Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Hochkirch/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2017.

Battle of Hochkirch

 * Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Seven Years' War battle at which the Prussian army was resoundingly defeated by the Austrians. It was a surprise attack; Frederick the Great ignored all signs that the attack was coming, and he lost big chunks of his army, several generals, and much of his supplies. See the article for details! ;) This is one of a series: Battle of Kunersdorf (another Prussian defeat), and two of Frederick's resounding victories, Battle of Leuthen and Battle of Rossbach (still in puberty). This article is expanded, has passed GA, MIlHist A-class review, and I offer it to you for your consideration.  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, yada yada (I don't have my macros on this computer!)
 * I haven't checked out the new section, Seven Year's War
 * Support on prose, I reviewed this at A-class, yada yada. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I went over this in quite a bit of detail at MilHist A-class (indeed the new section on the background to the Seven Years' War was added at my suggestion) and was very impressed. I'm happy this meets the FA criteria and I'm glad to see it here. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  01:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Source review from
 * This is NOT my subject area - so I don't know if Bodart is considered outdated in the field or not. But he is over 100 years old. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the use, it's not even a "red flag" but it is a concern.
 * he's widely accepted as the first to collate all this information. auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Same holds for Longman.
 * this has been the "classic" study of FTG for years; subsequent studies use it. I didn't rely on it much, using instead the more modern versions.
 * Same for Malleson.
 * Malleson study is included to balance what could be a Prussia-centric narrative. Ultimately, it's a bit of lurid story-telling, but I didn't quote those parts.
 * Same for Ralli.
 * Ralli created a guide to Carlyle's massive study of Frederick the Great. TC visited all the battle sites.  I used the Ralli work because it's shorter, more accessible.
 * Asprey in the Bibliography lacks a publication date. fixed.
 * Same concern on age for Robitschek.
 * this is one of the first specific studies (at least that remains) of the battle itself.
 * Re above: in addition, all these historians (except Bodart, who had nothing to say on the subject) agree that this was Frederick's blundering and arrogance that caused his loss here.  This is not a new idea among historians; they've been writing about it since the 19th century & they think he brought this on himself.  auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to list a 1903 fiction book in the further reading section. removed
 * Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll leave these up for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the maps I don't know how to do this
 * Use upright - this scales the image relative to the user's preferences. For example, if you've set a default image size of 200px in your preferences, 0.7 would display an image of 70% of 200px, or 140px. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I added |upright= to each image. auntieruth (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Carte_Guerre_de_Sept_Ans_Europe.PNG: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * IDK and it's problematic enough to take off. I might fix it some day.  Everything else should be addressed. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nikki, someone else just added an image....not sure why he did it at this point, but he did. auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The new image has contradictory copyright tags - either it was published before 1923, or it wasn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * removing auntieruth (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Question
 * After several weeks of jockeying for position - dont understand the term jockeying for position in this context. With whom, for a start. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * replaced "jockeying for position" with maneuvered. The rest of the sentence says with whom.  auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm inclined otherwise to support this very interesting, comprehensive, well sourced, and well written article. Ceoil (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Support: nice work, Ruth, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * in the Bibliography, are the OCLC numbers for Longman, Ralli, Robitschek, and Bodart? These can be found at worldcat.org done
 * in the Further reading section, same as above for Lindsay?
 * "Germany at War. Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History" --> "Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History"? done
 * "2014 2015" --> "2014–2015"? done
 * the Commons link should be moved to the top of the Further reading section done
 * in terms of Prussian losses, I couldn't find the "36,000" figure in the body of the article - is it possible to add this? done
 * in terms of Austrian losses, I couldn't find "7,300 men" in the body of the article, or "3 flags" - as above? done
 * "Ziethen and Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz..." link and add the full name of Ziethen here, or mention him earlier in the body done
 * suggestion cropping "File:Spruner-Menke Handatlas 1880 Karte 46 Nebenkarte 16.jpg" so that the black border forms the edge of the image done, but I cannot make the revised one show up in the article....:(  auntieruth (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing the cropped version. Try hitting Ctrl-R (refresh) if you still can't see it. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you! Yes it works!  Do you have comments too?  Always can use improvement.  auntieruth (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose
 * This is nicely written, well-illustrated, and interesting. As it happens, I do have a few minor questions and suggestions, but I'm leaning toward support.


 * Seven Years' War
 * "Britain also dispatched 7,000–9,000 troops [Note 1] to reinforce Frederick's brother-in-law, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel's army." – A smoother phrasing might be "...to reinforce the army of Frederick's brother-in-law, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel." done


 * Dispositions
 * "Hochkirch stands on slight rise in terrain..." – Missing word, "a"; i.e, "a slight rise"?done
 * "anxious of an attack" – Maybe "anxious about an attack"?done


 * Battle
 * Move the link to Croats in the second paragraph up to the first instance in the first paragraph of this section. Move the note up too?
 * "held it with sheer determination" – Delete "sheer" since "determination" says it well enough? done


 * Aftermath
 * "On the positive side, though, Retzow's corps of about 6,000 men..." – Delete "though"; i.e., On the positive side, Retzow's corps of about 6,000 men..."? done
 * "They also lost some" – The rest of this sentence has disappeared and should be restored. done
 * "an endowment of 250,000 gulden..." – Link gulden? done 9although I'm not sure that is the gulden she used.
 * "Furthermore, Frederick's reputation for aggressiveness..." – Delete "furthermore" as unnecessary? done


 * Memorials
 * Wouldn't "Hochkirch and environs" be better placed above the panorama? done


 * Alt text
 * Many of the images lack alt text. I added an alt parameter to the infobox, but it needs some text to function properly. done the ones that will take it. The galleries, no.
 * That's all I have at the moment, but I thought I'd do another pass-through later today. I doubt that I'll find much more. Finetooth (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are a few more suggestions:
 * In Seven Years' War, perhaps add "for the Prussians" to "an entirely nightmarish scenario"? done
 * In Prelude, did Frederick really say that the Prussians "were ready to knock Daun's head off"? Frederick seems volatile, so he certainly might have said it. I just wanted to be sure. Yes, that is what he said.  :(
 * In Dispositions: I stumbled over this sentence both times through: "He also took into account that his men..." – Maybe "Daun" instead of "he"? done
 * In Battle, maybe in "the soldiers could make out friend from foe" the word "distinguish" would be better than "make out". done
 * In Aftermath, a sentence says, "...other losses (to injuries, desertions and capture)...". Are the "injuries" mentioned here different from the "casualties" mentioned earlier in the same sentence?  People talk about losses in different ways.  The most specific is usually Bodart, and he'll sometimes break down "losses" into categories of deaths, injuries, capture, desertion.  However, capture and deaths sometimes overlap.  For example, Langer was captured, and died a couple of days later.  so does he show in the captured? or the deaths?  Not clear.
 * "There was no one to blame but himself." – This is a judgment that needs attribution. Who says so? Mitchell said.  adjusted for clarity.
 * "to give credit to intelligence that did not agree with his imagination" – I find the word "imagination" puzzling. Is it possible to agree or disagree with someone's imagination? Perhaps this means "did not agree with his own assessments"? clarified.  Mitchell thought Frederick imagined things to be one way or another.  He imagined the Russians were poor fighters.  He imagined the Austrians were poor soldiers....etc
 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thank you so much! auntieruth (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All good. Really interesting article. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thank you for your contribution too! auntieruth (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think we are good to go on this. Ealdgyth raised one or two minor sourcing issues but there were no major concerns from her or other reviewers on sourcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.