've taken the liberty of making myself) will satisfy me as reflecting the sources while minimising what seemed to be weasel wording. If you're okay with that I think we can wrap it up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think those changes look great. Thanks for getting back to this! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be properly licensed and appropriately used.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent review

Bryan, I saw your newcomer plea at WT:FAC, where you mentioned that "the three substantive supporting reviewers are all coordinators of the relevant WikiProject". Typically, we look for independent review to make sure that articles are digestible to readers not familiar with the content area. Knowing that your MilHist peers would have checked the sourcing, formatting, and all other FA crit, I'm just leaving a note for the Coords that, as a non-MilHist person, I read through and it all made sense! I'm not familiar enough to Support, and didn't do any other sort of review, but it's always important to get a set of eyes from outside of the content area to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A very reasonable point! I appreciate your taking the time to look it over! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember to do the same somewhere down the road on a FAC outside of MilHist :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, MilHist is a very broad church and, of the reviewers, only AuntieRuth is closely associated with the period under review here, but certainly it's always preferable to have someone completely outside MilHist give it the once-over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 29 February 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. Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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