Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Kunersdorf/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2017 [1].

Battle of Kunersdorf edit

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Frederick the Great's catastrophes, brought about by his dismissal of Russian and Austrian military skills and his belief in their inferiority. The article is one of four I'm working on: Battle of Hochkirch just passed the rigors of Featured article assessment. One of Frederick's great successes, the Battle of Leuthen is currently undergoing its A class review. The Battle of Rossbach, another success, is presently in puberty. I present it to you for your consideration and look forward to your comments. auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 edit

This article is in fine shape. I have a few comments/nitpicks:
Lead

  • the citation in the lead shouldn't be necessary, the material should be in the body done. added during discussion at A class review.
  • According to the body, Frankfurt was already in Russian hands at the time of the battle done

Seven Years' War

  • suggest replacing "the Silesian province" with "Silesia" done
  • link Company (military unit) I'm not sure what you want here. None of the units have articles (yet). To further confuse things, the units werenot numbered until 1806.'
  • Prussia had achieved done
  • "to pay himFrederick" done
  • suggest "to reinforce the army of Frederick's brother-in-law, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel." done
  • "and thehis brief occupation" done
  • "the successful" done
  • suggest "carve out a piece" done
  • suggest "had resulted in a draw" ok.done
  • I'm a bit bemused by the anglicisation of Feldmarshalleutnant. This is a unique rank, like the pre-NATO Generalmajor and Generalleutnant, that is easily mistaken for something else when anglicised. I prefer to see it in the original German. Iwould too. It came out in the GA review. I think I have them all now.
  • I would still pipe a link to Lieutenant field marshal, which is, in my view at the wrong title (for the same reason), but that is another matter.
  • suggest "Prussia was strategically on the defense;" done
  • Lieutenant General is not linked to Generalleutnant, but suffers from the same confusion. Modern readers would think this was equivalent to a modern-day LTGEN, when it was not, until NATO at least. the ranks were not even the same then. Generalfeldwachtmeister, etc. it's confusing.

Dispositions

  • In the situation in 1759 section, it says that Laudon joined Saltykov on 5 August, but in this section it says the two armies joined on 2 August. fixed. It actually takes a couple of days for armies to joinup.
  • commander-in-chief' needs an s after it done
  • unscrutable is an archaic form of inscrutable, which I think would be more familiar to casual readers done
  • suggest "they mistrusted each other's intentions" done
  • we've already had the ground explained, so "a ridge of small hills" is a repetition done
  • suggest "by using fallen trees to break up the ground on the approaches" done
  • "that the Frederick" done
  • perhaps "to the south east of the Allied position"? done
  • "feigning", do you mean "feinting"? done
  • one more in this section, the sentence that explains the plan for marching around the Allied position is confusing. It should include where he started from, and how he got from there to the start line for the assault. At present none of this is clear. It appears from map #1 that he started from Müllrose, marched north, skirting around to the west of Frankfurt, then crossed the Oder at Göritz then marched east to an assembly area north of the Allied position. Is that right? It needs to be explained in a similar way.
  • I have to say that the maps do not really help here. With no legend, I can't tell which units belong to the Allies and which ones are Prussian.

Battle

  • suggest the section starts with "The battle" rather than "It"
  • the description of the modified plan begs a few questions. From what directions were the two pincers to approach? I suggest referring to the pincers as left pincer and right pincer. The earlier confusion doesn't help.
  • yes, there are some better maps in Die Kriege Friedrichs des Großen. Dritter Teil: Der Siebenjährige Krieg 1756–1763. Berlin 1903 - 1912 but I don't have access to them.There's a series of 4 or 5 that show the entire battle laid out. auntieruth (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PM, see if this makes better sense. I tried to clarify. Also could put in a bit on the effort to hold Frankfurt, and the orders Wunsch had to take Frankfurt back....21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest stating that the semi-circle was around the eastern flank of the Allied positions
  • suggest "attack from the southeast" rather than approach, and a comma after southeast
  • the explanation that the three columns exposed them to Russian firepower might not be in the right spot, as battle hadn't been joined at this point
  • shtetl is an unfamiliar term that hasn't been introduced at this point. Could the fact that it was a Jewish settlement and its location be introduced under Dispositions? yes good idea
  • I might not be understanding the ground well, but if Saltykov's left flank was at the shtetl, wouldn't he have been facing northwest?
  • so Finck was going to attack as well, not just demonstrate? Was his the "northerly line" mentioned?
  • suggest the ground was uneven rather than unstable sources say unstable. I think there was quicksand
  • "the horse carriages" should have an initial cap
  • Seydlitz should be in full when first introduced

Turning the Russian flank

  • If Frederick emerged at 08:00 am, then how were the guns in place at dawn? different guns....clarified'
  • what was "the field" the Russian guns were trained on? fixed
  • what sort of soldiers were the first wave? grenadiers? 'probably. He favored mixed troops---guys with muskets, guys with swords,,, and grenadiers.
  • should it be from the Walkberge and...?
  • suggest "assault the well-defended" yep
  • I get lost again when the pincer's are mentioned. I thought the Russian left had been defeated by this point, yet there is mention of the second half of the pincer squeezing the Russian left. Was this Finck's corps attacking from the north, or another force element? It isn't clear what the left and right wings were or where they were located. I'm afraid this needs more work.
once the left was defeated a "new" left formed.  :) I need better maps. but have a look and see

Cavalry attack

  • suggest massed rather than massive, which is a bit puffy

Evening action

  • just check all the examples of Muhlberge for the umlaut yep
  • italicise the German ranks consistently throughout (or not). Rittmeister is italicised, but Generalleutnant isn't. yep

Aftermath

  • who was Frederick's brother? Prince Henry? This should be mentioned when he is first mentioned in the text fixed
  • The format of Duffy (2015b) doesn't match the other citations. I suggest, "The historian/author Christopher Duffy places..." then use the usual citation at the end of the sentence cited to him. Ok, that was some fancy smancy stuff another editor wanted me to use. I'm happier with simplicity
  • Carl Heinrich von Wedel should just be von Wedel or Wedel at this point fixed
  • I think it should be "Prussian kingdom"

Assessment

  • link abatis, which could bear being introduced in the Dispositions section fixed
  • this is the first mention of the causeway, this should also be mentioned in the Dispositions sectionfixed
  • the redans and bastions should also be mentioned in the Dispositions section fixed
  • this assessment should also mention the blunders pointed out earlier. Perhaps they could be moved to here, not sure...
  • here it is mentioned that the cavalry attack was piecemeal, but earlier it is "massive". I hadn't got the sense that it was piecemeal or that the abatis etc had broken up the cavalry charges until now.
  • Prussian Army should be Prussian army
  • Redman (2015) should be treated the same as Duffy above fixed

Overall

  • I'll let you work through these comments and I'll then re-read the article as a whole in a few days to see if there are any other suggestions I have. The lack of an easily interpreted map really detracts from the article overall, as the dispositions and Frederick's scheme of manoeuvre and the various attacks are fairly complex in my view. I'm still struggling to get a sense of all of the moving parts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi PM, @Peacemaker67: I've overhauled dispositions and added a section on terrain, massively expanding the explanation of the ground. I found a couple of different maps, tried them out. See if this helps? Also incorporated your suggestions above. auntieruth (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I'm just working through now, making minor c/e type tweaks here and there. Please check my work so I haven't changed meaning or inserted errors. A few more points:
  • One thing that still confuses me is in Allied dispositions; it says that Saltykov faced his troops to the northwest, and so did Laudon. Is that right? If he expected the attack from Frankfurt at that stage, wouldn't he have faced his troops to the west? basicallly the attack occurred in the reverse of what Saltykov originally expected.
  • Perhaps mention that Reitwein is 28 km north of Frankfurt when it is first mentioned rather than a sentence or two later.done
  • It now says that the assault across the Kuhgrund was Frederick's second blunder, but I believe the first blunder is no longer highlighted above. Perhaps it would be better to relocate the assessments of Frederick's mistakes to the Assessment section? done
  • Most of the references in the Bibliography don't have locations, and the foreign language ones could do with title translationsI don't believe in translating the titles. if someone can read German, the title is obvious, and if someone cannot, the title is superfluous. Lingzi convinced me to use this *&FO#HG template and this is what it gave me re publications. I read in one of the guidelines too that location was not necessary. auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done (finally...). You've really improved this article significantly, Ruth. It is easy to follow now, a great read and captures the key aspects well. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Joachim-Bernhard-vp-2.jpg: when/where was this first published? Added
  • Same with File:Brief_von_Friedrich_der_Große.jpg added a publication don't know if it's the first though.,

File:Kleist-fällt-bei-kunersdorf.jpg. added publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) edit

  • In general, it's probably better to just give the page range rather than use "pp. 400 ff"
  • Be consistent in using pp. for multiple page ranges in the citations (curent ref 19 at least is inconsistent) fixed
  • In the notes - you have no citation for note 2 I added the harvtxt into the note.
  • In the notes - you are inconsistent in using parenthetical refs - some have the year and page # in parenthesis, others have name, year and page # in parentheseis. Also, why do you use parenthetical referencing in the notes but regular footnotes in the body of the article? the template did that. And this is (probably) the last time I use that template!
  • I'm not seeing that Zabecki is used as a citation anywhere? If not, it needs to be in the further reading. moved
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: responses to your comments. Thank you!! auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HAve you tried using the Template:efn for explanatory notes? It lets you use references like the rest of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • no I haven't. I looked at it, and it appears unintelligible. auntieruth (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually pretty easy - you put in {{efn|Text for your footnote.<ref as usual>}} and it handles the refs as usual - either using ref tags, or sfn or harv. The default is to use little letters, but you can specify some other type of superscript if you'd like, the details are at the templates page. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw that. I'd rather keep the citation with the note instead of splitting it out. auntieruth (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • Hi, I'll review this soon. At first glance, it could perhaps be nice to add date to the various artworks throughout the article, as you do in the infobox, and perhaps author. This will help put them in context, and show if they are for example contemporary or retrospective works. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to artwork, but not to contemporary photographs. auntieruth (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the comment here, looks fine, I'm in the process of reading the rest, will comment soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small nitpick before I continue, Flag of Prussia indicates the Prussian flag currently used in the infobox was only used from the 19th century onwards... Perhaps change to avoid anachronisms. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the flag icon says it is 1750, and I don't have a clue how to mess with icons, nor would I want to change an icon that has wide use across wikipedia
Alright, I see the filename now, I ended up elsewhere when I clicked on the icon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Judenberge (Jews Hill), Mühlberge (Mill Hill) and Walkberge (also spelled Walckberg)" "Berge" is "mountains" in plural, what does the source specifically say? Sure "hills" wouldn't be more accurate? My German is pretty rusty these days, but it seemed odd to me.
  • sources from 18th century have variations of spellings. There is also the Prussian variant of German. Any spelling in that century would be irregular in German or in English (or French-Spanish-Italian for that matter). If you look at the maps (which were done in the late 19th century), they all say ...berge....
I'm talking about their English translations, though, not the German words themselves. Why are they translated as singular (mountain, which would be "berg") instead of plural (mountains, "berge")? Pinging GermanJoe for advice, a regular at FAC who is also a native German-speaker. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kuhgrund (cow hollow)" Why "hollow" and not "ground"? The source states it is a ravine, but gives no translation. it is a ravine with two hillsides where they grazed cattle. Have you been to West Virginia?
Nope, but I have never seen "grund" translates as "hollow", which is what I'm puzzled about. Perhaps GermanJoe has something to add here too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I am probably of not much help here. These location names stem from older German dialects, so modern German-English translations might often be imprecise (some of the more obscure medieval terms don't even have a modern-German equivalent, let alone an English one). The translations here seem OK, but I am no expert. GermanJoe (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that goes for "berge" as "hill" (plural) above too? FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(moved your response into sequential order) The answer was meant for both questions, should have made that clearer. GermanJoe (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is the way itshould be, but I will add a note to the text if you want. auntieruth (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Hühner was joined by another stream" If this is the "Hühner Fleiss" mentioned later, why not spell it out here at first mention? I will fix that
  • "around the eastern flank of Russian line" The Russian line? the line of troops. They were set in a line. linked to Line (formation)
You say "the Russian line" everywhere else in the article, though, so this outlier seemed odd. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that was the problem. I didn't understand your comment. Added a the to the sentence.
  • "he sent no reconnaissance, not a single hussar or dragoon" Isn't the latter part of the sentence superfluous? no. Not only did he not send a patrol, he didn't send out a single man to investigate. Very poorly done on his part.
  • "The day was already hot and sultry, and the men were already tired. " Double "already" seems a bit repetitive. emphasis
  • "Avec moi, Avec moi!" Shouldn't the exclamation mark be in italics? ok: it's been moved about a bit.
Added some further comments above and below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recovered to a strength of 32,000 men and 50 cannon." Cannons? either way would be fine. Cannon is more slangish, so I added an s...
  • "was arguably Frederick's worst defeat." Only stated in intro. Could it be specifically stated somewhere in the article body, with citation? ok, will put in exact text. auntieruth (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk comments! thanks. auntieruth (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all fixes look fine, it's of course hard to find issues with such a well-polished article, so excuse my sometimes reaching nitpicks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth edit

I find this article to be fascinating, professionally written, and well-illustrated. I'm certainly leaning toward support, but I have a small number of suggestions, as follows:
Lede
  • ¶3 "the penultimate success..." – The word "penultimate" doesn't seem quite right here since it suggests that some sort of ultimate success followed the penultimate. The rest of the article suggests that there was no ultimate success for the Russians beyond this battle.
  • Well, they had one more success in the war. so yes, penultimate works. But I can probably change it to another word if you suggest it....? auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So little is made in the article of the Russian capture of the fortress at Kolberg, that I, perhaps wrongly, thought of it as inconsequential. Maybe "last major" rather than "penultimate"? Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Situation in 1759
  • ¶1"west to occupy Frankfurt an der Oder, Prussia's second largest city, on 31 July." – For 21st century readers more familiar with Frankfurt am Main, it might be good to head off the confusion by inserting a clarification here. Otherwise readers might find themselves wondering how the Russians got by Berlin to attack Frankfurt. fixed
Terrain
  • ¶1 "and to the far right of Kunersdorf" – Should this be "south of Kunersdorf" or "on the southern edge of Kunersdorf" for clarity? "Right" would depend on where the observer was standing.
Prussian plans
  • ¶1 "the Prussians reached Reitwein, some 28 km (17 mi) of Frankfurt...". – Missing word between "(17 mi)" and "of"? south
  • ¶1 "north-northeast the Kunersdorf on 11 August...". – Missing word between "north-northeast" and "the"? fixed
Cavalry attack
  • ¶1 "His scouts had discovered a crossing past the chain of ponds south of Kunersdorf, but would have to deal with the artillery batteries on the Grosser Spitzberg." – The "but" part of this sentence doesn't quite fit the "scouts" part. Maybe "His scouts had discovered a crossing past the chain of ponds south of Kunersdorf, but it lay in full view of the artillery batteries on the Grosser Spitzberg." Or something like that. fixed
Casualties
  • ¶2 Note 5 "Of the non commissioned..." – Since "non commissioned" is in a direct quote, I didn't change it. The correct spelling today would be "non-commissioned".
Yes, but since it is a direct quote, I didn't either. However, it is also a translation. Advise please. auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Manual of Style doesn't seem clear on this exceedingly minor question. I'd add the hyphen on grounds that no one will notice it, but someone like me might gritch about its absence. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment
  • A good fraction of this section seems to repeat what has already been said earlier in the article. A more concise assessment would be nice. I think most of paragraph 2 could be deleted and perhaps another sentence or two here and there. I tweaked this down a bit.
  • Looking good. Your addition of compass directions is really helpful to me in understanding the complex troop dispositions and movements. I'm going to do another complete read-through later today to search for low-level stuff like new typos. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the latest pass, I made a few minor copyedits. Please revert if any seem wrongheaded. I found three new things worth mentioning:
  • ¶2 of the Terrain section says, "East of the Kuhgrund, the ground rose again..." – If I'm reading the map correctly, that should be "West of the Kuhgrund...". yes....Also defined "Fleiss'
  • Link redan in ¶2 of the Assessment section?
  • ¶5 of the Assessment section says, "After Hochkirch, he had no one to blame but himself." – Shouldn't this say, "After Kunersdorf..."? clarified this paragraph
  • Switching to support, as noted above. This and the Hochkirch article are quite well-done. The maps seem essential. Looking forward to the next article in the series. Finetooth (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Reference 57 is dead; I think we are good to go after that is sorted. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Kunersdorf/archive1&oldid=787366153"