Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Rossbach/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) 22:31, 30 September 2017.

Battle of Rossbach

 * Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For your consideration, this article is about a crucial battle in the Seven Years' War. About 1000 infantry and the Prussian cavalry of Frederick the Great's army routed the combined French and Reichsarmee forces during a 90 minute battle. It was critical in forcing France out of its support of Austria's strategic goals. As always, I appreciate your ideas and suggestions. As usual, I've used what Ealdgyth considers a funky annotation system. It's what I know and have used since 2009. auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Pbsouthwood
(on general intelligibility to a lay reader}

Terrain and maneuver
 * What is the relevance of the plateau elevation? Is this the elevation above the general altitude of the lower lying areas, which would have obvious military relevance, or above sea level, which would not? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * general relevance to the type of terrain -- a rolling plateau--. It measures above sea level, of course, but within that there was very little elevation change.  This influenced how the battle was fought, obviously. No hill was higher than 120 m, which influenced how and where troops could move, and how visible they were from the highest observation points (usually the church towers, sometimes well-placed manor houses).  auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the elevation of the low-lying areas known? the relative elevation would be far more relevant to tactics. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I read through again, and now understand that the battle was fought on the plateau, which had an altitude ranging from 120 to 244m, so the variation of altitude on the battlefield was not more than 124m and may have been less? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, thanksw for re reading....is the article clearer now? auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be better to explicitly state whether the battle was on the plateau. The map does not clearly show steep sides to the valley, but suggests fairly steep hillsides, which is not supported by the text or photos. I am not getting a clear impression of the terrain where the actual fighting took place. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've stated in the text, there were no steep hill sides. The entire region is rolling hills--none of them higher than 120 feet above the general altitude of the region.  It's all relatively flat. I've tried adjusting the text, and moved the images of the terrain into that section.  auntieruth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to nitpick like this. The section now reads more clearly, but I remain uncertain whether the elevation of the plateau is between 120 and 244m, or lower than this with peaks up to 120 to 244m above the base altitude of the plateau. (which is more than 120 feet as stated above) If I understand correctly, the 120 feet is a typo, and the altitude of the plateau including its rolling hills is between 120 and 244m. I made and reverted an edit which would clarify this point if I got it right. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The elevation of Rossbach is 104 m. Braunsbedra and Reichertswerben are the two closest villages and they are, respectively, altitudes above sea level of: 120 m and 131 m. The site of the battle field is rolling hills and plains between 120–244, mostly between Braunsbedra, Rossbach and Reichertswerben.  But the entire topography outside the villages, where the battle took place, has changed since the mid-20th century (and earlier) because of lignite mining.  The steepest hillsides are in Merseburg at the river crossings, and then only in a few places where the river cut through sandstone.  If you look at Mapcarta here you can see that the location of the Janus has been completely excavated.  There is really no way of telling exactly how high or how steep it was in 1750s.  Carlisle, who was there, says the hills were slight.  Frederick and Gaudi, who were there and observing from the manor rooftop, could see most of the French troop movements--this means that the hills were not high enough to obstruct the view. The vintage maps do not indicate steep hills, simply "hills"  or elevation changes. Better?  auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mapcarta gives Rossbach elevation as 124m, your sources may differ, otherwise good. I see what you mean about the topography having changed. The explanatory note does help. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, the whole area looks different than it did 200 years ago. But that's what happens over time.  Will you support now?  auntieruth (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Within the scope of my review, in that it makes sense to a non-expert, and is well written and interesting, yes, and good luck with the rest of the review. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the maps
 * File:The_Imperial_German_Army_1890_-_1913_HU68455.jpg: if the author was a German court photographer, why a UK tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From what it looks like in the documentation on the photo, the German court photographer took the picture. The German king gave wrote on it and gave it to Hugh Lowther, 5th Earl of Lonsdale, apparently, because that's the collection it came from.
 * Okay - unless there was a transfer of copyright involved (?), this wouldn't be a UKGov work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in the UK Imperial War Museum. The template doesn't accommodate the specifics of this particular instance.  Something created by German court photographer, given by Kaiser to someone; from that person's collection it apparently went to the UK Imperial War Museum, which provided it.  So I don't know what to do about it, and if you don't know what to do about it, I suggest we leave it as is, because it was uploaded under auspices of the UK museum, and it had been given by the Kaiser.  Perhaps we should accept that the transfer of the photograph as a gift is sufficient?  The museum provided the provenance.  auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Er... the museum provided the provenance and their own IWM licensing; I don't see that they provided anything to support the tags used. Given available information I would think a German/EU tag would be more appropriate. Open to other opinions though if any other reviewers want to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with a change. What do others think?  auntieruth (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the tag to GermanGov .  Is this the correct one?  auntieruth (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable given the provenance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * maps are scaled, although I don't know how to do that for the ones in the gallery. auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * "moved up the Rossbach itself": What's "the Rossbach"? I'm aware "Bach" is "brook" in German, but I'm not aware that you've mentioned that, unless it's "a small stream [that] ran between Rossbach and Merseburg".  okay, fixed.
 * "The fighting soon dissolved into man-on-man combat": Not wrong, but I might say "the columns dissolved", or "the fighting devolved". fixed.
 * "muskets shouldered": Did you mean to repeat that?  I only see it once.
 * Sorry, the other occurrence is: " Frederick ... boasted that the victory had come while most of his infantry had its weapons shouldered." - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Really good writing. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

 * Another impressive article. I find this set of three fascinating even though they are far afield from anything I write about. I have a few suggestions and questions, as follows.


 * General
 * Lead image needs alt text. yes, it was there. :)  
 * Yes and no. When I rolled over the image with my mouse, the alt text showed as identical to the image file name. The fix was to look at what you'd done with the Battle of Leuthen and to imitate. I believe the problem is fixed, but please doublecheck. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference between Battle of Leuthen alt text and this one. ???  auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The gallery images need alt text. WP:PIC in the Galleries subsection shows a way to add alt text using table syntax.  I think I did this right
 * I think you can scale the gallery maps if you use the table format that you'll find in the same section of WP:PIC. I think I did this right
 * The toolbox (dispenser.homenet.org) has been down for a week or more, but you can still check the alt text by mousing over the image and looking at the popup. The table method described at WP:PIC looks like a workable option, but I've never used it. Some experimenting might be in order, or perhaps User:Nikkimaria or another image reviewer knows the preferred solution. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You could also use multiple image Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added alt text and upright= to all the images. Does this work now?
 * I see that you have added the parameters. However, if you mouse over the images, you'll see that the alt text does not appear. (You have to have navigation popups turned on in your Preferences/Gadgets user menu to be able to see the popups.) That suggests to me that the template is not configured to recognize the alt-text parameter. I'd like to fiddle around in a sandbox with the multiple image template that Nikkimaria suggested. I have rarely added galleries to anything, hence my lack of immediate insights. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I use galleries a lot, so when you fiddle, please send me a link, so I can see what you've done....:) auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The layout of the gallery at the bottom of the article looks odd to me because of the 3-4-1 arrangement. Suggestion: use one panorama rather than two. That would give you a more balanced 3-4-0 arrangement, which would look better if you centered the line of 4 images. They will center properly once you remove the bottom line of 1. Alternatively, a table might give you more options than the existing two separate galleries at the bottom.  I took out one
 * To avoid bumping against second-level subheads or from displacing the Battlefield today head, I would suggest moving all of the maps to the right.  ?


 * Seven Years' War
 * ¶1 "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Maybe it would be more clear to say "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war between Prussia and its allies with Austria and its allies." tweaked some, see if this is better
 * Hmmm. "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; in parts of the globe, it had no impact, and its influence among the European powers it was, however, no better than a truce." – This revision doesn't make sense to me. Maybe leave out "in parts of the globe, it had no impact" since the conflict wasn't global, and maybe adjust the last clause (which has a grammar problem) to say "among the European powers it was no better than a truce."?
 * The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; its influence among the European powers was, however, little better than a truce. Frederick II of Prussia, known as Frederick the Great, acquired the prosperous province of Silesia, but had wanted much of the Saxon territories as well. Empress Maria Theresa of Austria had signed the treaty to gain time to rebuild her military forces and forge new alliances; she was intent upon regaining ascendancy in the Holy Roman Empire. Better?  auntieruth (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. That looks good. Finetooth (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Terrain and maneuver
 * ¶1 "The story of the battle of Rossbach is as much the story of the five days of maneuver leading to the battle as it is those famous 90 minutes of battle, and the maneuvers were shaped by the terrain." – Since the "famous 90 minutes of battle" has not been mentioned in the main text before this mention, perhaps modify to say: "Five days of maneuvers, shaped by the terrain, preceded the battle of Rossbach." Or something like that. It was in the caption under the lead photo, and I've added it to the lead
 * ¶1 "at the confluence of the middle Saale from the Buntsandstein" – Some confusion here. Confluence refers to the meeting of two streams, but the Saale doesn't seem to meet another stream at Weissenfels. A map embedded in the Thuringian Basin article shows Weissenfels lying just outside of the basin, so perhaps the intended meaning here is "near the emergence of the middle Saale from..." Another possibility is that the confluence referred to here is the meeting of the Unstrut with the Saale upstream of Weissenfels near Naumburg.
 * ¶1 "in the so-called Weißenfels-Jenaer Saale valley..." – Delete "so-called"? sorry, that's a Germanism....
 * ¶1 "this influenced the troop movements leading up to the battle..." – Delete "up"? done
 * ¶6 "Until that point, Soubise had done nothing." – I had to go back to an earlier part (Situation in 1757) of the article to see who Soubise was. ok. did some tweaking there.


 * Initial battlefield positions
 * ¶1 "The French general, the prince of Soubise," – He's referred to simply as Soubise in the last sentence of the preceding section. Maybe "the French general, the Prince of Soubise" could replace "Soubise" in that earlier sentence, and you could use plain "Soubise" here. fix parallel construction
 * ¶2 "under the command of Charles, Prince of Soubise and Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen" – Here they are identified again in a slightly different way. Integrate them somehow? Maybe add "Charles" to the first mention of him in the Situation in 1757 section and just go with ""under the command of Soubise and Saxe-Hildburghausen" here. Not quite sure. fixed, I think
 * I'm still a bit confused. Are Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen and the Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen two different people, or is this the same guy? Yes.  Eventually he was "Prince" but at the time, he was "Duke"  I've taken out his titles and just referred to him and Soubise by their family names.
 * I changed one additional "Duke" to "Saxe-Hildburghausen" in this same section. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Trap
 * ¶5 "When the Allied cavalry came striking distance..." – Missing word, "within"?
 * ¶5 "still in echelon" – Link to Echelon formation?
 * ¶7 "Seydlitz led his cavalry in their third assault." – A minor question. I'm not sure how these things are formally counted. I would have said "second assault". I suppose this is the third if the 20-squadron charge counts as one and the 18-squadron charge counts as the second. I assume the combined squadrons take part in the third assault. Maybe a bit of clarification here? tweaked some for clarity


 * Aftermath
 * ¶1 "Impressively, the Prussians took..." – Not sure you need "impressively". don't
 * ¶4 "While he did owe his position to his good relationship..." – Maybe "rank" rather than "position" since at first glance that might be interpreted to mean his battlefield position. Absurd interpretation on second glance, but still... "


 * Battlefield today
 * long quote: "set up his field bed in alcove" – Word missing? Maybe "an alcove"? got it.
 * long quote: "Hauptmann [Franz Leopold] von Funcke" – Missing comma after Funcke? fixed
 * "(Kreis roadway)" – I'm assuming that this means something like a side road or crossroad or secondary highway. Maybe a brief explanation or a link since it probably has clear formal meaning to Germans?  Ah, yes, county highway.  


 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I got them all.....auntieruth (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I've got them. :) auntieruth (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Switching to support on prose, as noted above, regardless of how the alt text questions play out. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comments, contributions and support. Re alt text, it's weird, sometimes the proper box shows up with alt text and the whole stuff on the image, and sometimes it doesnt.  auntieruth (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it anywhere, I think we still need a source review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * no you haven't missed it. Review is requested.  auntieruth (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
I am sure that in terms of reliability and authority, the sources are impeccable, but I found the arrangement of the section very muddled and confusing, with several inconsistencies:
 * What is the purpose of repeating detailed information in the citations that is given in the sources? Why not be consistent in the use of short citations?  some people only go as far as the citation.  It's listed in full in the first instance and in short form afterward.
 * It seems like a waste of time and space, but I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In the sources you prioritise surnames, in the citations you prioritise first names, which makes cross-checking difficult. I understand this.  Bibliographies should be organized by surnames.  Footnotes start with first names.  This is standard Chicago Style.
 * The section headed "Alphabetical listing of sources cited" contains  uncited sources: Jeremy Black; Robert M Citino  I took Citino out. Jeremy Black is in fn 2.
 * Several other sources are not cited in the texts but are mentioned in the "Notes" in the "See..." format. These should be properly formulated as citations. (Karlheinz Fischer; Kapp & Bancroft; Hellmund Meinholf; Mitteldeutsche Zeitung; Poten & Mayer)  They are cited in the note.  I don't see the point in adding them to citations as well.  If I were writing a print article, this is how I would do it.
 * I think you are not understanding my comment. The "See..." format is an informal method of citation, with the same purpose as regular citations, i.e. to indicate the source that supports the text. These "See..." citations should be converted to regular form. Thus, for example, "See (in German) Bodart, p. 220" should be converted to What you might do with a print article is not relevant - this is Wikipedia.  Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess I understand. Notes are converted to citations.  auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Spencer Tucker and Frederick King of Prussia appear in the citations but are not listed as sources.  Frederick was there, spencer Tucker is added.
 * Ref 32 is not properly formatted. What is the nature of this source, and in what way does it support the text?  These are standard links to the German webpage.
 * They are links to the German webpages, but where do they reference the inscription that you have cited in the text? The inscription in given in English – is this the language on the stone? And in any event these links need to be properly formatted as references, with publisher information etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think Ref 33 is properly formatted, either.
 * In your "Notes" section, Note 1 is unsourced. In Note 3 the sources are not included in your sources list and lack basic information such as publisher, access date and so on. this is fixed.
 * Note 1 is 'not fixed; you have added two external links, but these need to be properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are also a few minor formatting errors. Those that I see:
 * Ref 2 needs full stop after pp done
 * Ref 7 needs space after p. done
 * Ref 18: page range inconsistent done
 * Ref 20: missing pp. done

The section is in need of considerable attention. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Brian, I've responded above. I realize that this can be a nuisance, but I don't see another way around it.  I find the short notation style very difficult to follow when I read because I have to refer down to the bib to see the whole thing (publisher, etc).  I've at least started to use the shortened references, a, b, c, d etc.  which I find confusing in text, but am amenable to making life easier for editors.  auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is that you "don't see another way round". If it's just the question of your use of short citations, well OK, I'll go along with your preference. But I've raised other sources questions, most notably the need to regularise the formatting of citations. These need attention.Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , they are all consistent now. First mention is author/title/publication/page number. Subsequent citations are short, or shorter (a,b,c,d,etc, using the ref/ref template).  Thank you.  auntieruth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * and I've converted the notes to citations, so the formatting remains consistent. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've basically used this as my bible for footnoting since 2009 and 2011, when I was convinced to start adding the refname= tag. auntieruth (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query:, how is this looking from a sourcing viewpoint now? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a bit of a mess, I'm afraid. The nominator has misunderstood some of my comments, and her efforts to comply have made things worse rather than better. She seems to be relying on fixed views and practices which are outside the FAC requirements for the organisation of sources. Someone needs to give a helping hand – it's basically to do with proper and consistent formatting, not the reliability of the sources themselves. I don't think my further participation will be helpful, as I seem not to be getting through, but  my original and follow-up comments should clarify the problem. For example, I was not saying that all footnotes should be converted to citations, merely that footnotes needed to cited in the same style as the text, not via an informal "See..." formulation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted all the notes back to notes and changed the citing style to be exactly the same as the citations. I'm going to ask one of the MH coordinators to also have a look.  I don't know what else I can do to make it consistent!  auntieruth (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth, I had a quick look at this on the w/e and have a couple of initial thoughts, just give me a day or so to come back to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruth, I have made a suggestion with this edit: . I have self reverted, but if you feel it helpful, I'd suggest implementing across all of your notes. Brian, would that type of change help address some of your concerns? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this, Rupert, I'm willing to do it for the notes (not the citations), but I'm not sure how that will help, other than to separate the note itself from its citation (if I've read it right--I could only see the intext change, not how it looked :. auntieruth (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruth, you can see how it would display/look here: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rupert. well, I'm not sure how that help by separating the note from the citation.  butI can do it if that's what Brian wants.....?

auntieruth (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I like what Rupert has done with Note 1; can the same be done with 2, 3 and 4? And you should lose the POV chit-chat in 3: "who usually got these kinds of details right".
 * There's an outstanding problem with ref 38. I ask again: How does this source verify the English translation of the inscription on the stone? Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't realize you were questioning the translation. I translated it.  auntieruth (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My questioning was of the source to which your translation was apparently cited, not the translation itself. According to WP:TRANSCRIPTION: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research", so you're OK on that point. But I'm still puzzled by Ref 33: what exactly is this source verifying? How does the link page help the reader?  Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Under SchlossBergwerben: In Burgwerben zog das Grenadier-Bataillon Fink ein und der König selbst bezog im Schloß Quartier. Weil alle Zimmer des Herrenhauses mit gefangenen, verwundeten französischen Offizieren belegt waren, begnügte sich der König mit einem Dienstzimmer, das noch heute im historischen Zustande erhalten ist.  auntieruth (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Notes and their citations now separated using Rupert's fancy tags. Chatty bit of note removed. auntieruth (talk)
 * Thank you. That resolves most of my issues with the organisation of sources. On ref 38, which I've mentioned previously,  this provides a list of links. Can you please say which of these links leads to the source information? This guidance should then be included in the citation.  Finally, its not a good idea to have "Resources" and "Further reading" under the same level-2 heading, as further reading does not form part of the article's sourcing. Suggest  two separate level-2 headings. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, fixed level 2 headers. Added Schloss Burgwerben  to the citation and Resource entry.  auntieruth (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All sources issues now resolved to my satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All sources issues now resolved to my satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackyd101
As always with Auntieruth55's writing, I think this is an excellent article about a complex battle - a very fine piece of work. I am very close to support with this article, but have a few minor comments for discussion below before giving the thumbs up. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "the Russians were not yet able to take Königsberg" - this sounds like they took it soon afterwards (as they did in 1758), but this isn't explained elsewhere in the article. I suggest "the Russians were unable to take Königsberg" since it is accurate as far as that specific campaign is concerned and as a little clearer to an unfamiliar reader. fixed
 * "Although previous experiences in wars with the Ottoman Empire had exposed these problems, the Russians had not solved the challenge of supplying the army at a distance from Moscow" reads a little awkwardly. Perhaps "Although experiences in wars with the Ottoman Empire had previously exposed these problems, the Russians had not solved the challenge of supplying the army at a distance from Moscow"? fixed
 * "His army covered 274 km (170 mi) in only 13 days" from where to where? it was in the paragraph, but I've reworked it.
 * "they were still eager to face the Allied forces." - this feels like opinion? Can you source it? cannot find it in the article! but if iit's there, it's source.
 * Its in the third paragraph of "Terrain and maneuver". Bodart is the nearest source, but its not on that particular sentence. Is this Bodart's opinion?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Frederick's tactics at Rossbach became a landmark in the history of military art" - what is meant here by "military art"? This feels like paintings. Do you mean "the military art"? yes, linked
 * " Both men possessed the much coveted coup d'œil militaire, the ability to see at a glance what must be done to tactical advantage" - This is definitely an opinion. Who said this? Was it Frederick? Can you clarify? I see from the quote that it was, but I would clarify it at the start.  sourced to their biographers
 * "flooding the old lignite mine with water" - this is out of sequence. I suggest incorporating the footnote into the main text so its clearer where this lignite mine came from. fixed


 * Thanks for comments! auntieruth (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! See reply above and take a look. Once that is done I'm happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * fixed! auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, another triumph!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.