Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Leuthen/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) 09:37, 9 August 2017 [1].

Battle of Leuthen

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Frederick's greatest victories (according to Napoleon) Previous 2 articles I've submitted have been about his greatest defeats. This one, and the one following Battle of Rossbach, are the other side of the coin. Both have been reviewed at MilHist A class. I forgot to put Rossbach on the GAlist, so it's getting it's GA nom done now. Enjoy! I'll appreciate your comments... auntieruth (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest including a legend in the maps caption

good idea. Included in text. auntieruth (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources links for the maps are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

links deleted. auntieruth (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

Another really interesting account, well-written and well-illustrated. I have a few suggestions, none very complicated.

General

Images need alt text. all done except the one in the box--does that allow an alt text?

Yes. I added an alt parameter and the word "something" to the infobox. You can replace "something" with words of your choosing. The others look fine. Finetooth (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captions cleaned up

"At Borna, Frederick the Great and his staff develop their battle plan, by Hugo Ungewitter" – I'd add something to this to make it more clear that this is an illustration by Ungewitter and not a battle plan by Ungewitter.

~~Maybe Camphausen should be mentioned in the caption for the Choral von Leuthen.~~

The Schloss von Lissa caption is confusing. Maybe " Schloss von Lissa by Richard Knötel depicts Frederick's arrival at the castle, where he is greeted by Austrian officers (wearing white jackets)." Or something like that.

Seven Years' War

¶1 "based on the recently concluded War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748). The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Repetition. Slight ambiguity. Maybe "based on the recently concluded War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) and the subsequent Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which ended the war."? Or something like that. cleaned up

Terrain and dispositions

¶2 ~~Link alluvial?~~ ummmm....it is?

Yep, it sure is. I missed the first instance. Time for new eyeglasses. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hapsburg dispositions

¶1 ~~"He secured the Nippern..." – Delete "the"?~~ done
¶1 ~~The link to abati looks like a mistake. Maybe a brief definition in parentheses would work if no other link makes sense.~~ cleaned up
¶1 ~~"hastily erected redoubts" – Link redoubt?~~ cleaned up

Oblique maneuver

¶1 ~~First sentence. Unspaced em dashes rather than spaced en dashes since you use em dashes in the Prussian dispositions section?~~ I have no idea what this means....?

It's a truly minor matter. I went ahead and changed them just now. Please revert if you think this was a mistake. Finetooth (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¶1 "Similarly, Zieten's cavalry had traversed the entire Austrian front... " – I think this is the first mention of Zieten. The full name and link should come here rather than in the Attack section below. done
¶1 ~~"as if that was where any attack would occur" – I think this should be "as if that were" rather than "was".~~ hmmm, ok....

Attack

¶2 ~~"more than two hours elapsed before his cavalry reached the center of battle" – "His" seems ambiguous. Perhaps "the Austrian" rather than "his"?~~ clarified
¶6 "40 squadrons of Hans Joachim von Zieten's cavalry awaited them Radaxdorf" – Something missing, perhaps "at" before "Radaxdorf"? Also, shorten to "Zieten's cavalry" and move the full name and link up to the "Oblique maneuver" section.
¶6 ~~Is the Schweidnitz river the same as the Schweinitz (river)? The latter might be another editor's misspelling, not sure.~~ I don't think so. well out of the proper place.'

OK. False alarm. Finetooth (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath i think I've addressed these...

¶2 "not only because losing it would cost them control of Silesia and considerable loss in prestige" – To avoid repeating "losing ... loss", maybe "not only because losing it would cost them control of Silesia and considerable prestige..."? Or something like that.

~~¶2 "the future of Austrian control of Breslau and the region looked grim" – Since the lede takes this one step further, better add a sentence here about the fall of Breslau.~~

Assessments i think I've addressed these...

¶1 ~~"he should have considered the possibility of an attack" – Attach attribution? "According to X, he should have..."? Otherwise it sounds as if Wikipedia were making the judgment.~~ It's cited to Showalter and the others According to Showalter, Redman, Duffy, Blanning, Anderson, et al?
¶3 ~~"that even his most bitter of enemies maintained for the rest of the war." – "Maintained" doesn't seem quite right. Maybe "felt" or "entertained"?~~ continued for the rest of the war and the subsequent peace

Memorials

¶1 Flip the third, fourth, and fifth sentences from passive to active voice. Sentence three might say, "Berlin architect Friedrich August Stüler designed the monument, and Christian Daniel Rauch designed the goddess of victory." done

~~Looks good except a new question arises. Is "Victoria" the right word in "gilded the statue Victoria for better effect"? The voice flips (passive to active) look fine.~~ Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind. I linked her to Victoria (mythology). Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Finetooth (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

all done {ping|Finetooth}} except for the one I didn't understand about Mdashes. auntieruth (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support on prose, assuming you add the alt text to the infobox, which now has a place for it. Excellent article. Really good maps. Finetooth (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done! I had no idea it was that simple to add alt text to a box! 21:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment regarding "Nun danket alle Gott"

Modern German historians and musicologists have questioned whether the Prussian army really did sing "Nun danket alle Gott" in unison after the battle. I think that our article should reflect that this story might be more of a legend or a later propaganda invention, rather than something that actually happened. For more details please see:

Hofer, Achim. "Joseph Goldes (1802-1886) Fest-Reveille (1858) über den Choral 'Nun danket alle Gott' für Militärmusik " in Peter Moormann, Albrecht Riethmüller,  Rebecca Wolf eds., Paradestück Militärmusik:  Beiträge zum Wandel staatlicher Repräsentation durch Musik, Transcript Verlag (2012), pp. 217–38. ISBN 978-3-8376-1655-2

Bernhard R. Kroener "'Nun danket alle Gott!': der Choral von Leuthen und Friedrich der Große als protestantischer Held; die Produktion politischer Mythen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert" in Hartmut Lehmann, Gerd Krumeich eds. Gott mit uns : Religion, Nation und Gewalt im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (2000)

Thanks! P. S. Burton (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Added a Note to that effect. auntieruth (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I tweaked the wording a little bit further to align with the opinion of the sources . P. S. Burton (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @P. S. Burton:! I added the second source to the bibliography. All is well? auntieruth (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danke :) P. S. Burton (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Parsecboy

Very nice work - just a few comments:

"Britain aligned herself with his nephew..." - whose nephew? fixed
"could fire at least four volleys a minute" - I know that's fast, but the average reader likely will not know what the typical rate of fire in those days was - might be worth a footnote added a phrase explaining.
"gave him almost (and only) 200 men." - similarly, for most readers, the question will be "is that a lot? not a lot? instead of the 1,000 that would normally have been in his battalion.
"Leuthen was not a big village: troops were so closely packed they stood 30 to 100 ranks deep. The killing was terrible: Lamoral commented..." - the structure here is repetitive
"Commanded by Joseph Count Lucchesi d’ Averna[Note 2] hurried to take them in the flank" - I think something is missing here fixed
"Solid red lines indicate Habsburg positions; dotted lines show movement. Solid blue lines indicate Prussian positions; dotted blue lines indicate Prussian movement." - I'd add an explanation of the cavalry icons fixed

Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good points, @Parsecboy: Thank you! auntieruth (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this article, Ruth - it's nice to see important articles like this one being tackled. Parsecboy (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

Okay, your reference system sorta makes sense but it it decidedly odd. You list the full bibliographic details twice - once on the first appearance in the footnotes and then again in the sourcess, but subsequent uses of the same source in the footnotes is a short footnote (which, I might add, is by last name, but you give the first fuller footnote with first name first, making it more difficult to figure out what is being referred to.) It works, but it really makes finding bibliographic details much more difficult than it probably should be. At the least, could we put the author's last names first in the footnotes? That would make checking to see whether every source listed in the References was actually used in the footnotes a bit easier.

Chicago Manual of Style. Unless I'm coerced into using one of those fancy templates, which I have bizillions of problems with, I do it this way, and have done so since I started writing articles anywhere. Footnotes have author's name first last. Bibliography has author's name last first. Easier to alphabetize. I'd be happy to call it "sources consulted", and combined the two sections, which I've done auntieruth (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not going to be opposing on the system used but ... ugh. It's really clunky. It'd make a lot more sense to only have one section but if Chicago requires both the footnotes with full information (except ISBN, as far as I can tell) and then a separate section for the full-full bibliographic details ... I can't make you change per WP:CITVAR. Not sure I'll be rushing to do more source reviews though as detangling which references were used and how took me about three times as long as a more usual referencing system. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what a usual referencing system is??? I detest the one with last name (date), page number. Incredibly cumbersome. auntieruth (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing Duffy used in the footnotes? I combined the bibliography, and no, he's not in the footnotes. He used to be.
I'm not seeing Latimer used in the footnotes? I combined the bibliography, and no, he's not in the footnotes. He used to be.
Why is "International History Review" in footnote 2 (D.B. Horn) underlined? it is a journal
What makes http://historian-at-large.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-forgotten-battlefield-at-leuthen.html a high quality reliable source? Roger Moorhouse makes it so. established and respected historian of Eastern and Central Europe
I see we're using Gaston Bodart for casualty figures - but his work is from 1916, surely there are more modern historians who give casualty figures? his work is still the authority, and the others rely on them for the basic. They then use other sources to augment his numbers, or to argue with them

So if later historians argue with his numbers, shouldn't we be covering their views also as they relate to this battle? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

little to argue with at Leuthen. More argument on the numbers at Battle of Kunersdorf. auntieruth (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming in footnote 2 that all of the information is covered by both sources given - Horn and Black? If so, why not just cite to Black, the more modern work? If it's not all covered by both sources, we really need to have it made clearer what bits are from each source - given that both sources are 20 some pages. I disagree with that. Both sources cover it in detail over the 20 pages and it is hardly unreasonable to ask someone who wants to know more to read 40 pages to gain a deep understanding of the Diplomatic Revolution. Although Black is more recent, the consistency of sources reflects the continuity of historical understanding of the importance and causes of the diplomatic revolution.
You give a link for footnote 5 (New York Times) and put NYT in italics - but in the sources, you don't give a link and you underline NYT? Consistency. I generally don't link in references unless it's to a webpage.
World Cat shows the author of "War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq" as Saul David. Idon't understand this.

It appears that the author is Saul David, not DK Publishing. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. He's the editor. auntieruth (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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