Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frederick the Great/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2021 [1].

---

Frederick the Great

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...

• King Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great), a monarch whose influence on European history has been substantial. His reign is seen as the exemplification of a rulership when early enlightenment ideology was pervasive. He is seen one of the key figures in the rise of Prussia, which eventually led to the rise of Germany. In addition, he is seen as unique because his individual characteristics are seen as putting a stamp on how Prussia, and to a lesser extent, Germany is seen to this day.
• This page should be featured because it is one of the more visible on Wikipedia, averaging 1,800 page views/day. Thus, it would serve the Wikipedia community to ensure that this oft-viewed article displays the best Wikipedia has to offer.
• Status as a Featured Article would also provide guidance for the article's future evolution. In the past two decades, it has also been a relatively controversial page, with many different interests and perspectives on Frederick being negotiated and renegotiated, with issues previously causing the article to become diffuse with inordinate focus on one aspect of Frederick II's life. In the last few months, it has reached a state of relative stability in terms of content. (You will see many recent edits. But most are mine: the majority of those being focused on finding verifiable references for most of the points made by the various editors, aligning what is stated with the references, formatting, and prose editing attempting narrative unity.) As information about and perceptions of Frederick II continue to change and unfold, Featured Article status provides the suggested standard for future content editors to aim for, ensuring the article serves the greater community.
• Though the process can be grueling, a Featured Article nomination- if appropriate- will help polish the article as well.

Thank you for your consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions from Chidgk1

• If he had no significant achievements before becoming king remove "during his reign".

"during his reign" removed

• Do we need "subjects" in "Catholic subjects"?

"Catholic subjects" changed to "Catholics"

• "Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick's ...." - you mean Frederick or Fredericks?

"Frederick's" changed to "Frederick"

• If the potato guarding story has been debunked or has no evidence maybe say that in a footnote to prevent future editors adding it without a reliable source?

Your comment points out the inadequacy of the NYT article as reference. It is a very short blog presented as a ditty with little context (and it is behind a paywall.) I updated it with a German-language article from Welt that addresses the issue in context of a 2012 Potdam exhibit, which interviews the curator. The new reference addresses the legend and where it may have come from, and more importantly the focus of the citation more closely matches the point being supported in the Frederick article that Frederick promoted the use of the potato in Prussia. (I added a translation of relevant sentences in the citation.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I notice that the article cites several bachelors theses. How do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

These bachelor theses meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP as peer-reviewed, secondary sources. Beyond functioning as citations that support a point made in the Frederick article, each focuses in depth on an issue that is often addressed by one sentence in the article. The theses are reviewed by their academic advisors from established universities, approved by the university who publically maintains them on their website, and each article has elaborate references within them to support their argumentation. Most importantly, functioning as references each is fully accessible to the interested reader, who can read them as further reading to explore the topic the theses address in depth, and allowing readers to evaluate and verify the quality and interpretation of the sources for themselves. Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Supervisor review of Bachelor theses is not technically a peer review. And what does indicate that these have been reviewed in the first place? They surely have been evaluated in their final form by the advisors, but that does not necessarily mean they also have been corrected prior publication. A university is usually required to publish all theses at least in their local libraries, so their published state does not necessarily say much about their quality. One indication for their importance would be their citation count: If they are widely cited, they are certainly considered important contributions to the field. However, at least the "The Invention of Frederick the Great" thesis does not have any citation at all, according to Google Scholar. I would recommend to replace them with better sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they are not on par with peer-review journals, and in a sense, students are not peers, but mentees. So my intention is to imply they have been vetted by professionals in the field. These theses have been approved as meeting requirements in their field. I would agree that they do not have a high citation count, but I would like to suggest that many of these articles make their point using academic standards- particularly adequately documenting their case with academic citation. This can be directly verified by accessing the articles via one or two clicks. (as they can be accessed) with additional citations.

Over the years, this article has collected a wide variety of citations from a wide variety of sources. Many of variable quality, and a goodly number are not academic at all. I would suggest that these theses are strong in their own right and are available to the reader to make her or his own evaluation of the sources and had to meet a minimum academic standard. For example, if these sources were replaced, they may end up being replaced by works by professional biographers, which are often have a weaker standard of verification. Wtfiv (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I will certainly get rid of the Theses if that is the consensus.

• Curry's (2019) and Munn's (2019) detailed analyses of the changing perceptions of Frederick in postwar-Germany can replaced with a citation from Clark (2006), who has a few sentences scattered in his text in his treatment of post-war Brandenburg.
• Weeds' (2015) detailed analysis of the Hohenzollern claims can be replaced by one of the standard biographers such as Asprey, MacDonogh, or Gooch, an older source that they used, such as Carlyle or Kruger. Each has a sentence or two that should serve as a citation for the point made.

From my perspective, I feel it is a loss to lose the opportunity to allow a reader to explore the implications of those single sentences in the article in more detail. (Perhaps a compromise would be to have a standard biographical source with a single line, and allow these sources to stand as a backup reference. That way their materials- particularly their treatment of the details and additional sources- don't get lost.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Me must understand that a Bachelor thesis is an exam. If it was approved by the supervisor, it just means the student did not fail. Bachelor theses can be very good, but are not necessarily so. For us here, this is very difficult to evaluate, that's why we need to rely on external indicators such as publisher credibility. But that is not really possible here.

The question is also: If they are not being cited by the academic community, why are they relevant? A reader would expect to see the key sources cited, the most widely established ones, rather than marginal ones like these.

If they can be replaced, I think that would be the best way to go. Citing them in addition – sounds acceptable from my side, but I can't speak for others. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I like the idea of using them as additional sources. I'll move in that direction. However, if the consensus is to delete them totally, I'll do so. Wtfiv (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes made to citations with theses as per discussion above:

• The citations from standard biographies by MacDonogh (2000) and Schieder (1983) are added to sentence on Frederick II's claims to Silesia. Weeds (2015) is still available in citation as resource for details.
• MacDonogh (2000) added to point about downgrading Frederick II's reputation as it is in a one-click paragraph. Munn (2014) is still available in citation as resource for details.
• Clark (2006) used as source about Frederick II's reputation on post-70s reputation rebound. Curry (2019) is still available in citation as resource for details.

Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Just booking my place for now. Back with substantive comments later, but meanwhile two points of spelling caught my eye on a first skim through: Robert Citino spells the word "maneuvring" thus and not "manovering" as you have him say, and "unharmonious" seems odd: the OED gives no instances of the use of the word after 1876, and "inharmonious" is the usual modern form, I think. More anon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 17:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

both spellings corrected. Wtfiv (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the article for GA, and it is a pleasure to see it again. It seems to me admirably proportioned, balanced, well written, and splendidly illustrated. A few minor quibbles and suggestions for bringing the article from GA to FA standard:

• Info-box

• Is "Calvinist" quite right for "Religion" in the info-box? Something like "Agnostic Christian" seems more the mark – or possibly omit the "Religion" line altogether? I just mention the point and am not sure about it. Pray ponder.

I agree. I left this as is, trying to respect the editors' choice. I figured it worked as his baptised religion, though his work makes it clear that the greatest degree of religion he has is a kind of deism. His baptism is mentioned in the text and his more cynical attitudes toward religion are too, so I'll delete.

• Lead

• In the third paragraph ""Frederick was… Frederick also… Frederick was… Frederick is…"." – The prose would flow more smoothly with fewer "Frederick"s and more "he"s.

Done. Three "Fredericks" are now "He's".

The rhythm of sentence subject reference now works like a kind of waltz meter: Frederick...He....He...;Frederick...(subordinate clause he)...he; Frederick...He....(subordinate clause he)...He...Frederick. Kept "Frederick" for claim about homosexuality- it fell into the pattern anyway- as ensuring this is clearly stated has been a ongoing issue with this article for years and a recent commentator on the talk page wanted to ensure that this fact was not easily missed by readers.

• Early life

• "Frederick and Wilhelmine formed a close relationship at this time" – do we need the last three words?

deleted

Thanks! "At this time", though emphasizing when the relationship was formed, undermines that fact that it was life long. Her death was one of the few times that the older Frederick (as opposed to the younger Frederick) was caught crying.

• Katte affair

• "Soon after his affair with Keith" – but you've just said we don't know if they had an affair. Safer to say something like "Soon after his relationship with Keith ended…"

done

This is an artifact of editor's concern about Frederick's sexuality. An editor chose "affair", as it too can have neutral connotations, but it does connote too much, given that- as with all things related to Frederick's sexuality, it remains murky. "Relationship" is a clearly more neutral word in this case and distinguishes it from the "Katte affair", in which "affair" has a different definition and set of conotations altogether.

• War of the Austrian Succession

• There Are An Awful Lot of Capital Letters in your caption to the excellent map of Frederick's battles.

Fixed

I'm glad you like it! The map was a recent addition by an editor who added it to many Frederick II related articles. I requested the editor to make minor changes and I made a few. The title capitalization was my doing, however.

• Seven Years' War

• "Frederick forcibly incorporated … brought Frederick … also provided Frederick" – another lot of Fredericks that might advantageously be leavened with a "him" or two.

done

three or for replacements, maintaining the analogical waltz rhythm.

• "a Prussian title from Frederick, which Frederick naturally obliged" – is there a "with" missing before "which"? And there is possibly a hint of WP:EDITORIAL about the "naturally".

Fixed

I think this may have been an artifact of an editor who was focused in ensuring readers knew that Peter II was Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. Most of the artifact of this extended focus was removed, but I think you caught the remainder. Thanks!

It might be safest to redraw on the lines of "…a Prussian title; Frederick obliged", which has the incidental advantage of being shorter.

• First Partition of Poland

• "Poland was vulnerable to partition due to poor governance, in part due to the interference of foreign powers" – two "due to"s in a row. And I'm not entirely clear whether the foreign interference was the part cause of the vulnerability or of the poor governance.

replaced the second "due to" with "as well as"

• "an enlightened civilizing mission that emphasized … barbaric and uncivilized" – sudden outbreak of "ize" endings instead of the "ise" form elsewhere in the article. Better to be consistent.

Fixed

Most certainly this was my edit. Probably in response to helping address an editor's concern to ensure that Frederick II's impact on the people of Polish Prussia was acknowledged. (The consensus of the editors in this article to use British English is training me to be more careful, but lapses are my hallmark.)

• Administrative modernisation

• "fixing rates that depreciated coins would be accepted" – seems to need "at which" rather than "that"

fixed

• "However, the functionality and stability" – not sure why "However" here.

"However" deleted

• "Frederick modernised the Prussian bureaucracy and civil service" – don't "bureaucracy" and "civil service" mean the same thing?

"civil service" deleted

• Religion

• "Roman Catholic Church's goods and property" – it's been the ungeographical Catholic Church up to now, and I wonder if we need the "Roman" here.

updated "Roman Catholic" throughout article. Out of 13 occurrences of "Catholic; six are "Roman Catholic".

• "Frederick's religious views were sometimes the subject of criticism" – rather a long-winded way of saying they were sometimes criticised.

Changed to "Frederick's religious views were sometimes criticized."

• "About a decade after his death, Frederick's views" – perhaps just "his views"?

Done

• Environment and agriculture

• "colonizers" – another unexpected z.

Fixed. (Those American-trained editors with their orthographical lapses!)

• "Oderbruch marsh-land" – the OED doesn't hyphenate "marshland".

fixed.

• "He was also close to nature and issued decrees to protect plants." – this doesn't altogether square with your statement, just above, that he considered nature in its wild form "useless".

The art of combining two editorial views (Frederick enlightenment exploiter vs. Frederick enlightened animal-lover). As the Blackbourn (2006) citation refers to land, I made the following change: "taming and "conquering" of nature...which, in its wild form, was considered "useless"" to ""taming" and "conquering" of nature...considering uncultivated land "useless"". I believe this captures the sense of Blackbourn's (2006) point, which is focused on draining swamps, not the flora. Then, it no longer contradicts the point you mentioned, which is supported by Das Gupta (2013). Das Gupta is focused on tamed animals, and mentions legislation in passing, though the focus is on "cultivated" plants like cherries and melons. Does that work? If not, I'll keep at it.

• Works well for me. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Arts and education

• unharmonious and awkward – as above, I think the usual modern spelling is "inharmonious": we still have "unharmonious" at the moment.

My apologies. I'm certain I typed the changes, but may not have saved due to having multiple windows open (or saving an open old save over the new save). I just made a specific edit to address this, as well as the misspelling (i.e., manouvering) in the Citino quote you mentioned above. (They had both been addressed in the same edit, so if one wasn't saved the other wasn't.) I'll spot check the changes here to make sure that indeed, these are saved and addressed.

• "believing that German it had been hindered" – this doesn't make sense. Some words seem to be missing.

deleted "German", hopefully it is clear that the referent of "it" is "German culture of his time".

• Science and the Berlin Academy

• "However the Academy" – if you must have yet another "however" here (it is the tenth of fourteen Howevers) you need a comma after it.

comma added here. "However" was kept in this instance.

However, (please excuse the attempt at humor), as per optional, implicit suggestion, "howevers" were reduced. There are now five of them, two of which are embedded in quotations. Changes include:

• "his relationship with Keith may have been homoerotic. However, although the extent..."
• "Frederick set out on campaign...However, h He was surprised by.." to "Frederick set out on campaign. He was surprised by..."
• "Frederick's troops immediately continued marching...However," But,Saxony "had" now joined the war against Prussia. to "Frederick's troops immediately continued marching... , but Saxony now joined the war against Prussia."
• "...which forced him to abandon his invasion of Bohemia. However, wWhen the French and the Austrians pursued..."
• "He allowed the association to be titled "royal" and have its seat at the Königsberg Castle However, but he does not seem..."
• "he was nicknamed Der Alte Fritz (The Old Fritz) ... However,Frederick evinced little pleasure from his popularity ..."
• "Frederick's reputation was downgraded... However, sSince the 1970s, Frederick's reputation"
• "However, h}}{{xt|He remained critical of Christianity..."

• Bravo! A distinct improvement, in my view. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "director 1746–59" – the MoS (don't ask me why!) insists on the full years in a date range like this, so "1746–1759".

done

• Military theory

• "Clausewitz' On War" – strange form of possessive: one would expect an s after the apostrophe.

's added.

• "Frederick the Great's most notable" – do we need "the Great" here? We already know which Frederick we're talking about.

"the Great" deleted. My guess is that it is a residuum of the military puffery that was part of this article's legacy.

• "Austrian co-ruler Emperor Joseph II" – that's piling a lot on one title: better to distinguish between the false title and the real one by calling him "The Austrian co-ruler, Emperor Joseph II".
• "Historian Dennis Showalter" – another false title, easily remedied with a definite article before it.

done

• Later years and death

• "due to his enlightened reforms and military glory" – another "due to" that would be better as "because of"

done

• "However, Frederick evinced little pleasure" – there really have been an awful lot of Howevers in this article, and this is surely one we could do without. Removing it will not damage the meaning of the sentence. I'm not sure about "evinced little pleasure from" – the verb seems oddly chosen, and something like "derived" might be clearer. If "evinced" is essential, I think you want a different preposition with it – probably "in".

"However" removed as per previous suggestion to reconsider "Howevers."

"Evinced" replaced with "derived"

• "Frederick's casket" – curiously American term in a BrE article: "coffin" would the BrE form.

Replaced. It seems to be an older artifact of this article. It's interesting though: I would've guessed that "casket" with its ties to French-Norman roots would be closer to BrE than "coffin".

"Casket" is certainly a long-established word in BrE – see the casket scenes in The Merchant of Venice – but they didn't and don't tend to have corpses in them. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Historiography and legacy

• "Historian Leopold von Ranke" – another false title calling out for a "the" in front of it.

fixed. I agree. The false title always risk an authority that is not present.

• "the role of Prussia in German history was minimized" – another unexpected z.

Fixed (Those Americanisms! I think I just added this while trying to address another FA concern.)

• "However, since the 1970s, Frederick's reputation in Germany has rebounded" – this really doesn't benefit from the "However", which would, I think, be better removed.

Done as per previous "However" purge.

• "Historians continue to debate the issue of Frederick's achievements, discussing how much of the king's achievement was based…" – repetitious: perhaps something like " … discussing how much they were based…"? (and deleting "of it" later in the sentence)

Done...

• Finally, you need to prune all the duplicate blue-links, of which there are quite a few. There are three links to German language in the lead, and in the main text Frederick William and the Battle of Hohenfriedberg each have two duplicate links, and Age of Enlightenment, Battle of Leuthen, Battle of Rossbach, Berlin State Opera, Bohemia, Charles VII, d'Argens, East Prussia, Eugene of Savoy, Farther Pomerania, Generalfeldmarschall, Holy Roman Empire, Jesuit, King in Prussia, Saxony, and St. Hedwig's Cathedral all have one duplicate link each.

Those are my few points. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 11:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed all the changes suggested. In my opinion they all strengthen the article. A few gave pause for some more thought on the issues in the article, which I appreciate more. Based on your comment regarding the enduring legacy of the inharmonious "unharmonius", I may need to go through the last round of edits again to spot check to ensure they've been properly saved.

I haven't addressed the duplicate blue links yet, as I'll research a tool to find them, which I'm sure exists. Previously I attempted to take care of them manually, but that degree of fine-combing is not my forte. Once I take care of them, I'll return here and mentioned that I've addressed it.

Thank you so much for your in-depth comments. The careful, positive critical reading of this article is very much appreciated! Wtfiv (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Duplicates removed. (Found User:Evad37/duplinks-alt script.) The three duplicates in the first paragraph of the lead, which were artifacts of the lang-de template, have been addressed as well. Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It all looks pretty good to me now. One last read-through tomorrow and I confidently expect to add my support here. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Last two gleanings on the text and one on the citations from final read-through:

• Early life

• Is Benjamin Ursinus von Bär particularly notable? Does the name of the cleric doing the baptism matter?

In my opinion, it is not particularly. An editor who felt it was important added this within the last month, and seems to have stayed. I'd prefer to just leave it, though I too don't see the significance. (It did get me to read about von Bär) I modified it within an interlanguage link to his article in German wikipedia, though it adds another ugly red link to the article. If you think it would still be better to remove it, let me know.

Not for me to pontificate. If you're content (even reluctantly) to leave it there, I'm not going to object. Tim riley talk 19:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. My preference is to leave the small details in, if someone feels strongly, as long as it doesn't add unduly to the length of the article or take it off on a tangent. Wtfiv (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "alliance with England … England would no longer subsidise Russia" – Britain, not just England, by this stage of the 18th century. (Two of your sources fail to make the distinction in their titles. Rose can perhaps be forgiven, as in the early 20th century "England" and "Britain" were all too often used interchangeably – Asquith's tombstone records that he was "Prime Minister of England", and see also Nancy Mitford's Noblesse Oblige – but what can Schweizer have been thinking of in 1989?)

I'll fix the reference to England. And, I'm glad you shared the issue so that I know its not just Americans who continue to confuse England and Britain. At least there's a venerable tradition behind the confusion and not merely an American inability to distinguish all things Brittannic.

• Citations

• You refer to Blanning variously as "Tim" and "Timothy". As his name appears on his books as T. C. W. Blanning, it might be best to refer to him thus.

Fixed. He is now consistently T. C. W.

I leave those three small points with you, and am pleased to add my support for the promotion of the article to FA. Some of the sources are fairly vintage, but there are plenty of modern sources as well, and the facts of Frederick's life and reign are well documented. The references have a few ISBNs and OCLCs missing: arguably this falls foul of FA criterion 2c, and though equally arguably it doesn't, it would be as well to add them. They are not hard to find: WorldCat will oblige. The text of the article seems to me balanced, comprehensive (without excessive detail), well written and admirably illustrated. I enjoyed reviewing this article and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course.

I'm less a fan of OCLCs and ISBNs, particularly with editions. But if it helps, We'll get them added. It may take me a bit of time, but I'll come back here and note when I've covered the one's I caught. Wtfiv (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ISBNs and OCLC completed for all cited book references. Wtfiv (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested to see my excellent colleague Aza24's comments below, on the music. I agree that brevity would be the key here. Music was only a sideline, after all, and the Oxford Dictionary of Music polishes Frederick off in 83 words; in a general encylopaedia article like this one, that can probably be reduced a bit. The ODM's entry (ref: "Frederick the Great", The Oxford Dictionary of Music. Eds. Kennedy, Joyce, Michael Kennedy, and Tim Rutherford-Johnson, Oxford University Press, 2012. (subscription required)) reads: "German sovereign (reigned 1740–86) who was also composer, flautist, and patron of music. Pupil of Hayne and Quantz. Est. court orch Berlin 1740, and opera house 1742. Employed C. P. E. Bach as harpsichordist from 1740, and J. S. Bach visited the court at Potsdam, 1747, the Musical Offering being the result (based on theme supplied by Frederick). Other notable musicians in Frederick's service incl. the Graun brothers and Quantz. Comp. syms., opera, marches, arias, etc. Wrote libs. for K. H. Graun." – Tim riley talk 08:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley Thank you for the summary. I appreciate it so much, as I'm on the other side of a paywall, and my in my effort to get this to featured article status, rather not expend the quantitative resources to breach the wall. Your summary gives me guidance for addressing Aza24's concerns.

Now that both my brain cells seem to be working simultaneously, I have remembered that you can see the print version of the ODM at the indispensable Internet Library: here. Tim riley talk 15:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ODM added as reference for statement stating that Frederick was a patron of music. It's good to know it is there! Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Aza24

I don't know that I'll do a full review, but given his strong connection to the music of the time, I thought I'd point out a few things. Relevant information on the points below can be found in these articles: Grove 1,Grove 2, and potentially here, though I've not looked closely at the latter. McCulloch (1995). "A lesson on the King of Prussia: a New Look at the Compositions of Frederick the Great" German Life and Letters 48, seems a rather relevant article, though I cannot find access to it.

Aza24, the Grove citations are behind a paywall, so I (and many of the interested readers) don't have access to the resources. McCulloch (1995) has the same issue, and it seems that even when we want to find it, it is inaccessible. One of my goals has been as much as possible to make sure that all sources can be accessed without a paywall by a single click. However, in this case, if you feel it is most accurate to present Grove as the authority, I will do so. I am grateful for Tim riley's summary as it guides my responses to your following concerns. Hopefully, they address the concerns you raised below. If not, please let me know.

• As far as I can tell, there is currently no information on his operatic contributions. In Montezuma, Frederick wrote the libretto, and it seems he had further (seemingly lesser) contributions to other Graun opera librettos.

Fortunately, we have an available source through JSTOR (registration, but not pay) that covers the ground. The wonderful article by Forment (2012) covers Frederick's contribution in a single accessible table, which I cite (and is linked). Here's the prose, based on Forment (2012) as it stands: "Frederick also wrote sketches, outlines and libretti for opera that were included as part of the repertoire for the Berlin Opera House. These works, which were often completed in collaboration with Graun, included the operas, Coriolano (1749), Silla (1753), Montezuma (1755), and Il tempio d'Amore (1756)." I don't attribute authorship to Frederick directly, because as a king, Frederick could ensure his work was of top quality through careful editing by his assistants, in this case Graun, and most likely the librettists, who include Leopoldo de Villati (who has no entry even in Italian Wikipedia, though he gets honorable but unlinked mention in some opera pages mentioning his libretto), Pietro Metastasio, and Giampetro Tagliazucchi (apparently, another "unsung"- in the posthumous sense- librettist). But then, how many English speakers know the brilliance of the more contemporary librettists like Hugo von Hofmannsthal? (As to Frederick vetting his work through editors, you most likely know the snarky comment that Voltaire was alleged to complained about this role as Frederick II's editor, stating to the effect: "Will he never tire of sending me his dirty linen to wash?")

• Graun seems to have included some arias by Frederick in his operas (Grove 2)

Is this adequately covered in the citation above?

• A brief line should be included on the style of Frederick's music; though a political leader first and foremost, he wrote quite a bit of music. It seems that his operatic style was remarkably similar to Carl Heinrich Graun, and he did not venture far from the classical approach over a solo voice over a simple accompaniment (Grove 1/2). His works for flute seem influenced primarily by Quantz, who was also (a detail that might be added) his teacher (Grove 1).

Quantz is given credit for collaborating with Frederick: "His flute sonatas were often composed in collaboration with Quantz," Citation goes to Reilly's Preface to Quantz's "On Playing the Flute", which readers can read via archive.org. Mention of Frederick's baroque style in flute compositions is given with citation from Oleskiewicz (2012).

More added on Quantz. He is mentioned as his music tutor in clause. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sentence added detailing Frederick's compositional style for the flute sonatas. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The two editions of his musical works in Grove 1 should likely be added to the "Works by Frederick the Great" section

I do not have access to the resources behind the paywall. The list of his musical works should not be copyrighted, so could you post them here, and I will copy. If you could link them for readers, that'd be great. If not, I'll see what I can do as primary FA editor. By the way, at the end of the article, IMSLP has a nice, though abbreviated collections of a number of his scores.(updated) The music section of "works" now focuses just on written works. The music section has currently been deleted. but it can be put back if that is best. Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure on the benefits on including the Recording of compositions by Frederick the Great section, particularly if only a single recording is listed

Though I cannot take credit for adding the Oleskiewicz recordings, I thought this was an editors' gift for the casual reader, who is most likely not a music aficionado of 18th century music. I think these are great insofar as the casual listener can at least hear an interpretation of Frederick's compositional style (as edited by Quantz) done using a replica of his flute and with the aura of being recorded in Sanscouci. My role was primarily to ensure the link was accessible, valid and followed format. I agree, it is only one interpretation, so if we have others to share, I think editors could add. I appreciate that readers can get a sense of the "ear" of his composition, rather than the intellectual description of it. Oleskiewicz also published the score of her edit of four (out of seven) compositions. I deleted the reference, as it was a purchase-based source, and two of the four scores are available for free on IMSLP for people who want to follow along comparing Oleskiewicz's performance to the score and determining for themselves the success of her interpretation. However, if you feel that one sample is worse than no sample, we can delete this. (updated) The link was a licensed YouTube recording it. now has been moved to external links. As per our discussion and your help, the opera Montezuma has been moved to external links.Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Though touched on earlier in the article, it might be added that Frederick's art patronage was a rather extreme contrast from his father. Though I haven't looked at the article thoroughly enough to see if this is already included.

You are right that there is not an explicit focus in the Arts and Education section, but Frederick's cultural interests and the clash with Frederick Wilhelm first has been laid out in the Early life section. If the contrast bears repeating in the music section, it will be done.

Regarding patronage: I some additional lines along with an additional source, emphasizing that Frederick used opera to make philosophical points, and that he tried to make the opera more accessible.

• Just to clarify, I do recognize this is a rather large article already—I imagine the above points can easily be addressed by no more than single sentence each, which I hope is acceptable. This is just a brief run through, I'll attempt to look closer later, but probably mostly at music related matters. Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Much of the beginning of the Arts and Education section of the article should address your concerns. Please take a look. If more is needed let me know, but I think we are close to the quality of description that Tim riley quoted from the Oxford Dictionary of Music. The major caveat is that I hope I was nuanced in authorship, focusing on the fact his works were collaborative. (The same for Anti-Machiavel, which was edited; or his architectural work, which was done in collaboration with Knobelsdorff.) I'd also like to keep the sources freely accessible and verifiable by people lacking access to subscriptions, but that concern is secondary to ensuring adequate coverage. Wtfiv (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Added footnote of quote from Pulver (1912) illustrating importance of Graun to Frederick. Wtfiv (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Aza24, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog, since my feedback and focus was rather narrow—subject wise—I feel any support from me would be somewhat improper, but I can certainly see no issues with this article as it stands. Wtfiv, I can see you've made honest efforts to address my concerns, and the updated Arts section looks wonderful. I've just gone ahead and added the two editions of Frederick's music that Grove lists myself—by the way, you likely do have access to Grove through the Wikipedia libary; your account should automatically qualify for the default setting. As an unrelated aside in this hodgepodge of a comment, I found this page on the German WP, should you find any use in it or reason to link to it. Interesting article here as well, but presumably nothing that needs including. Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 Thank you for adding the two editions of Frederick's music, as well as your comments on the Arts section. I particularly appreciated learning about how he used the flute within the operatic genre. I didn't add the note on finding copies of Frederick's work in the article, as I'm not sure how to work it in. I did enjoy seeing it though. In exploring what is known on Frederick's musical manuscripts, one of the things I was pleasantly surprised to learn is that although his music was corrected, some of the works are less heavily edited by his musicians than I would've thought. Wtfiv (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• the young Frederick developed a preference for music, literature, French culture – "and" missing?

Fixed. (That was a recent artifact)

• such as "securing Prussia's rights to the principalities of Jülich-Berg", and after 1728, only Berg, – I'm a bit at a loss here. I think this either needs background for context, or could be removed for easier reading (seems to be just a detail), at least the part "and after 1728, only Berg", which is especially mysterious to me. A footnote is an option as well.

deleted final clause. I agree, that is a bit esoteric for the typical reader. (And for me!)

• The pair slandered the British and Prussian courts in the eyes of the two kings. Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick being so honoured by Britain, – I found this a bit hard to follow. The second sentence only implies the content of the slandering mentioned in the first. Ideally both could be in the same sentence. Not sure how it could be formulated better though.

This was not only difficult to follow, but not quite correctly described. Is this clearer: "The pair undermined the relationship between the British and Prussian courts using bribery and slander. Eventually Frederick William became angered by the idea of the effete Frederick being married to an English wife and under the influence of the British court. Instead, he signed a treaty with Austria, which vaguely promised to acknowledge Prussia's rights to the principalities of Jülich-Berg, which lead to the collapse of the marriage proposal."? Each of the sentences are now better supported and an error in one of the references has been corrected.

• Robert Keith, Peter Keith's brother, had an attack of conscience – Don't understand, was Robert Keith one of the army officers plotting? That should be made clear.

Changed to this: "Robert Keith, who was Peter Keith's brother and also one of Frederick's companions, had an attack of conscience...". Ended phrase with period instead of semi-colon.

• where she played an active social role. – What does that mean? I don't see how it is surprising that somebody has an active social role (most people have?).

Elisabeth Christine was sidelined from Frederick's life once he became king. What's interesting, is that while Frederick Wilhelm I was alive, she was part of his social scene. Does this change reflect this: "where at this time she played an active role in his social life"?

• Frederick studied under Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine; he noted the weakness of the Imperial Army under the command of the Archduchy of Austria – Sentence is complicated and difficult to read. The Prince, the Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall, and the Archduchy are the same person? If so, it would be easier to just use one title.

Is this clearer: "Frederick studied under Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine; he noted the weakness of the Austrian Imperial Army under Eugene's command"? Eugene of Savoy was linked earlier, so an interested reader can catch the details there.

• candidacy of his ally Charles of Bavaria to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. Charles was crowned on 2 February 1742 – this somehow sounds as if he was crowed as Holy Roman Emperor, but apparently he was only crowned as King of Bavaria?

A badly written version of very twisted politics. He was crowned as King of Bohemia and then elected as Holy Roman Emperor. I changed the description to elected, with the change of date to the time of his election, instead of saying "crowned" and giving the date of his coronation. Does this work? "In late November, the Franco-Bavarian forces took Prague and Charles was crowned King of Bohemia. Subsequently, he was elected as the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VII in 24 January 1742."?

• Throughout the article, there are spaces missing in many locations:
  • against this coalition,[91]on 29 August 1756
  • Poland,and

got these. The pattern search I used found two more, which were fixed. (Not to say others can't be missed.)

• Also, you sometimes have a space in front of citations where non should be:
  • army preemptively invaded Saxony. [92]

These were easier to check using pattern search. Corrected this and six others. (Not to say others can't be missed.)

• and the Holy Roman Empire. and he – This doesn't seem to be a complete sentence.

addressed: "and the Holy Roman Empire, supported only by"

• He suffered some severe defeats and his kingdom suffered repeated invasions, but he always managed to recover. – This seems a bit unbalanced. The victories (and especially the praise associated with them) are discussed in great detail but the defeats are covered by merely one sentence

This may be one of the harder ones to address. The original editors of this section focused on the first couple of years of the Seven Years War, in which Frederick was still able to offensively maneuver. Then, the final years of see-saw attrition wound up in summary in a sentence or two. My guess is because at this point, the war was less driven by Frederick's initiative, as he was mainly reacting. Any suggestions without increasing the length too much?

• in Frederick received – "which"?

changed to "which gave Frederick an annual..."

• Although dissenters still had substantial rights. – Not a proper complete sentence?

"Although dissenters still had substantial rights, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth..."

• his brother Prince Henry – Shouldn't all siblings be mentioned under "Early life"? This mention seems to come out of nothing.

The siblings who play a notable role in Frederick's life are Wilhelmina, Henry who served as his ambassador and general, and perhaps (though unmentioned in the article) Augustus William, who was father to Frederick II's successor, Frederick Wilhelm II. There are ten altogether, I think, who lived and became nobles in their own right My own preference is to not list them, but if you feel it improves the article, I will.

• Iroquois – link?

Now linked- missed from a fairly recent series of back and forth edits to ensure that Frederick's view of the Polish Prussia was properly describe.

• In the process of checking Joseph II's attempts to acquire Bavaria, Frederick enlisted two very important players, the Electors of Hanover and Saxony along with several other minor German princes. – Not sure, but this and the following seems a bit overly detailed and wordy in proportion to the rest of the article.

How does this sound: "To stop Joseph II's attempts to acquire Bavaria, Frederick enlisted two the help of the Electors of Hanover and Saxony along with several other minor German princes"?

• Frederick followed his recommendations in the field of toll levies – It took me a while to understand to whom "his" refers. Maybe repeating the name would allow for easier reading.

"his" replaced with "Gotzkowsky's"

• The Works of a Sans-Souci Philosopher Frederick – Misses dot and has excessive space.

fixed

• and awkward, He once – dot?

fixed

• of the Thirty Years' War He – dot?

fixed

• close friends- a – what is the - doing there?

changed to comma

• He suggested that it could eventually equal or even surpass its rivals, but this would require a complete codification of the German language with the help of official academies, the emergence of talented classical German authors and extensive patronage of the arts from Germanic rulers, a project of a century or more. – To me personally, this sounds like excessive detail and overly wordy, but this is only my opinion.

Split into two sentences, the first shortened: "He suggested that it could eventually equal its rivals, but this would require a complete codification of the German language, the emergence of talented German authors and extensive patronage of the arts by Germanic rulers. This was a project he believed would take a century or more."

• in his work Des Mœurs, des Coutumes, de L'industrie, des progrès de l'esprit humain dans les arts et dans les sciences (Of Manners, Customs, Industry, and the Progress of the Human Understanding in the Arts and Sciences) – again, quite much detail for a general article, maybe move the title to a footnote?

Deleted. It's in works

• and the renovation Rheinsburg – "of the" missing?

of added

• the director 1746–1759 – "in" missing?

expanded to: "director of the Berlin Academy from 1746 to 1759"

• Frederick and Napoleon are perhaps the most admiringly quoted military leaders in Clausewitz On War. – The book needs a date of publication, otherwise it is without context (one could assume it is a scholary work published in 2020).

Larger edit here. Deleted entire sentence, as paragraph is about Napoleon, not Clausewitz. Moved cited Clausewitz sentence to the end of the first paragraph, as it addresses Frederick II's speed of maneuver.

• Frederick the Great. and he kept – not a complete sentence.

Changed to comma.

• I got the impression that the article praises Frederick subject quite a bit, while his defeats are very poorly covered.

I definitely see your point. Through time, much of the lionizing of Frederick II as great warrior has been substantially reduced. But arguably, it still their. I think much of this now is due to the narrative focusing on the years when Frederick held the initiative, the First and Second Silesian Wars, and the first two years of the Third (or Seven Years wars). The significant early defeats in this time are mentioned. (And Mollwitz was a "victory" that shamed Frederick.) The major defeats were more in the last years, as his army deteriorated and he found himself reacting to Russian and Austrian moves.

In addition, as the article evolved, the section on military theory has moved toward the back of the article. It used to be in first place after the section now called called "Reign" (which had been called "Wars" for years).

• Very solid and well-written article, most of the above are only minor nitpicks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking your time. The last year or so has been a collaborative effort by a number of editors to get it in decent shape. Let me know if the changes made address the issues you've pointed out.. Please let me know if you have any suggestions regarding the additional concerns you raised. Wtfiv (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

further comments

• Thanks for addressing the above. I will list some further comments below, including explaining some of my earlier points that I think still need work.

For many of these, I will need to tread carefully between the concerns you raise and the perspective of various editors, but hey that's what a Featured Article Review is for!

• I would indeed mention the fact that he had 10 siblings, and briefly mention the most important ones (those mentioned later in the article) early-on. This seems to be standard information.

Done. Please see the first paragraph in Early life. I named only the three siblings who play a role in the article's narrative. Interestingly, rare is the source mentioning that he was one of ten siblings. His early life is depicted as if only Wilhelmine was in the picture. The brothers usually don't show up until Frederick is king, and the remaining sisters, with the possible exception of Anna Amalia generally get no mention at all. Wtfiv (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The historian Leopold von Ranke was unstinting in his praise of Frederick's "heroic life, – This needs a date I think to make clear from the start that this is an historical work.

Deleted second paragraph of final section, except for last sentence, which is now the last sentence of the first paragraph. This continues the idea that the lionization of Frederick in Germany was not stopped by the defeat of WWI. Though not mentioned, I deleted much of the commentary on Ritter in the third paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would still argue that the article disproportionately praises Frederick, which seems not to be in agreement with WP:NPOV. Suggestions below.

I see that, in the Historiography and legacy section, there is a whole paragraph on the opinions of early historians (many from the 19th century). On the other hand, modern historians are not cited directly, but some views are summarised, in the last paragraph of the article. I would suggest to focus more on views of modern historians, to bring those historic praises into perspective and to contrast them. For example, the German article has a quote from German historian de:Karl Otmar von Aretin, which translates to: "The Mainz historian Karl Otmar von Aretin denies that Frederick ruled in the manner of enlightened absolutism and sees him as the founder of an irresponsible and Machiavellian tradition in German foreign policy." I think this is an interesting point of view that could be added.

In progress. The previous change addresses much of the concern. I will rework last paragraph slightly using some sources I had already lined up. When I'm done, I'll strike this out, report back and request further comments.Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Done, added clause citing that aspects of Frederick's generalship are questioned. Cited Blanning and Showalter.

I didn't add Aretin's point. With Ranke, Droysen, and Ritter gone, along with their quotes and issues, hopefully we have the needed balance. In addition two accessible, English-language sources, Fraser 2001 p. 5-6 and Clark 2006, p. 196 suggest that contemporary views comparing Frederick's actions through WWII is inappropriate, as both argue that Frederick operated within the contemporary power politics of his time.

• Johann Gustav Droysen was even more favourable. – I would recommend to remove this. It doesn't seem to add anything except that there is another early historian praising Frederick. This makes sense if you aim to give mention to every such important historian.

Deleted. See previous comment on deleted paragraph.

• Clausewitz praised particularly the quick and skilful movement of his troops – You are mixing historical notes like this one with those of modern historians, but this does not become clear to the reader as you didn't add dates. I would suggest to simply remove the historical assessments like this one in the "Military theory" section, also to reduce the praise count.

Deleted. My main purpose in trying to find a home for this was trying to honor an editor's mention of Clausewitz, but otherwise, I don't think the article loses much.

• I still think there is a huge imbalance as the defeats are not properly described. The late defeats, where Prussia was close to collapse, of course played a highly important role in Frederick's life, and they are as important for this article as his victories. The German Wikipedia has a whole screen page on them. I think this aspect needs to be much expanded.

• This "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" – This looks to be a mistake. The "Miracle" does not seem to describe the sudden death of the Russian Empress, which is a later event. The actual Miracle (the troops did not march on Berlin) is not described in the article at all.

Deleted. And yes, the link is wrong. It appears to have been called the "second Miracle of the House of Brandenburg", But without mention of the first and with a misleading link, it makes no sense. And I don't think it is needed anyway.

• The psychological consequences of the near-defeat for Frederick could be covered as well.

In progress. To address the imbalance, I'll write a couple of paragraphs summarizing the final years of the Seven Years War, and when I'm done, I'll strike this out and report back to see if it addresses your concerns. Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft of narrative laid down and put into article in the middle of Seven Years War. If you can take a look and see if this addresses your main concerns, that would be great. Note that the original "Miracle" has shown up. I think Frederick's psychological state of mind due to near defeat is seen in his 1762 letter to Finckenstein, which the article quotes. If you are good with this, I'll put in the citations. I'll return here and note when I've got the citations in.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for adding citations to the Seven Years War, which is time consuming, but not onerous, have I addressed your concerns?

Thank you, again! Wtfiv (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, all looks very good now! Once the new paragraphs have received references and a copy edit, I'm happy to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• One more point on a recent addition: though aspects of his generalship remain open to question – I'm not sure if this helps, as it is unclear what aspects this might be. None seem to be mentioned in the "Military theory" section. So as it currently is, I think it raises more questions than it answers. Maybe remove this here, and instead add these aspects to the "Military theory" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. If it is okay with you, I just prefer to delete, as both reference links are not of the best quality, both being Google book snips. Blanning argues that Frederick was an outstanding "warlord" and less a great general; Blanning also makes the point in the cited podcast. Showalter argues he's is just a general in his milieu. But the arguments for each are spread throughout their respective books. I'll be getting to work on the citations and reporting back. Thank you for your support! Wtfiv (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Citations done. added a few more details. Hopefully, these address the final concerns! Wtfiv (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Image and source review + spot-check (support contained therein)

All images are well placed but I don't see ALT text anywhere. The maps need some explanation of where the information comes from. File:Battle rossbach trap.png has a broken link. Licences and copyright seem OK to me.

I've added an archived copy of the source URL to the Commons page for the Rossbach tactical map, and (I think) I've added alt-text to all the images in the article. The Commons pages for the maps say that they are based on a map of Europe in Putzger's Historischer Weltatlas, 1990 edition, with the details recolored to reflect changes in territorial control between various dates. So, you could compare with e.g. this Putzger map of 1740 to verify details? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems largely OK as a source - probably want to ask someone at the graphics labs to correct Circassia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Now onto source spot check:

• 25: OK.
• 55: I take that the information on Frederick's goals is on p.18?
• 62: OK.
• 64: Can I get a copy of the page that this is sourced to?
• 81: OK.
• 90: OK.
• 112: JSTOR does not seem to have a p.85?
• 121: OK.
• 145: Can I have a copy of p.216?
• 152: OK.
• 185: It seems like the source emphasizes the contradictions more than the balance.
• 186: The mint and northern Germany claims seem to be on a different page.
• 199: OK.
• 217: OK.
• 233: OK.
• 249: OK.
• 262: OK.
• 280: The source notes that this battle was a bit more tactical than strategic win.
• 291: OK.
• 307: OK.

Sources are consistently formatted, but is it just my impression that they are heavily tilted towards the English language? his is mainly a German topic.

Yes, the article is intentionally focused toward English, as the goal is to create an accessible article for English readers. I edit under the following assumptions, which I strive to accomodate:

• most readers can't speak the languages in the article
• most readers don't have access to the sources of another language

Sometimes German sources were all that were available, so I tried to adhere to the following rules to keep the article readable and verifiable for English readers, particularly those without access to paywalled sources. All citations for German sources followed the following rules:

• Must be accessible via link
• Relevant text is quoted in original and then translated in footnote. That way, readers without access to an automated translator (i.e., on a mobile device) can understand what is said but at least verify the words were there. Speakers of the original language can decided for themselves the nuance of what is said, and as editors improve the translation (which was done by a non-native speaker.)

This follows the WP:NOENG guidelines mentioned by Gog the Mild (I didn't know them, but I'm glad my intuitions and preferences align with Wikipedia's larger goals). I imagine the typical person clicking the Frederick II article is an English-only speaker, who I wanted to respect by giving them the sources directly rather than trusting the source is correct. In my editing, I keep learning that many of the sources don't say what they are taken to say. That was particularly the case in this article when we started the project, so allowing public and shared verifiability when at all possible allows for proper correction. Yet, I aim to ensure there is enough there to pique the specialist as well.

I like the way more specialized sources are taken up to discuss the king when his relation to the specialized topic comes up. With respect to the books, I cannot vouch for the reliability of most but are Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, Norman Davies, William Arthur Shaw, Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, Gerhard Ritter and especially Theodor Schieder reliable sources? Some things in their biographies give me reason for doubt.

Here's my sense on the "doubtful sources":

• Princess Helena of the United Kingdom: edited and translated Wilhelmine's memoirs into English. (Wilhelmine being one of her ancestors.) Given her intimacy with Wilhelmine's diary and history, plus her knowledge of Carlyle's work, she seems a reliable source regarding Wilhelmine for the one citation of her forward.
• Norman Davies: He's an established academic historian, and I was unaware of any controversies. Looking at the article on him, I see he didn't get tenure at Stanford. I'm unaware of his views and what caused tenure problems, but his work seems well-researched and well-cited. His sole contribution to the article is from a citation that's been around for more than a decade, I think, that Frederick bombarded the Vistula.
• William Arthur Shaw: From what I understand, Shaw may have made some incorrect conclusions based on the financial data he used, but this article just reflects two of his statements of fact about the finances of Prussia. As an expert on finances, who wrote about Prussian finances in English, he seems a reliable source.
• Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve: As a literary critic, Beuve seems ideal here. Beuve's one citation focuses on how Frederick's writing relates to Frederick II's way of proceeding in caring for the country. Beuve's point is supported by the Administrative Policies section of the article.
• Gerhard Ritter Ritter was a professional historian with direct access to the original German documents. This makes him ideal as a historian of a German topic. That said, Ritter is no doubt one of the most controversial of the sources. There was a section on him in the article I removed (see dialogue with Jen in this FA review process above), and the talk archives in this article have three rather large discussions on him spanning decades! However, the debate is less about credentials, but his inferences given his background. There is no doubt that he was a conservative German Nationalist of the old school type, like Ranke and Droysen, but his famous pre-WWII (1936) biography of Frederick II daringly made the strong argument that the Nazi regime was not an extension of Frederick the Great's policies. If you look at the German language Ritter, you will see that he was allowed to remain at Frieburg until 1956, in part because his work did not serve as Nazi apologetic. He did remain a political conservative, however. Additional reasons to keep him:

• Ritter's research is respected. If his conclusions are challenged, his facts are less so. Most citations here reference Ritter's corroboration of facts.
• This biography is a historically recognized work (see Paret, 2012, cited in the article, more difficult to access, unfortunately, it is one of the handful of paywalled sources that seemed important enough to keep.) by a traditionally trained German historian with access to primary sources available and directly verifiable with an accessibly translated work in English.
• 16 out of 22 citations (72%) are corroborated by one or two additional sources.
• Of the remaining 6, a number make points critical of Frederick, in spite of Ritter's nationalist reputation. For example,

• Two regarding the Polish Partition actually make points that reflect poorly on Frederick II's impact on Polish Prussia.
• What mentions Frederick's invasion of Saxony brought international criticism

• The remaining "stand alones" are statement of facts, such as a listing of the coalition aligned against Frederick II, the battle of Torgau securing Berlin from further raids, Prussian immigration policy allowing a relatively quick recovery of population, Frederick II's preference for Greyhounds over people.

• Theodor Schieder He was recognized as a historian whose role in Germany enabled him to continue his career in post-war Germany. He worked for the the West German government and the University of Cologne. I was unaware of Schieder's views or political background when editing the article. I see that he was associated with the Nazi party, but though he remained controversial after the war, Points in favor of keeping Schieder:

Respected post-war German historian with access to primary sources. According to his article, his Nazi background may have impacted his language use but in this article:

• Work is relatively contemporary in the Frederick II biography continuum (1983; second half of 20th century). The work is English, accessible, and from a scholar who could access primary sources in the original language
• 9 out of 15 citations (60%) are corraborated by one or two additional sources.
• Of the remainder, most are statement of facts. Schieder does infer the Prussian law code balanced various factors and in another, he implies the purpose of giro discount an bank credit were to stabilize the economy, which seems a reasonable inference.

The specialized journal sources seem OK, while the online sources are so-so.

My feeling is that online sources provide decent, accessible summaries to non-specialist readers, particularly those without access to paywalled resources. Most of the points made are also supported by the journals and books cited in the article.

I won't be able to update the article changes until next week, When I get back, I'll:

• Add Alt tags to images
• Update the battle of Rossbach image
• Get citations for the two maps on the change of Frederick's kingdom. (The recently added map of Frederick's II's major battles is self-documented with links, and each battle is listed in the article.
• Fix the links problems you caught on your spot check. (All links should be freely accessible, though you may be need a jstor or archive.org account to get them.)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have first three have been addressed to sufficiently address your concerns? (Thank you so much @Bryanrutherford0:!) I think another editor is currently addressing the spot check issues! :I've reached out to some of the other dedicated editors to make the changes while I'm unable to do sustained edits. You may hear from them here about addressing the issues.Wtfiv (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Regardless, we should have them addressed by early-mid next week at the latest.

Thanks particularly for the link spot check! The links are critical. One of my goals is to ensure the article is accessible to a wide variety of people who read English, giving them- as much as possible- the opportunity to verify each point for themselves by directly accessing the sources- rather than having to trust the sources are reliable. At the same time, I think it serves the goal of minimizing the impact of access barriers (e.g., paywalls; ability to access books via purchase or library), allowing readers to actively interact with the sources if they are inclined.

I appreciate the time and effort you took to look over this article. When I fix the issues next week, I will ping Jo-Jo Eumerus. Wtfiv (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Just checking that everyone is aware of WP:NOENG: "... English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance ...". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi all! Concerning the source list, here's what I've found/changed

• 55 - No it's not, pg. 18 citation is for the Habsburg dynasty claim. "Frederick's goal" claim may warrant an addition citation.
• 64 - Due to copyright I cannot provide a copy, but I can provide a link to the archive.org page where you can view it yourself. The citation for the surprise is on page 206, with the rest of the pages simply providing additional context. Here you are!
• 112 - This is true, a replacement source may be necessary and I'll try looking.
• 145 - Source confirms the villages but not the 300,000 immigrants, this has now been removed from the article. Once again cannot provide a copy, heres the link!
• 185 - Emphasis never negates statements made, the citation confirms that despite its contradictions The General Law Code of the Prussian Territories did mirror and was akin to Frederican Prussia. This citation is fine.
• 186 - The information crosses from 92-93 about financial reform but as I cannot access the full book; the mint claim is disputable.
• 280 - Article has been corrected to mention it was a tactical victory

This is just what I could tidy up a bit, I have no idea what to do with 112 I'm afraid, Wtfiv is far better at this than I am so maybe she could help out. Cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Chariotsacha! I followed up a bit on the work you did with the three outstanding items, 55; 112, 186.

• 55. This one struck me as the biggest issue. The first half of the sentence preceding the semi-colon was unsupported. I broke the sentence into two. The second half was about the Hapburg empire, so that citation worked fine. The first half needed it's own citation, which is now, Fraser 2001, pp. 55-56, which discusses the strategic situation Frederick confronted. The sentence is rewritten to better reflect the citation. (Fortunately, all archive.org books are available. Usually for one-hour viewing, but registration is required. That's how I navigate the sources.)
• 112 Rose 1914a p. 85 is available for viewing via JSTOR, but the reader will have to register (for free). For now, JSTOR is allowing 100 free article views per month for anybody who signs in. (I think in the past it was 6/month) Of course, they have institutional accounts as well, for readers fortunate enough to have them.
• 186. I moved the final 186 reference to a new one as the comment about Northern Germany was on page 93. Fortunately, it too was accessible by Google Books. It mentions northern Germany explicitly.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: With the changes made by Bryan Rutherford, Chariotsacha, and myself, have we addressed the concerns?

Well, emphasis may not negate a statement but it casts doubt on it in this case. So I think a small rewrite to emphasize that the reception is mixed would be necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A small rewrite seems perfectly suitable! I'll do it right away, thanks to everyone here who's been tying up loose ends. Chariotsacha (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Chariotsacha has made the change regarding the reception of the legal code. Please take a look and see if it sufficiently addresses your concern. Wtfiv (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are you comfortable supporting the article for FA at this point, or is there more needed? Wtfiv (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with it. Thus, support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and again thank you also for taking the time to thoughtfully review!

• 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

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