Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/War of the Bavarian Succession
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted -MBK004 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it covers a wikigap, it has been thoroughly researched and is well referenced, it's as well written as anything else I've done, etc. A fun little article on the Potato War, or the Plum Fuss, as it was called then. A War with No Battles. I read everything I could reasonably find on the subject. As usual, my "quirky" citations, using CMS and no named refs. Thanks in advance for constructive comments! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- btw, there are no dabs, alt text is present (although not especially brilliant), and the links all work, as of now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The War of the Bavarian Succession (1778–1779) between the Habsburg Monarchy, Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia had no battles, and a few minor skirmishes, but several thousand casualties. Ok, I'll bite: If there were no battles, no major campaigns, and only a few minor skirmishes why did/do they call this a war?
- read on! ;) Not my name. The locals called it the Potato War and the Plum Fuss. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More to follow (can't work up here in odessa when dads watching tv, its impossible to focus 100% on article reviews with the Simpsons Movie playing on the tube :-)
- that's what I always wonder. Who can concentrate on anything when the Simpsons are on?
- The War of the Bavarian Succession (1778–1779) between the Habsburg Monarchy, Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia had no battles, and a few minor skirmishes, but several thousand casualties. Ok, I'll bite: If there were no battles, no major campaigns, and only a few minor skirmishes why did/do they call this a war?
TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not me. Last suggestion: I would suggest that you debold the war of bavarian succession in the legacy section since we in general do not like to have things bolded unless there is a good reason for the bolding, and in this particular case I can see no real reason for the term to be bolded in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...D'oh! It was the Long-term effects section, not the legacy section :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- that's done. You said "last suggestion"...but there were no others listed. ...?Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...D'oh! It was the Long-term effects section, not the legacy section :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not me. Last suggestion: I would suggest that you debold the war of bavarian succession in the legacy section since we in general do not like to have things bolded unless there is a good reason for the bolding, and in this particular case I can see no real reason for the term to be bolded in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TomStar81 (Talk) 04:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The right side of the article towards the top is very crammed. Could you try moving some of the images to the left if they fit? Otherwise the article looks good. Kyriakos (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- do you mean the four portraits? I intentionally put them there, together, so they would be in a line of "contenders". Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Kyriakos (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: The only comment I have is to ask if "Zwetschgenrummel" should have a translation beside it in the Impact section as the only other mention comes in the lead, so the reader might have forgotten what it means. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ConcernSorry for expressing this again but I just can't get myself to cope with the following citation/note: "Thomas Carlyle. History of Friedrich II of Prussia called Frederick the great : in eight volumes. Vol. VIII in The works of Thomas Carlyle in thirty volumes. London: Chapman and Hall, 1896–1899, p. 193. The Florentine noble, Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806), had been Voltaire's secretary, and later accepted the patronage of Charles Theodore, and remained in the Palatine. See (German) Collini, found in (German) Jörg Kreutz: Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806). Ein europäischer Aufklärer am kurpfälzischen Hof. Mannheimer Altertumsverein von 1859 - Gesellschaft d. Freunde Mannheims u. d. ehemaligen Kurpfalz; Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim; Stadtarchiv — Institut f. Stadtgeschichte Mannheim (Hrsg.). Mannheimer historische Schriften Bd. 3, Verlag Regionalkultur, 2009, ISBN 978-3-89735-597-2. The information that "The Florentine noble, Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806), had been Voltaire's secretary, and later accepted the patronage of Charles Theodore, and remained in the Palatine." is so hidden that it adds little value. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the quote is from the first source. I didn't know who Collini was, so I hunted down the other information, which is listed in the second source. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I understand that. I'm not that dumb. :-) The point is that the info is hidden in all that text. Secondly, nobody reading the article would click on the citation, expecting to find some more or controversial information. The footnotes (extra information) and citation look the same. And even if one did have a look at the citation section, only by pure chance would someone stumble over the information hidden between two citations. I just happen to feel that this could improve if you would separate the footnotes from the citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken it out of the citation and put it in the text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not against your style of citations in general (full cite then followed up by short citations). I guess there are many legitimate ways of doing this. I want to understand why mixing of footnotes (which to me are not pure citations because they carry additional (additional to the reference itself) information) and citations, meaning a reference to the source only, cannot be separated? I just don't get it why you give me the strong impression that they just cannot be separated. Maybe you have a good reason for this but I just haven't understood it yet. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When you read a book (at least books from US publishers) with footnotes, the footnotes include citations and explanatory notes. That's why they are called "footnotes"...notes in the footer. I don't see the point of separating them at all. Why would there be two sections when one will do? On the other hand, I read footnotes, citations and explanatory notes, before I read the book usually. I certainly read them before I read an article, to figure out what sources are used. So to have incomplete citations is frustrating. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not against your style of citations in general (full cite then followed up by short citations). I guess there are many legitimate ways of doing this. I want to understand why mixing of footnotes (which to me are not pure citations because they carry additional (additional to the reference itself) information) and citations, meaning a reference to the source only, cannot be separated? I just don't get it why you give me the strong impression that they just cannot be separated. Maybe you have a good reason for this but I just haven't understood it yet. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken it out of the citation and put it in the text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I understand that. I'm not that dumb. :-) The point is that the info is hidden in all that text. Secondly, nobody reading the article would click on the citation, expecting to find some more or controversial information. The footnotes (extra information) and citation look the same. And even if one did have a look at the citation section, only by pure chance would someone stumble over the information hidden between two citations. I just happen to feel that this could improve if you would separate the footnotes from the citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We agree to disagree, but nicely done article nevertheless MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.