Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silesian Wars/archive1

Silesian Wars

 * Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is the fourth and last in a series I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century; this one is a summary and overview of the three about the individual wars. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the three previous articles have received in their recently concluded FACs. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Image (copyright) review
I reviewed the copyright status, etc. of the files used in the article. File:Map for the Silesian and Seven Years Wars.jpg currently has insufficient information to determine whether it is copyrighted. According to the page, it was published in 1905. While this would mean it is in the PD in the US, it may not be in the source country. "Charles Colbeck (editor)" is listed as the author. However, editing the book in which the map featured does not make him the copyright holder. In order to determine whether it is in the public domain, we should know who made the map. The text under the image suggests it may be Frederick William Longman, but I couldn't determine whether he's alive or from what country he is. (If he is from a country where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years, and we cannot determine his date of death, we may presume it is in the PD in 2025 - 120 years after creation.) --MrClog (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The map is originally from the book "Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War" by Frederick William Longman (1881); I've added that information to the Commons page. The author was British (a member of the Longman publishing family), and the book was first published in Britain. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed around the license. It is currently set as assuming that the work is in the PD (published more than 120 years ago). However, if you know the date the author died, using commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired is strongly preferred. --MrClog (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great; if I can find that date, I'll update the license. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks here as though the author was at Oxford at the same time as a man born in 1844, making him probably within a few years of that birth year. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Longman died in 1908; his obituary was in the Times on 22 October 1908. I've updated the file information. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Comments by Truflip99
Prose looks great. Some suggestions:
 * All three wars are generally considered to have ended in Prussian victory, and their territorial result was Austria's cession of the majority of Silesia to Prussia. -- quite a mouthful when you can just say "... Prussian victory and (resulted in) Austria's cession..." within comma is optional
 * The problem there is that all three wars are considered to have ended in Prussian victory, but only the first of the three resulted in the territorial cession (and that fact doesn't require any "consideration"). If you can see a way to simplify the syntax while keeping that distinction clear, I'll change it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Prussian victory of which the first resulted in" (it's just better to maintain parallel form)
 * I'm a fan of parallel form, too. However, "victory, of which" doesn't work; it would need to be "victories, of which". Do you think it should say all three ended in "Prussian victories"? That seems abnormal to me. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A quick google search of "ended in American victories" shows that this is not unheard of. And just looking at it from a purely grammatical pov, it's not wrong. --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding correctly that it's length that you're concerned about, then what about just cutting the word "territorial"? Can we trust the reader to infer that? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily; the wording is weak. But yes, I would say that territorial can be omitted, but there's nothing wrong with keeping it either
 * Then I don't understand what problem you're wanting fixed. I don't know what constitutes "weak wording" to your ear. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself: only the first war resulted in territorial cession, yet the current wording states "their (as in, the wars') territorial result..."; so that means the current wording is wrong? I would settle with "All three wars are generally considered to have ended in Prussian victories, and the first resulted in Austria's cession..." -- nothing wrong with "victories" considering you use "defeats" in the outcome section... --truflip99 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * significantly damaged the House of Habsburg's prestige -- (greatly) undermined?
 * I don't feel super strongly about this, so if you do then I'll change it, but that doesn't seem like the right image to me. To "undermine" is to set something up for subsequent collapse or failure (by digging out its foundations), whereas here the damage wasn't in the future but already realized. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that


 * Austro-Prussian struggle, Austro-Prussian War, etc. -- en dashes here
 * Isn't it typical to use the en dash for joined nouns ("France–Germany relations") but a hyphen for joined adjectives ("Franco-Prussian War")? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems en dash is appropriate per MOS:ENBETWEEN
 * From that page: "Franco–British rivalry; Franco- is a, not an independent word, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I should have kept reading. You're right!

I'll look at Body in a bit. --truflip99 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Silesia also lay -- lays? or laid?
 * "Lay" is the past tense of "lie", which is the intransitive (which is what's wanted here). We would say a hen "lays" or "laid" eggs (transitive). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair.


 * In 1603, Hohenzollern Elector Joachim III Frederick of Brandenburg also inherited -- I think you should make a distinction that this is a separate inheritance as the the Hohenzollerns have not inherited Liegnitz, Wohlau and Brieg yet (because the Piast Dynasty hasn't gone extinct)
 * Fair point. How about "separately inherited"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That works.


 * In the Bohemian Revolt -- throw in a time reference here so readers can keep up with the timeline
 * Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * but the Electors of Brandenburg continued to assert themselves as the legitimate rulers of Jägerndorf -- given all the names being used, I feel like it would be better to say the Hohenzollerns here
 * Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * the newly crowned Hohenzollern King Frederick II of Prussia formed designs on Silesia soon after succeeding to the Prussian throne -- redundant
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Frederick judged that his dynasty's claims were credible, and he had inherited from his father a large and well trained Prussian army and a healthy royal treasury. -- I would swap these fragments: "Having inherited... Frederick judged..."
 * Using "having" that way implies that he judged his claims to be credible because he had inherited a strong army, but that's not what I'm saying; he thought his claims were legally sound regardless of whether he had the strength to press them. This is a list of two reasons why he thought pressing the issue was a good idea, and neither of the two is the cause or result of the other. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, the wording isn't clear...
 * Er, in what respect? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That the sentence is listing two reasons rather than a cause and effect
 * Sorry, I'm just not seeing how ", and ." is indicating causation to your ear, so I'm not sure how to fix it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After reading it so many times and taking your explanation into consideration, I can't unread it now. So I guess I'll have to let this go.


 * in the recent Austro-Turkish War -- omit recent
 * "The Austro-Turkish War" is an ambiguous name, so it needs to be made clear that here we refer to the most recent in the series. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would just add the appropriate years then as in the wiki title; the word "recent" carries more weight towards the reader's present
 * Fair enough, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The European strategic situation was favourable for an attack on Austria, with Britain and France occupying each other's attentions and Russia in conflict with Sweden -- another parallel form needed: The European strategic situation looked favourable for an attack on Austria as Britain and France occupied each other's attentions and Russia fought a conflict with Sweden
 * "Occupying" really needs to stay in the progressive; the point isn't that Britain and France had occupied each other's attentions at some unspecified point in the past, but that they were occupying each other's attentions at that time. I've made the reference to Russia and Sweden parallel this, as well as adding a wikilink for context. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks better now


 * Bavaria and Saxony also had claims against Austria and might join in the attack -- this is stated like we're still awaiting the outcome
 * Yup, that's correct; Prussia struck the first blow, so when these calculations were being made the involvements of Bavaria and Saxony were still only future possibilities. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean it's worded like we still don't know the outcome today, there has to be a better word than "might"; "appeared ready to"?
 * Ah, fair enough. How about "seemed likely to join"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure


 * played the leading role -- played a leading role
 * The sources say that geostrategy played the leading role, as in, a role greater than that of any other factor. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * and upon his death she duly became ruler of Austria, as well as of the Bohemian and Hungarian lands within the Habsburg Monarchy. -- split this into its own sentence
 * Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * contested by several parties -- do we know which parties?
 * That's the content of the two immediately succeeding paragraphs: "Frederick ... Meanwhile, Prince-Elector Charles Albert of Bavaria and Prince-Elector Frederick Augustus II of Saxony ...". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Separating them into a different section gives the illusion that you're talking about something else. That's okay in certain prompts, but I feel like you're making the reader work extra hard to get this information when you can just state it plainly and allow the next two paragraphs to expand upon it. Wikipedia is supposed to be all about effortless readability.
 * Okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * which had never materialised -- omit had
 * The past perfect is more suitable than the simple past here, because I'm not saying that the Emperor's support did not materialize at the time Frederick William assented to the Sanction, but rather that it still had not materialized at the time of Frederick's decision to invade. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So why not "had not yet"?
 * That's fine, too, if you prefer; done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * concern to prevent this outcome -- concerns
 * I don't understand. The desire to prevent encirclement by Saxony was a concern that motivated Prussia's attack; the desire was not concerns(?). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So say whose concern "his concern", "Prussia's concern"; ambiguity in this instance makes the reader want to prefer "concerns" --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As Austria concentrated its forces against its other enemies and gained ground in the wider war, Frederick concluded that the Austrians did not intend to honour the Convention and concede territory in Silesia, so, to press Austria further, he repudiated the armistice and renewed offensive operations of his own. -- suggest splitting sentence
 * Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Austria agreed to cede to Prussia -- dup wikilink
 * I'm only seeing that link once in the article... -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and on 11 December he issued an ultimatum to Maria Theresa demanding the cession of Silesia. --truflip99 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Jägerndorf, Troppau, and Neisse -- in previous sentences, you don't use the comma before and. Pick a style
 * Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Prussia also agreed to take on some of Austria's debts, as well as committing to remain neutral -- to take on some debts and to remain neutral
 * Good point, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * and soon after formalised in the Treaty of Berlin. -- and soon --> later
 * Okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

--truflip99 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After doing some research regarding the use of commas to make sure I wasn't crazy, I found no consensus from style guides so I'll back off mostly. Just note that there are some instances where the consistency is questionable, but the task is too daunting for me to point out at this point except for some obvious ones...


 * "Quadruple Alliance" between Austria, Britain, Saxony, and the Dutch Republic. -- omit comma
 * Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Austria, Saxony, and Prussia -- here too.
 * Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * After this, low supplies forced the Prussians vs. After Prussia's withdrawal the wider War of the Austrian Succession rolled on for another two years -- Less obvious but whatever, I'll let you decide. The general rule is you may omit the comma if the introductory clause is a short phrase, but both uses are present here
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Prussia built new and expanded fortifications at strategic points in Silesia, and its artillery units began to be reequipped with heavier guns. -- why switch to passive on the second clause?
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Maria Theresa initiated a wave of so-called Theresian reforms of Austria's administration and military and a review of its diplomatic policy. -- check grammar
 * Rewritten. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * the realm's systems of taxation which funded a significant expansion of Austria's field armies -- why no comma?
 * Fixed, thanks. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In May Prussian forces took great losses while driving back the Austrian defenders in the Battle of Prague and then besieged the city. -- awkward wording
 * Rewritten. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg." -- MOS:LQ
 * Ah, good catch, fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 1761 saw little activity by the exhausted Prussian and Austrian forces -- probably precede this with "The year"
 * Okay, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Peter was himself overthrown and assassinated within months -- I don't think you need "himself" here as no one else seems to have been overthrown and assassinated, at least in the prose
 * Fair point, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * His debts to fortune (Russia's about-face after Elizabeth's death) -- not sure what this means...
 * It means that it was pretty fortunate for him that Elizabeth died and then Russia arbitrarily switched to his side in the war, against its own interests? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it. Seems more poetic than encyclopedic, no? --truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be more clear with an "e.g." before "Russia's"? Feel free to propose something that seems more suitable to you. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If anything, I would say "His debts to Peter III"
 * I mean, sort of; the "fortune" part is the fact that Elizabeth died just then, as opposed to, say, a year later after Prussia was no more. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but as the prose states -- her death was a mere catalyst for Peter III's ascension, who actually pulled the troops. Also, to say it is fortunate that someone died is a tad in poor taste IMHO. --truflip99 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "mere catalyst"; if she doesn't die, he doesn't accede—that's pretty much how the "mono-" in "monarch" works. As for the latter, the text definitely doesn't say that her death was fortunate; it says that Frederick's success owed something to fortune, which my office dictionary defines as "accident; luck; the turns and courses of luck accompanying one's progress through life". If Fred had, say, had Elizabeth assassinated, then that would have been really taking destiny into his own hands, but, since he doesn't appear to have had anything directly to do with her death, that means that her death was, to him, an act of fortune (accident, luck). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The way I see it is, Liz died. Troops are still fighting. Pete wears crown. Had the option to keep troops fighting but chose to remove them. If we're going to attribute so and so to fortune, one can argue that fortune could have been that Pete happened to be pro-Prussia, or that Fred's troops survived long enough for the Russian events to take place, etc. Anyway, I'm not going to pursue this one detail further. Thanks for making all these other changes. Article looks fantastic. Throwing in my support. --truflip99 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Diplomatic Revolution." -- MOS:LQ
 * Again, good catch. Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Beginning with these steps, wide-ranging efforts to modernise the Habsburg Monarchy over the next half century grew out of Austria's defeat. -- That resulted in what?
 * ...Modest success? Are you asking how successful the Theresian reforms were? That seems beyond the scope to me, since it's the decision to attempt reform that arose out of these wars. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The way it ends is kind of a cliffhanger... is it not possible to extend the same sentence with the state of Austria in that next 50 years (hopefully with a link to another article)? --truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to Josephinism. Does that help? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfect!

That might be it from me. --truflip99 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
I could find precious little to pick at when this was at ACR. Let's see if I can find enough now to be able to claim points for the WikiCup.


 * "As a youth, Frederick III had secretly agreed to this repossession in return for Leopold's payment of some of his debts" I had to read this several times to understand that "In his youth" means prior to his succession, despite its place in the paragraph. Given that this information is given out of chronological order - which I don't have a problem with - could it be made clearer that it was before Fredrick was king?
 * What about "As a young prince", rather than "As a youth?" -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine.


 * "Cavalry units of various weights armed with sabres and pistols were used for reconnaissance and shock tactics." 1. I don't think that "Cavalry units of various weights" communicates unless you already know what is meant. 2. To be picky, "units" aren't "armed"; 'equipped'? 3. "were used for ... shock tactics" isn't grammatical. (Suggest separate sentences on light and heavy cavalry. Not really sure where dragoons fit in.)
 * 1) I've attempted to add some detail. 2) Really? One doesn't arm a unit, only a soldier? Changed. 3) "...for shock attacks", rather than "...for shock tactics"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 & 2: that works. 2, in my understanding. To "arm" a non-person means to armour it.


 * "The Silesian Wars and most European wars of the eighteenth century were fought as" Optional: → 'The Silesian Wars, like most European wars of the eighteenth century, were fought as'?
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "give his vote as elector of Brandenburg in the imperial election" Perhaps clarify a little - 'give his vote as elector of Brandenburg in the imperial election to replace Charles as emperor'?
 * I've tried to add something along those lines. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * " and later formalised in the Treaty of Berlin" Optional: → ' and was later formalised in the Treaty of Berlin'.
 * Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "hoping together to seize Berlin" Maybe → 'hoping to seize Berlin together'? Actually, it probably works best if you just delete "together".
 * Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "the wider War of the Austrian Succession rolled on for another two years" I am not sure how encyclopedic "rolled on" is. Especially in relation to a war.
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Prussia built new and expanded fortifications at strategic points in Silesia" → 'Prussia built new and expanded existing fortifications at strategic points in Silesia'?
 * What about removing "new": "Prussia built and expanded fortifications ..."? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good thinking.


 * As I commented at ACR, we have victories which are "major"; "substantial"; and "solid". And defeats "decisively" (three times); "decisive" (once); and major. IMO the prose would be improved if most, or even all, of these were simply victories or defeats.
 * Some battles actually are more important than others in the course of a conflict, and there is a spectrum of possible outcomes, from going entirely one side's way (e.g. Rossbach) to breaking about even (e.g. Mollwitz). If you can think of better ways to convey this information, I'm open to suggestions. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't in principle disagree. Although I would rather express their importance by explaining the effects; but understand the constraints within a summary article like this. What jumps out is the four decisive(ly)s, two in the same paragraph. ('heavy'?)
 * Well, let's see: Pfaffenhofen ended Bavaria's involvement in the wars; Hohenfriedberg ended the Austrian attempt to recover Silesia in 2SW; Rossbach ended France's involvement in 3SW; Leuthen played a role in 3SW analogous to Hohenfriedberg in 2SW, ending serious efforts by Austria to occupy Silesia. The articles on these battles tend to describe them in their lead sections as "decisive" (including ones that are FAs). I've cut the word from the description of Kunersdorf in the image caption, since, though it was tactically quite decisive, strategically it failed to decide the war (the "Miracle"). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just counted the number of "heavy" or "heavily" defeats in First Punic War, currently at ACR, and decided that I should shut up!


 * "with intermittent skirmishing in Saxony through the end of the year" Optional: this is American English to the point that it may not make sense to many non-North Americans. Maybe 'with intermittent skirmishing in Saxony until the end of the year'?
 * Oh! What, "through the end"? Really! What about "throughout the remainder of the year"? "Until" seems to me to indicate that it ended at that time, which is not the case here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Really. Now you have me intrigued. If we can't use until because that incorrectly implies that the fighting had ended by the end of the year, in what ways do "through" or "throughout the remainder" not have the same implication?
 * If anything "throughout the remainder" is worse. I think of my English as being reasonably cosmopolitan, but if I came across that cold, I would be guessing its meaning from context.
 * Huh! Haha okay, as to your question ("in what ways do 'through' or 'throughout the remainder' not have the same implication?"), in my dialect(?) to go "through" something is to go from one side to the other and beyond ("Over the river and through the wood, to Grandmother's house we go"), so if the fighting continues "through" the end of the year, then it goes from before that to after that. If that doesn't read to a non-North American, then we'll have to change it, but to something that (in European English) indicates continuity from before to after and beyond. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I strongly suspect that all of that would be completely lost on a non-NA reader. If I were writing this, which I'm not, I would say 'with intermittent skirmishing continuing in Saxony into the next year' or similar.
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "marking Prussia's rise to the status of a new European great power" "new" seems redundant.
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Under "Outcomes": "The small kingdom secured some 35,000 square kilometres (14,000 sq mi) of new territory and around a million new subjects, greatly enhancing its resources and prestige." Suggest deleting this, as the next paragraph expands "The kingdom had gained control of extensive new lands in Glatz and Silesia,[35] a region both populous and densely industrialised that would contribute substantial manpower and taxes to the Prussian state. Geostrategically, Silesia also gave Prussia a threatening position with respect to Saxony and Austria and a strong defence against encirclement by Poland.[2] Frederick's personal reputation was enormously enhanced by his successes in the wars".
 * The first paragraph introduces and summarizes the ideas that the subsequent subheadings expand upon. Isn't this typical Wikipedia structure, given that readers sometimes tend to read only the beginnings of things? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thought that I had responded to this. No. Not in my experience nor practice. Information in the lead is expanded on within the main article. I have not - so far as I can recall - come across the same approach being used within a section. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "the excise on grains" I think that "grains" should lose the "s".
 * "Grains" seems to be a pretty common usage; the point is that there was an excise on the various grains grown and consumed in that place and time, e.g. wheat, rye, barley, spelt, oats, millet... -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. In UK English in this context the plural of grain is grain; if it is grains in US English, then fine - I have learnt something.
 * Well, but, I'm trying to have this series be written in European English, so, fair enough; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "which led to significant increases in state revenues" Maybe 'which led to a significant increase in state revenues'?
 * Making it plural maybe makes clear that the increase didn't happen just once, all at once? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all. I tried hard to find more structural or thematic issues to complain about, but to no avail. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just "decisively" and "through" left, but I am supporting anyway. This is a masterful piece of work and a fitting capstone to the series. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I reviewed this at GAN, along with the three individual war articles, and this one again at Milhist ACR, so I may be too close to the material to come up much in the way of substantive points, but all I can see mostly nitpicking:
 * Lead
 * were a series of three wars
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * should Silesia link to Lands of the Bohemian Crown? This would also help with understanding why Ferdinand I was in charge there
 * Hrm... I quite like linking both Lands of the Bohemian Crown and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) together when summarizing Maria Theresa's inheritance a few graphs later, but I see your point. I wonder if it could be made more clear by editing or expanding the parenthesis; "Silesia's feudal overlord"? Would a link to Feudalism in the Holy Roman Empire help? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * link Protestantism
 * Good idea, done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In general, I think it would help understanding if you didn't pipe geopolitical entities at first mention, for example:
 * Body
 * Brandenburg should be Margraviate of Brandenburg
 * Bohemia should be Kingdom of Bohemia
 * Moravia should be Margraviate of Moravia
 * Bavaria should be Electorate of Bavaria
 * Saxony should be Electorate of Saxony
 * Interesting idea! I've tried some of this, and will look at applying it to the others in the series. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Other stuff:
 * suggest initial cap for realpolitik (as in the lead), as it is a German noun
 * Good catch, fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * link Rhineland for Rhenish, as it is obscure
 * Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Austria 's recovering Silesia"
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * suggest "King George II"
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "After the Treaty of Dresden, Maria Theresa"
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "prompting a diplomatic reordering"? It seems to me that "signifying" would be better here?
 * I see your point. How about "completing"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * suggest "once again chose to strike first.[64] On 29 August 1756" the colon adds unneeded complexity when the sentence would be better off split
 * Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all your help! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
Did I miss the source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review
The sources are of high quality and reliable. The issue of the age of Carlyle has been discussed in previous ACR's of this series, and there is a consensus that it remains an important detailed source on the subject. I have conducted citation spotchecks on several articles in this series during reviews at GAN and Milhist ACR, and they have all checked out. Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)