Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Rossbach

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 01:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Rossbach[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Battle of Rossbach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Fourth 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 Leuthen, which he won a month after this one. My drop down menu doesn't work, so I have to create this page manually. Hope I did it right. auntieruth (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps added upright= to all maps
  • File:Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Seydlitz_Prussian_Cuirassiers_Seven_Years_War.jpg: what is the status of this work in its source country?
  • File:Rossbach-leuthen.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: added sources with which I confirmed map data. Source country is Germany. Creator died in 1915. Not sure which template to use. auntieruth (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: the work is derived from one by the creator who died in 1915, right? Is the derivative sufficiently original to warrant a new copyright? If so, what is that creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't think it's sufficiently derivative to get a new copyright. He put it in svg to allow for translations, he says. And he released his work on it under creative commons. I've compared it to the info in the other texts, and it is the same. auntieruth (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, this refers to the second point above, not the third - it's an engraving after a painting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without more information, I don't know either what the appropriate tag would be, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, overall this looks pretty good to me. I have a some minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Their regimental officers, most lacked even..." --> "Most of their regimental officers lacked even..." fixed
  • unless I missed it, I couldn't find the 42,000 figure from the lead and infobox in the body of the article. The body does seem to have "totaling 41,000 men, under the command...", though, so this inconsistency might need to be adjusted fixed
  • same as above for the number of guns mentioned in the infobox (for both belligerents) fixed
    • G'day, sorry I still can't find "79 guns" in the body. I see "plus 72 companies of artillery", should this be 79? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the infobox says 379 wounded for the Prussians, but the Aftermath section provides 430 wounded fixed
  • the infobox provides French and Austrian losses as 5,000 dead or wounded and 5,000 captured, but these figures don't seem to be in the body of the article fixed
    • Not sure if this has been rectified. From what I can tell, the body says "1,000 dead (including six generals), 2,400 wounded" which is inconsistent with the 5,000 number in the infobox; equally I couldn't find the figure of 5,000 captured. Ack, that there are differing figures in the sources, but the infobox should match the body of the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, clarified now. One source says 5k captured, another suggests 13,800, so....it's duly noted, and other numbers clarified. auntieruth (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1865–1990, the area was mined for lignite..." --> "From 1865 to 1990, the area was mined for lignite..."
  • "(German) Bodart, p. 220.": the "German" icon probably isn't needed here. Compare with "Clark, pp. 254–255" which doesn't have a French icon fixed
  • watch out for overlinking. The duplicate link tool reports the following: Seven Years' War, Holy Roman Empire, Prince Henry of Prussia (1726-1802) fixed
  • suggest cropping "File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F089045-0002, Roßbach, Gutshof Goldacker.jpg" changed size
    • Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I meant that the white strip down the right hand side of the image should probably just be cropped off. It's not a warstopper for me, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good, because the white edge contains the Bundesarchiv stamp, and should not be cropped. auntieruth (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, Ruth, can you please clarify why you feel it shouldn't be cropped? The image is uploaded with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence which requires attribution, but I don't believe that means it needs to retain a watermark or similar credit to achieve this. The image description page itself provides the attribution in this regard. At least that was my understanding, and that is how I read WP:WATERMARK. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are some minor inconsistencies in the Bibliography in terms of whether you use a full stop or comma before presenting the ISBNs added
  • is there an ISSN that could be provided for the International History Review? added
  • some ISBNs have hyphens and some don't added
  • in the Bibliography, Duffy isn't specifically cited, so should probably be in the Further reading section added
  • in the Bibliography, "Peter H. Wilson" --> "Wilson, Peter H added
  • in the Bibliography, "Redman, Redman, J." --> Redman, Herbert J. added
  • the Reichel work should be added to the Bibliography, I think it's a pamphlet, no oclc or isbn so I took it out.
  • this sentence seems a little awkward: "As summer ended, a combined French and Reichsarmee, or Imperial army, commanded by Prince Soubise and Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen approaching from the west." fixed
  • there is some inconsistency in presentation "Allied" v. "allied" fixed
  • there is some date format inconsistency, e.g. compare "3 November" and "November 4" fixed
  • "eleven a.m." --> "11:00 am" fixed
  • in the aftermath, this sentence is repeated: "The Prussians also captured eight French generals and 260 officers" fixed
  • Looks good, Ruth, just a couple of minor points to follow up (please see above). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support generally a fine article. I made some edits for prose and clarity. Otherwise just a few minor comments, mainly for potential readers who are not familiar with the period:

  • "a contingent of the Habsburg Monarchy": since you use Austria throughout, I would use it here as well, or somehow make explicit that Habsburgs=Austria. adjusted lead, box, etc.
  • "could fire at least four volleys a minute": perhaps indicate that we this is about musket fire? done
  • "his army could march for miles at a time": precisely how many in how much time? Most armies in history could march "miles at a time". fixed
  • "1500 mixed troops": what does "mixed" mean here? added note
  • "The French and Habsburg Imperial (Reichsarmee)", "Three regiments of Franconian Imperial troops": the "Habsburg troops" or "Austrian troops" are not the same as the "Imperial Army" provided by the HRE, but the two are being used somewhat interchangeably in the text. Perhaps naming them "Austrian troops" (Habsburg-raised), "Imperial" or "Imperial German" troops (Reichsarmee), and "Habsburg troops" for them combined (since their commanders were usually Habsburg-appointed and acted under the nominal authority of the Emperor)? Well, there were 3 armies of note here. One was French. one was Imperial. They were beaten at Rossbach. Before that, though, they were trying to unite with the Habsburg army near Breslau. I think I fixed it.
  • "he counted 1,000 dead": who counted? Bodart. Fixed.
  • "general Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine) Comte de Doyat;": is the Comte de Doyat one of the fallen generals or a secondary title of Philippe-Joseph, Comte de Custine? fixed!
  • "disorganized by persistent pillaging": did the pillaging produce disorganization, or the other way round? the source did not say.
  • "Frederick's Uncle George": I would suggest simply mentioning him as "Frederick's uncle, King George II of Great Britain", since neither he nor the sobriquet are elsewhere mentioned. added relationships earlier

Once these are taken care of I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 17:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC) @Cplakidas:, thank you for your edits, and I've adjusted per your comments! auntieruth (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response. I've fixed the first reference to George II. I am still unsure about who the Comte de Doyat was. If you mean "Philippe-Joseph, Comte de Custine, Comte de Doyat", then write it so before the parentheses. Likewise with the the Comte de Revel and the Comte de Durfort: are they distinct persons (in which case it should be "the Comte", or the titles of the preceding persons (respectively the Vicomte de Lafayette and Guy Nicolas de Durfort de Lorges). I have edited this yesterday, but I am not sure I got it right. Constantine ✍ 08:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, thanks for persistence. I had tried making it clearer, but obviously didn't succeed. Now I've added "the" and put a semi-colon between the names. That should work. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, now it is fine. Happy to support. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a comprehensive and very well written and illustrated article. I'm happy to support its promotion to A-class, and have only a single minor suggestion ahead of the FAC:

  • "The Prussians halted in two lines behind the screening ridge, and waited patiently" - were the soldiers really relaxed? It seems unlikely that they would have been patient in these circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick-D probably they weren't, although that's what the source said. More likely they waited tolerantly; they were used to Seydlitz's ways. I've removed the word.auntieruth (talk) 16:23, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Rossbach&oldid=787374879"