Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Silesian War/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [1].

Third Silesian War[edit]

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the third (and longest) in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the two previous articles have received in their recently concluded FACs. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
Which ones, and how much? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All except "Preparations for war" and Laudon - they have fairly intricate detail that's hard to see at default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted, let me know if this is pleasing. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Schlacht_bei_Roßbach.jpg needs a US PD tag and an author
I've added an additional license. I have no idea who the artist is, and I haven't been able to discover it; let me know if that's a show-stopper for you, because I'll have to look for a replacement image. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding a note in the image description about where you've looked for attribution.
I'm not sure where you mean that this note should go on the Commons page. I can't find a free copy of the book the uploader scanned the work from to see whether there's an attribution in the book, and the website of the museum where the piece is held doesn't seem to have any browseable pages about its holdings, that I've been able to locate. I've added an English description to the file specifying where the piece is held. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Schlacht_von_Leuthen.JPG: where was this first published?
Almost certainly Germany, but I can't prove it. Let me know if I need to replace it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know it was published by 1920? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The artist died in 1920, and his various books of paintings of German scenes were published during his lifetime. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Frederick_the_Great_after_the_Battle_of_Hochkirch_in_1758_by_Carl_Röchling.jpg needs tag for status in source country. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the license. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source comment

Any reason why the following sources aren't cited? Seems to me that they are recent, relevant works which would probably shed light on certain aspects, as well as being stronger than many of those which are cited in the article. buidhe 02:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Füssel, Marian (2017). "Das Debakel des Hauses Brandenburg 1762: Ein anderer Ausgang des Siebenjährigen Krieges". Eine andere deutsche Geschichte 1517–2017 (in German). Brill. pp. 87–102.
The first two pages of the article that I can access for free don't seem to offer anything other than general information about the context and inciting incidents of the war, and the assertion that Frederick had many "decision points" that might have taken the war to quite different outcomes if handled differently (undeniably true, but hardly groundbreaking). The title and this setup seem to indicate that the author will be exploring hypothetical alternate histories that might have arisen from different choices by Frederick and the other belligerents, which, though a topic I personally find interesting, doesn't strike me as something that needs to be explored in an encyclopedia article about the war. Do you think there's something in the rest of the article that ought to be here? If you have a copy, I'd be happy to read it, or maybe I can get a look over at WP:RX. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I don't have access to this either. Someone at WP:RX probably does though. buidhe 01:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be another history of the Seven Years' War, and this article already cites a general history of the Seven Years' War (Marston 2001), one focused on the European theater (Szabo 2008), one focused on the North American theater (Anderson 2000), one focused on the Anglo-Prussian alliance (Schwiezer 1989), and one focused specifically on Frederick (Redman 2014). Is there a specific gap in coverage that you see and believe this additional Seven Years' War history would fill? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN and then at Milhist ACR, so couldn't find much this time around. I have a few comments:

  • mid-1700s, doesn't this mean 1703 to 1707 or so? Perhaps mid-18th century?
Hmm, I hadn't considered that "1700s" could mean either 17XX or 170X. I would definitely read that phrase by default to mean the century rather than the decade (unless context pointed to the decade), but maybe others wouldn't. Fair enough, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "which had concluded the earlierthe latter war"
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deter invasion of Prussia's coast" by whom? Russia?
Good point. Russia and Sweden were the likely naval antagonists; I've tried to clarify. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move link for Brandenburg to first mention
Good catch, fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marshal Lehwaldt, there is another example of this
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles→Prince Charles
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of Daun's generals" Ernst Gideon von Laudon? If so, suggest naming him here and trim and delink later mention re: Kunersdorf
Good catch, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "invasion of Austrian territory ofduring the war"
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Gottlob Heinrich Tottleben?
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pro-Austrian principalities in the Empire"? which empire?
HRE; clarified. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, great job again Bryan. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now...

  • ...and of Frederick, who cemented his reputation as a military genius. - err, seems a bit effusive? Why not just "able/canny military tactician?"
Contemporary opinion was pretty effusive on the topic, even among his enemies, but I'll pull it back a bit since it seems to be in the encyclopedia's voice. How about "... a preeminent military commander"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's better - just a little more...sober....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prussia emerged from the war as a great power [whose importance in Europe could no longer be disputed] - redundant?
Fair enough; condensing to "... as a new European great power". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prussia's confirmation as a first-rate power and the enhanced prestige of its king and army were long-term threats to Austria's hegemony in Germany - "first-rate power" comes over as puffy and POV.
This is a sort of language that was common at the time; one of the documents we have extant from Kaunitz says that his goal for the war was to return Brandenburg to its primordial condition as a "power of the third rank" in German politics. Does "first-rate power" seem more puffy than "great power"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does a little but I get the picture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise - reads well and appears to be comprehensive and well-written and on track for FA-hood (I am a neophyte to the area though). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb. I intend to claim points for this review for the WikiCup.

I may do some copy editing as I go, which you will want to check.

  • "in return for guarantees of Austrian and Russian defence in the case of a Prussian attack"> "defence doesn't really work. Perhaps 'support'? Or expand a little?
Isn't "defense" the thing that's wanted at the time of an "attack"? I don't understand what doesn't work, but "support" seems fine, too; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map caption: Consider "Map of the Central European region where the bulk of the war was fought, prior to Prussia's seizure of Silesia" → 'Map of the Central European region, prior to Prussia's seizure of Silesia, where the bulk of the war was fought'.
Yes, I agree. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: 'where he might set up winter quarters and supply his army at Austria's expense'.
Fair enough, maybe not obvious. Added. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to defend Prussia's coast against Russia or Sweden" This is the first mention of Sweden. Perhaps mention it under Diplomatic Revolution?
Actually, upon reflection I think that mention of Sweden comes too early; Sweden was still neutral at that time and only decisively took France's side in early 1757. I've eliminated that one and tried to add a bit more lead up to what is now the first mention of Swedish involvement. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible.
  • "he personally led the main Prussian army of 58,000 into Saxony" in the next section, adding the components gives 63,000.
The sources contradict each other, probably differing on what support personnel they include and so forth. I'm softening the first figure. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Army of observation is a disambiguation set index page, and there's no page describing this particular "army of observation". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but I won't push it.
I mean, I'm not trying to be stubborn here; I read the Template:Set index article at the bottom of that article as discouraging internal links from pointing to it when they ought to refer to a specific "army of observation", but I'll link it if you think that's for the best. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan - it's "your" article. If I were being a stubborn reviewer, you would know. I think that the link would be helpful; if you disagree, well these things happen. I'm not going to withhold a support over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leaving no realistic prospect of a march on Vienna" Does "realistic" add anything here?
Hope and pride see the promise of success where there is none. ;) I suppose I'll cut it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The need to defend core territories on other fronts". "other fronts" or 'these fronts'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only battle between the French and Prussians during the entire war" Delete "entire".
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through the winter. Over the winter" Is it possible to avoid this near repetition?
Rearranged. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was moving the same direction" 'in'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to have suffered still another defeat by a smaller Prussian force" Optional: "by" rings oddly to me. Even the cliched 'at the hands of' would be better.
Okay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, though Frederick's army was much reduced, he was left unmolested, which allowed him to secure the northern half of Silesia" Would you care to set a time period on this?
Basically the whole of 1761, during which time his main army fought no significant battles. I've added a phrase. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then, in October Frederick ordered" Optional: delete "Then,".
Okay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The belligerents in the wider Seven Years' War had already begun peace talks" Possibly 'The other belligerents'?
Good point, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent explication. Very sound work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely clear read. Top class work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SnowFire[edit]

It's an interesting read. I had one nitpick on phrasing but just changed it myself, should be quite minor, take a look (just on how to portray the other German states within the HRE). My other possible phrasing nit is saying in the lede that the war "ended in a Prussian victory" - kinda sorta, but I think the Infobox is more on point for calling it a "diplomatic victory". From a detached modern perspective, this is a war with a lot of losers and no winner since a ton of people died but nothing really changed, but it is true that it was sold as a Prussian victory and probably helped the cause of the eventual Kleindeutscheland solution to the German Question.

Just as you say, the end result was status quo ante, but, relative to what might have been expected given the relative forces on the two sides, contemporary observers emphatically viewed preservation of the status quo as a remarkable victory by Prussia. This has also been the consensus view of historians since, notwithstanding a small number who have taken the contrary view. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bit about contemporary observers is covered by the final sentence of the lede. I guess it depends on what exactly the goalposts are placed at, since if Prussian victory = survival and Austrian victory = Prussia is partitioned between Russia, Poland, and Austria, then sure, Prussia won. But from a more distant perspective, the result was the status quo ante was preserved, which doesn't really lend itself to saying any side won. Prestige is usually a minor prize. (For one example, Finland "won" the Winter War on the prestige front and the not-get-entirely-absorbed-by-the-USSR front, but lost it otherwise. I'm sure they'd have given up the prestige in a second for the territory and lives back.) SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I've added the "diplomatic" qualifier to the lede, and I'll just reiterate that the historiographic consensus from the 1760s to the present has consistently viewed the war as broadly having gone Prussia's way, and the article contains citations to that effect. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now, thanks. SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think this is an excellent overview of the conduct of the war itself as well as the eventual outcome. My main complaint is that I feel that wars are usually larger than that. There's no problem with the content that is in the article, but it feels like the article is missing content it really should have. To take another theater of the Seven Years War as an example - the French and Indian War covers quite a bit of "Background" and "consequences", and could easily spend twice as much space on it if it really wanted (e.g. the role of the war in Quebecois regionalism). I think the current article gives very little attention to any of that aside from the matter of diplomatic prestige. Which, to be sure, probably follows the interests of "classical" history writers who like writing about treaties, kings, and battles, but is there really nothing written on social impact? Or on battle-adjacent matters like logistics? Even if the social impact was absolutely zero, i.e. "Prussians loved it, didn't complain about the extensive losses, and it fueled proto-German nationalism". (Possible this would need to be a separate article, of course, since the Silesian War is mixed up with the Pomeranian War and the like too.)

Fair points. In the article's defense, the entire article Second Silesian War is basically the "Context" section for this article, as indicated by a hatnote. Or are you wishing there were more about the Diplomatic Revolution? Should I add Seven Years' War to the context section's hatnote? As for consequences, the article does discuss the generation-long enervation of Prussia's military after this war, not to be repaired until after Jena, at least. On the social impact in Prussia, I actually haven't seen much written; generally the people seem to have accepted their King's (true) claim that he never wanted the war and did everything he could to, first, prevent it and, second, end it as quickly as possible. I'll look around and see if I can add something substantive that isn't already here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking more about social impact. Did different classes of society support the war with different levels of fervor? Was there any notable internal opposition to conducting the war for any of the belligerents, whether from the peasantry or from unruly nobles? Did the war cause any reforms or changes in government (the article does hint at this by saying that the war proved the Habsburg monarchy would need to continue to modernize, but anything else? What problems did the war reveal)? Frederick apparently emptied the Saxon treasury, did that matter or was it no big deal? Prussia was Protestant and Austria/France were Catholic, did the religious situation change at all in the war, e.g. did Prussia attempt to present itself as religious liberators to the Protestant Bohemians? Or was it largely secular? Why was Russia's supply lines through Poland tenuous after the Battle of Kunersdorf, weren't they allied with the Polish king at the time? Was there just a bad harvest, or internal dissension, or just plain bad planning or the like? Prussia's officer corps was still depleted by the Napoleonic Wars, but were there other societal effects from the loss of so many people on issues other than soldiery (e.g. the post-WW2 baby boom, or mass state orphanages, or an expansion in government benefits)? Again, I realize this is an encyclopedia summary and not a book, and maybe not all of these have answers. And it sounds like some of the answers are "boring" ones ("The Prussian state rallied around Frederick with no substantial opposition"?). But that's the kind of subjects I think the article glosses over a tad at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding various bits to try to address these issues. I've put in a couple of references to currency devaluations enacted by Prussia to finance the war and their consequences for Prussia (and Saxony, which got the worst of everything). I've also put in more comments on the decline of war-making capacity on both sides going into 1761. I'll go back through and add more shortly, but I'm out of editing time. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more detail about the demographic and economic consequences of the war in Prussia and the steps taken by the state to repair the damage. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a paragraph about the second wave of Theresian reforms inspired by Austria's defeat. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the social side - even if all this comes down to "this is an era where nobility plotted against each other and started wars because they could and everybody went along with that," that might still be a helpful bit of background, go ahead and assert that Maria Theresa / Frederick / Elizabeth had essentially total control and people paid their taxes and went along with the national sacrifices 'cuz that's what they did. There's also a bit of this on logistics / non-battle related info with Frederick intentionally moving his army into Bohemia to "live off the land" so to speak, but it feels like there's more to be said here - armies being raised and transported. The article Early modern warfare is kind of a mess, but something similar that just simply describes how warfare worked in this era would also be helpful, I think. I recognize that sourcing may be patchy here, but I feel like the article feels a tad incomplete as it is. (Or maybe all of these already exist, but are in subarticles within Category:Seven Years' War ? If so, maybe link these other articles a bit more, as they're relevant.) SnowFire (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could work in a mention of this conflict's status as one of the last cabinet wars to give some of the context I think you're asking for? I can try to work in a link to Early modern warfare alongside it, too? Those seem like helpful wikilinks for the issues you raise. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinet wars seems like a great link and useful context to explain what's going on, as would any sort of background on how this war was fought (example: Nine_Years'_War#Weapons,_technology,_and_the_art_of_war), for some reason there doesn't seem to be a comparable section for the Seven Years War article), even if it ends up being mostly a link to another article. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it looks as though WikiProject Military History recommends including commentary about methods and technologies in the first (context and causes) section of an article on a war, so I'll try to put together a little blurb that can perhaps be incorporated into each of the articles in the series. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a summary of the nature of European land warfare in this period and added it. Does this seem like the sort of thing you were looking for? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this addition is the type of passage I was looking for, on the military / logistics side. (Outside the scope of this FAC, but including something like this on the main Seven Years War article would also probably be good too, or otherwise expanding / splitting the Early modern warfare article. But don't feel obligated to look into that, it's irrelevant to the Silesian Wars article, just a general musing.) SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - thanks for including more background. Support. I realize there are WP:SIZE concerns from including too many details, but this kind of thing like social welfare programs for veterans is actually pretty relevant IMO (e.g. stuff like the Bonus Army as a delayed consequence of World War I is rather notable, even if it happened a decade after the event). The article is stronger for including some of that. SnowFire (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pushing me to make the article better! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox comment by Factotem[edit]

A general note before I start on the source review: Please do not try to represent nuance in the infobox result. If it's not possible to simply state X victory then you should set this parameter to See Outcomes

Any comment on this? Factotem (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem - Support[edit]

On the sources:

  • ref #16 - Clark & 2006 (209) - is mis-formatted
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #133 - Vocelka (2000), pp. 157–8 - should give the ending page in full
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • France is listed as a belligerent until 1758, but in The "second miracle" section it states that France ended its involvement in 1762
It ceased active military operations in this theater in 1758 and made formal peace in 1762. Do you feel that the infobox should reflect the latter? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article France appears to have ceased active involvement in 1758, but still occupied Prussian territory in the Rhineland in 1762. On that basis I would conclude that France remained a belligerent until 1762. Unless the sources explicitly state otherwise, it seems to me that that is the correct year to use in the infobox. Factotem (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to cite the casualties in the infobox - they are cited in the main body
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recent change has caused CS1 maint: ref=harv messages to be displayed in the Sources section. This can be fixed by replacing |ref=harv to |ref=none
Er, it has? I'm not seeing any maintenance messages, even in preview. Are you saying that you want all the sources changed in this way? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I suspect I'm seeing them because I have a script running. It's being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Citation-template_change. Up to you if you want to make that change. It's not going to affect the outcome of this review. Factotem (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive.org link gives the publisher of Asprey's Frederick the Great: The Magnificent Enigma as History Book Club, not Ticknor and Fields
  • The ISBN provided in the Sources for Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600–1947 relates to a 775-page 2008 edition, but the archive.org link is for a 779-page 2006 edition with a different ISBN
  • The OCLC number for Kohlrausch's A History of Germany: From the Earliest Period to the Present Time is 1117916101, according to Worldcat. That listing states 700 pages. The archive.org link given in the Sources section goes up to p. 699 and is clearly coming to the end, but ends mid-sentence. Up to you whether you add the OCLC number or reject it due to a possible pagination mismatch.
User:InternetArchiveBot replaced valid links with these Archive.org links for these three sources. Is there a way I can tell the bot to stop doing that? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've changed the archive.org link to a Gbooks link for Clark's work, but the ISBN still still relates to a 2008 edition while the Gbooks link and the year given in the Sources section state 2006. Either the year and the Gbooks link needs to change to conform with the ISBN, or the ISBN need to change to conform with the Gbooks link and year. Factotem (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I check every change the bot makes to 'my' articles, and Clark here is the first time I've seen it link to the wrong edition. Suggest letting it ride for now and checking if it tries to restore the link. Factotem (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gbooks link provided for Clodfelter's Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015 gives a different ISBN (9781476625850 - 824-page edition), to the one provided in the Sources section (978-0-7864-7470-7 - 804-page edition). If ISBN 978-0-7864-7470-7 is the correct version, then a link to the gbooks preview would link to that edition.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Similar ISBN mismatch in gbooks link and Sources details for Creveld's Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton, but pagination does not differ between editions.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Ditto Duffy's Frederick the Great: A Military Life
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GBooks is wrong; Da Capo Press has been bought by Hachette since the publication of the book.
  • Gbooks link for Mitford's Frederick the Great leads to a 272-page edition with ISBN 9781590176429. The ISBN provided in the Sources section (978-1-59017-623-8), however, appears to relate to a 250-page edition
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gbooks link for Shennan's International Relations in Europe, 1689-1789 is for a 96-page edition published 2005 with ISBN 9781134899968, but the ISBN provided in the Sources section, 978-0-415-07780-4, is for a 75-page published 1995. In either case, the publisher appears to be Routledge, not Taylor & Francis.
ISBN fixed. Inside the cover it says "First published by Routledge. ... This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gbooks link for Wilson's Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire is for a 1008-page edition with ISBN 9780674915923, but the ISBN in the Sources section, 978-0-674-05809-5, is for a 941-page edition according to Worldcat
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break here and will complete the review later.

But, the same Gbook links/ISBN mismatch issues were flagged to you in the ACR and FAC for the First Silesian War article. You are not required to provide Gbooks links, but if you do so, please, please can you ensure that what you are linking to is consistent with the rest of the details provided in the article's source information? It's a nitpick when the different editions have the same pagination, as is the case with the FYIs above, but it has the potential to become a significant issue with WP:V when the pagination is different. Factotem (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence! I'm juggling a lot of different editions of these books to try to verify and expand these articles while I don't have constant access to the physical books that I first used, so most of these are that I accidentally mixed references to the physical and e-book editions. The differences in page number are normally end material and don't affect the pagination of the body of the text. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A 21-page discrepancy in a 96-page source (Shennan) or a 67-page discrepancy in a 1008-page work is a difference in end material? I realise it can be a bit nitpicky at times, especially when the discrepancies are measured in just a few pages. But, not being well-informed on any given subject or its historiography, I'm basically left looking for indicators in any source review I undertake as to the quality. Incorrectly transcluding bibliographical information such as ISBNs does not tend to give me the warm and fuzzy feeling I'm seeking. Factotem (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, reliability and comprehensiveness of sourcing

  • A search for "third silesian war" in jstor and gbooks did not reveal any relevant sources not already used. More out of curiosity, I did a gbooks search for "Dritter Schlesischer Krieg", but found only very old sources and one self-published work.
  • Hippocrene Books seemed slightly dubious as a source for military history; it appears to have a strong focus on dictionary/phrasebooks and cookbooks. But the academic credentials of Duffy, whose work is published by Hippocrene, are impeccable, so no issue there.
  • My impression of Osprey Publishing is that it tends more towards the popular end of the market than solidly academic works I would prefer to see in the bibliography of a featured article, but again, Marston's academic credentials are impeccable. Factotem (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All source issues addressed. Supporting on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Third_Silesian_War/archive1&oldid=953157970"