Talk:Second Silesian War/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape, but like the First Silesian War article, I have few issues with the structure and chronology. I have a few comments:

suggest moving the First Silesian War "Further info" template to the First Silesian War subsection and making it a main template

Done! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to me, the "Preparations for a second war" subsection and the "Alliances and goals" section are striking at the same core issues, and should be combined into a single section or subsection laid out in chronological order. For example, the former ends with Frederick crossing the frontier in August 1744, but the following section talks about things that happened in May of that year. Then the latter goes on in the second para to cover things that happened during the course of the war. I don't think a thematic approach works in building the narrative, and think things should be introduced as they happened.
the above is reinforced by the repetition of the Quadruple Alliance in the "Early 1745" subsection

Fair enough! I've eliminated the section on alliances and goals and reorganized things to follow a single chronology; let me know what you think. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above needs to be addressed before I complete the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, reviewing from the top:

suggest changing "mid 1700s" in the lead to "mid-18th century", as mid 1700s could be construed as 1703–1708.

Done! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the chronology is a bit wonky. The first para of the Context and causes section appears to be a summary of what follows, and a re-statement of what is in the lead. I don't think this is a good way to approach something as linear as the lead-up to a war. IMO, it would be better to just start this section with the first war and build the narrative from there, ending with the commencement of this war.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've attempted to merge that introductory paragraph into the main narrative. Let me know what you think of the result! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through at the end and check all the linking is at first mention etc, but if the lead-in para goes, there is some linking that will be required in the next two sections

I've tried to update these, but I'll of course fix any that you spot that I've missed. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear from the narrative whether Prussia was part of the League of Nymphenburg

It was; I've added Prussia to the list. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "Prussia and Austria made a separate peace"?

Indeed, done. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is there a link for " British–Hanoverian allies"?

I've cut the phrase. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

with "In September 1743, Britain" does this include the Hanoverians? This also applies to later mentions of Britain

...Sort of. It's one of these messy early-modern situations: Hanover and Britain were ruled in personal union (by the same monarch) but retained their own separate governments, laws, and interests. The two realms were perennially jealous of the monarch's attentions, and one of the big conflicts going on in Britain during all this involved the concern of the British elites that the King was squandering Britain's wealth and manpower defending his German possessions, which they didn't particularly care about or feel any connection to. I suppose I'll change to "Britain–Hanover" to make the connection more explicit. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Britain's earlier guarantee for Prussia's acquisition of Silesia" is unheralded. Should there be a mention of this earlier? What was this part of?

Britain was a guarantor of the Treaty of Berlin (1742) that ended the previous war; Britain wanted Austria to stop fighting Prussia and focus on France, and the British mediators pushed Austria to concede Silesia and gave their guarantee to the final agreement. I've elaborated that a bit. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Britain, Saxony, Russia and Austria" needs a link to Saxony

Done. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"to support the Bavarian Emperor Charles"

Okay. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so the Hanoverians and British weren't involved in the League of Frankfurt?

No, they were on the opposing (Austrian) side in this war. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Course, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles VII is mentioned, but not previously introduced. Who was he? Is this the same chap as Elector Charles Albert of Bavaria? Perhaps when his election is mentioned, add "as Charles VII."

To reduce the potential for confusion with Maria Theresa's father, I've switched all references to the Bavarian Emperor to "Charles Albert". Does that seem to clarify it? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "Duke Francis Stephen of Lorraine" if this is the same chap? Maria Theresa's husband? And when first mentioned, say he was a Duke?

I've changed all the references to "Francis Stephen" and omitted his title as Duke (it's not really relevant to these matters). -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "to gather forces ~~for~~to meet Charles's advance"

Good point, done. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "Frederick Augustus of Saxony"→"Frederick Augustus II" as Frederick Augustus of Saxony could be Frederick Augustus Rutowsky

Done. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add an OCLC for the Carlyle texts, available from Worldcat, also location of publication and publisher

I've added the OCLC numbers; there is no location of publication, since the edition I'm citing is from Project Gutenberg (they're exclusively digital). -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add an OCLC for Clifford

Done. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:After the Battle of Hohenfriedberg by Carl Rochling.jpg needs more information and correct licensing

Okay, I've replaced it with a sharper image of another painting with better metadata and license. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Just placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]