Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Leuthen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Leuthen edit

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Battle of Leuthen/archive1

Third of a four-part series on Frederick the Great's battles (others being Battle of Hochkirch and Battle of Kunersdorf, both which he lost miserably and both articles presently here for review, and Battle of Rossbach, still in puberty). My drop down menu doesn't work, so I have to create this page manually. Hope I did it right. auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Ruth, just some minor presentation comments to get started. I will look to try to read through the article more thoroughly later: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is some inconsistency in presentation of page ranges, forex "p. 212–215" v. "pp. 233–235" fixed
per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be at the top of the last section in the article (it just needs to be moved up slightly) moved up.
"The monument was dynamited during World War II..." --> by whom? don't know. source didn't say. probably the Russians.
- No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, is there an OCLC number for the Bodart book? no
- Added it for you. These can be found at worldcat.org. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, same as above for Lindsay? done
in the References, suggest translating the titles of the foreign language works
in the References, " S. 745-746" --> "pp. 745-746"?
in the References, same as above for "S. 75"
in the References, "Band 3" --> "Volume 3"?

I typically don't translate, although I know some of the templates do. I find it makes the article and notes too cumbersome. I could be persuaded. auntieruth (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not wedded to translating titles, but I feel the peripheral items like page numbers and volume numbers should be changed to make it more reader friendly. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is this missing something after "by": " See Josef Wuk, Technisches polyglott-onomasticum: Oder Wörterbuch in sieben ... by , 1864"? Fixed.
in the infobox you have 167 and 210 guns, but I couldn't find these numbers in the body of the text (the Aftermath has "250 Austrian cannons", though...is this correct?) fixed
is there a word missing here: "invaded his ally's territory of Duchy of Hanover" --> "the Duchy of Hanover"? fixed
"captured another 2000 men and baggage..." --> "captured another 2,000 men and baggage" fixed
"File:Frederick the Great and his staff at the Battle of Leuthen by Hugo Ungewitter.jpg": suggest right aligning this image to avoid stacking two images together and so that the subjects face into the article fixed
"He secured the Nippern with eight grenadier..." --> "He secured Nippern with eight grenadier..."? companies. It was there....?
missing word: "the wing ended at stream and the village of Gahla..." --> "at the stream"? fixed
typo: "win the only weeks earlier at the Battle of Rossbach..." --> "win only weeks earlier at the Battle of Rossbach" fixed
"Prince Charles and Daun..." --> I don't think Daun has been formally introduced yet, I suggest using the full name and appointment here
"critical point could turn the tide of battle..." --> "critical point could have turned the tide of battle"
"26th Infantry" --> is there a wikilink that could be added for this unit? no it is not the same as 26th_Infantry_Division_(Wehrmacht).
- I was thinking more about whether any of these articles might relate: Category:Units and formations of the Prussian Army, or indeed if it should be redlinked? Regardless, is "26th Infantry" a division or regiment? If possible, I'd suggest making it clearer, e.g. "26th Infantry Regiment" or "26th Infantry Division", whichever is correct. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

divisions are a Napoleonic era addition to nomenclature. A regiment was typically a collection of companies or squadrons, from 1-5 or six, under command (nominally at least) of a colonel and specifically a lieutenant colonel. It's likely that a full regiment wasn't there. the names of the regiments changed when the colonel/proprietor changed. Frederick started giving them numbers and subsequently historians always numbered them. The list in that categories is mostly 19th century. I will eventually organize this, if I can get a friend to help. auntieruth (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thoughts on this: actually the 26th infantry is 19th century nomenclature added by Showalter. Although I'm sure it's correct, I've adjusted the text. auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the Schweidnitz water" or "the Schweidnitz river"? it was called the water.
- No worries. I note that the maps in the article say "Schweidnitz River", though. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, the sources say Weisstritz water, or Weistritz river, and it runs into the Schweidnitz, and then out of it, and then back into it. I adjusted this auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"showed the world, meaning Europeans..." --> probably simpler to just say "showed Europe..." fixed

~~:hmmmm I have an Order of Battle. Should I add it?~~ auntieruth (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think an order of battle would be a good idea, although if it is large making it a separate article might be a good idea. For instance, see Battle of Milne Bay order of battle as an example (although there are certainly many other ways of presentation etc.). There are many other example here: Category:Orders of battle. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly big. I could probably shorten it, but I've only found one source, and I'm not sure...Tempelhoff has his issues. So I think I might let it up. auntieruth (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

In the second paragraph presumably the diversion was on the right and the surprise attack was on the left, but it would help to say so. fixed
"After Rossbach (5 November), the French refused" As it was before Leuthen, I would say "had refused". well, I couldn't find it. But actually it is right. After Rossbach, the French refused to fight an open battle against the Prussians. After Leuthen, the Austrians couldn't fight--at least until they had rebuilt their army over the winter.
"Laying between the Oder river and the foot of the Sudeten Mountains" I think it should be "lying" rather than "laying"
"They were hardly hills, more like hillocks, but they were high enough to provide a screen for his troops." This contradicts the earlier statement that the area was too flat for hiding manoeuvres. fixed
"Unfortunately for the Austrians, 40 squadrons of Prussian cavalry waited by Radaxdorf, commanded by Hans Joachim von Zieten, charged their flank;" The grammar is not right here. fixed
"Although he had grossly under-estimated the size of the Austrian force" You have not said this earlier - unless I have missed it. took out only in one source'
"in both polite and general circles" Is "general circles" a euphemism for lower classes? fixed
I would delete the words after "Prussia". actually, there were many kings, but he was King of Prussia. This made a difference. 17 years earlier, he was only King in Prussia.
A very good article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dudley Miles: auntieruth (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My queries dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - some minor cmts:
All tool checks ok, Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolations [1] (no action req'd).
- Prose is a little repetitive here: "The intent was clear: the Prussian infantry, now arrayed in the conventional two lines of battle, advanced on the weakest part of the Austrian line, intending..." ("intent" and "intending" in the same sentence). Oops. fixed.
- Is there a typo here: "...he also placed such other losses such as..."? fixed.
- I made a few changes here pls check over and amend if necessary. look good. thank you!
- Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherclown thank you for your comments and edits! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I've looked over the images now and they all appear to be PD and have the req'd information / tags. No issues as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.