Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frederick III, German Emperor


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

Frederick III, German Emperor

 * Passed -- Gen. Bedford his Forest 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested this article to undergo A-Class review because over the past few months I have been improving this article greatly, culminating in receiving Good Article status and beyond. I'd like to eventually get it to FA status and feel a review by other project members and getting it to A Class would help on the way and massively improve the article. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Describing the Emperor as a "war hero" in the lead sounds rather POV, consider changing it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to how he was celebrated as a war hero because of his leadership in the wars, amd added a source with those sentiments that I cited at the end of the sentence. If you think the citation should go immediately after the claim, let me know. --Banime (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Better, but it still just doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps something along the lines of: "Celebrated for his military successes and leadership during the Second Schleswig War, the Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian War before his reign as German Emperor, Frederick III became popular due to these achievements and his liberal ideals." What do you think? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I like that, I added it in. Things may shift around as I look at expanding/changing the intro, but the sentences themselves more or less will stay the same.  I like that wording better anyway. --Banime (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work so far, just a few improvements and this will be good to go. Cam (Chat) 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment—the lead is too short. The lead should probably be expanded to about two or three paragraphs, and should cover each topic discussed in the article. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I edited it, you can see the full reply below. --Banime (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments in relation to the five AC-Criteria
 * A1 - Citation & Verifiability - this is mostly fine, there's a few things that need to be cited that aren't, which I have fact-tag-bombed. References are all formatted fine, all from reliable sources
 * Quick question on this one, I can't see any fact tags and I tried ctrl+f searching... can you point me to the right sections? --Banime (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A2 - Comprehensive & Accurate - this one's alright, although, as Catalan mentioned, the lead could use some rewriting and restructuring.
 * A3 - Structure - Lead warrants some expansion. Other than that, the remainder of the article is structured very well.
 * A4.1 - Prose - Generally good, although it could use a general tweaking from someone new to the text.
 * A4.2 - MoS Compliance - this one was very good. No issues here.
 * A5 - Images - this is also good. All copyright tags check out, images are well-placed and well-used.


 * Thanks a lot to everyone who has looked at it so far, I'll get to work on the lead improvements (prose, expansion, and npov) and work on the citations needed. Finally, I'll try to improve the prose but I've read it so many times its hard for me to pick up on what's awkward and what isn't.  Thanks again so far. --Banime (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from Lazulilasher First: this is great work. Since you are on the path to FA, I am going to try and provide critical feedback; more so then I would for an article of lesser quality.


 * The Lead: This was mentioned earlier. Remember, if you get this to FA and the article goes on the main page: this is what millions will read. Thus, the lead needs to concisely summarise the entire article, draw readers in; the lead should be able to stand as a briefer, standalone article.
 * Marriage and Family: The marriage was a great love match.: Is this an oft-used historical term? Or is it colloquial? I don't understand what the implication is: did the two love one another? Were they merely a match-made?
 * I added a new source with this in it. Both sources state the term "love match" but I changed it so it was easier to understand.  The couple loved each other despite having an arranged marriage.  Hopefully it's clearer now. --Banime (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Same section: Relations between both parents and William would prove to be difficult throughout the years.: why?
 * Franco-Prussian War I'd be interested in reading just a bit more about his involvement.
 * Vaguaries: Try to be precise, especially when making claims. For example, this sentence from the Legacy section: Many historians have considered Frederick's early death as an end to the course of liberalism within the German empire. Be clear who considers/posits/claims/asserts what: Try Lazulilasher, Saarland historian, considered...
 * In the same section: Given a longer reign and better health, many historians and scholars believe that it is possible that he would have moved Germany towards a more liberal democratic course, possibly preventing Germany's militaristic path towards war Claims, and can we expand this more? This is a WOW! Is there an argument for a "personal/political beliefs" section? Frederick's political beliefs are frequently referenced: might they merit their own section?
 * The Dr. Bergman bit is fascinating.
 * Closing: This is a good read. I would suggest just a bit more expansion on some points, but otherwise: great job. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply Thanks for the tips Lazulilasher. I made a few changes as you'll see.  I'm still working on the perfect introduction and other things, but I'd like to mention my thoughts so far on some of your comments.  Another editor suggested merging all of this political beliefs into one section as well too, and I'll look into it.  And yes, the claim that he could've potentially stopped both world wars is a big one which is why I was really careful when writing about it.  It's a big part of his life and how he is studied.  Many people at the time thought he could move Germany into a liberal direction (more like England) and when his father continued to live and then he got sick it spelled doom for that idea, since his son William II was obviously not as liberal (read more about how many historians think that William II's war mongering started World War I, etc.).  Many historians today write about that as well (I'll go into it and try to cite specific authors more clearly).  But the fact is theres also historians who believe nothing would have changed.  And no one really knows anyway, since he died so soon.  His shorter life is one of history's big "what ifs" and I want to give weight to why historians still study him today but I don't want to stretch it into a long essay about how he potentially could have stopped World War II before it began (liberal>no war mongering leader>no ww1>no treaty of versailles>no depression etc>no ww2 or something like that).  I'll look into it and seeing what I can do to expand it without giving undue influence to either side.  --Banime (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, that's going to be tough. Without being an expert on the subject, I recommend: prepare an education/philosophy section investigating his beliefs, opinions, and how those were formed. I wouldn't tread too heavily on what-if-scenarios, but if it is widely enough-held I would cite it (or maybe in the notes section? and have an external link/rec reading part for those looking to read more). All in all, I think this is a well-done article and does service to the subject. Maybe a little expansion as we've discussed above to provide a broader understanding of who the man was (and in what context). Good work, again. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to everyone who has commented so far, especially about the lead. I have updated the lead and expanded it, but I know there must be a few problems with it.  Can anyone take a look, let me know if its the right direction, and what else I may need to do with the lead?  Also, everything in the lead is cited specifically later in the article, but let me know if anything should be cited again in the lead just in case.  Thanks for your help so far.  Once this is done I'll attempt Lazulilasher's new sectioning idea, but I want to get the intro great first. --Banime (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead is much improved. It summarizes the entire article and provides an adequate overview for the new reader. I prefer uncited leads, as I loathe redundant citations. This is, however, my opinion--others might disagree. I'll keep checking in and take a deeper look at the article/prose over the weekend. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I also don't particularly like cited leads, at least heavily cited.  I also will keep it pretty general (such as the claims that "historians feel this...") and later in the article when I expand and try to work in your sections I'll try to put individual historians in and so forth.  Thanks for looking at it again and I'll still be updating it. --Banime (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, another thing I was wondering: perhaps the education section could be expanded and somehow "linked" to a political philosophy section. I am trying to picture who this man was—and why. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm doing a major rewrite now. I did the introduction, and would welcome more thoughts on improving it.  Right now I'm seriously reworking the "legacy" section to get it close to perfection.  I really want it well cited, specific, and yet showing all sides of his legacy (the potentially stopping world war i, world war ii, etc) both good and bad (he wasn't liberal enough, he wouldn't have changed things, etc.).  I welcome tips on the legacy section as well. After that I'll try to go through and expand the military section until that is much improved as well, I'll try to better highlight what he accomplished during the wars.  Finally, I'll have to rewrite all of the rest to better explain his education, and perhaps add that section on his personal beliefs to better condense all of that.  I'm not sure where to put that yet though and what to include in it, so I'll be working on intro/legacy/military first.  Also, I'm not quite sure how this works, but since there is a lot of work to be done should I close this A-Class review?  I really appreciated getting feedback from all of you though as it helps a lot, would keeping it up be a problem?  Thanks for all of your help. --Banime (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) Excellent. First, I am not an expert on MILHIST's process: but, this type of dialogue is what I imagine A-class' purpose to be. The article was brought here in good shape; what we are doing now is pushing it beyond good. Our intention should be excellence. I think these in-depth discussions are part of that process. Hence, I would support keeping the review open; you are working quickly and the article is improving each time I look at it. A-class critera mirror FA criteria. The more prepared the article is for the FAC process, the better.
 * On to the content: great work so far. The key is to balance between detail and summary style (I am notoriously poor at this). I agree, an expanded military section would be useful; I am particularly curious about his involvement in the Franco-Prussian War. It appears you are working on the education/legacy/philosophies section, so let's take a look at that next. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I find it helpful to look at FAs of similar subject matter, for use as a guide. Looking in MILHIST's showcase cabinet, I found these. Perhaps they would be helpful: David I of Scotland, James II of England, and William III of England. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those tips. I really like how the legacy section and intro are right now so they're definitely in the right direction.  I expanded the military commander section a bit so far.  I cited the Illustrated London News twice I think for quotes, does anyone know of anyway that I can find an author for that?  It's not on the picture of it and I'd really like it, since right now the footnote just says "Illustrated London News" and in the reference section it has just the title, newspaper, page, and date.--Banime (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after a decent bit of work on all of the sections that I thought needed the most help, I come to the concern of adding a new section entitled "Personal beliefs" or something. How do you think, if at all, that should be executed? As I look at it now I feel like it progresses nicely through his life, showing how he gained his beliefs on the way, and it culminates with his short reign and then the large legacy section. However I'm open to other suggestions but I'm not sure exactly how it should be implemented, if at all. Thanks for everyone's help so far. --Banime (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go read the article in one moment; I've been busy trying to start up my new project. I'll try and help in after I reread the article (I've not read it in a few days, and from my watchlist I can tell you've been working a lot on it). Lazulilasher (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I didn't expect you to have as much time with your new admin duties now anyway. Take your time. --Banime (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya, adminning (what was I thinking? :) Well, the article looks great: imo very close to FA standards. I've done some minor copy edits, mostly removing redudancies (feel free to revert my changes). I like the Legacy section; it balances both sides of the "liberal" philosophy. I'm thinking that political philosophy could be sandwiched under the Legacy part? However, I'm having a change of heart--maybe they shouldn't be included, as the augmented article already adresses these questions. Not sure; what do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot, I support this article's promotion to A-class; although, I would work on eliminating redudancies (also, etc) from the copy before submitting to FA. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If there should be another section, I don't think it should be after the legacy as I like that at the end.  If anything I'd put the political philosophy right after his death and before the legacy I think.  However as of now I think it works well without one.  I wanted it to go through his life and accomplishments and when appropriate say what things affected his development (politically and so forth) and then have that culminate with his unfortunate early death and never really being able to actually do anything.  Then I think that sets up the legacy section perfectly since it shows that he's sort of the big "what if" with ww1/ww2 in many historians eyes.  But I've been working this article for months so if any fresh eyes have any ideas I'll look into them of course. And yeah I'm going to go through it more, perhaps submit it to a peer review later and such before going for FAC.  Thanks for all of your help so far.--Banime (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with the improved lead. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support
 * In the second paragraph of the lead, consider linking Revolutions of 1848, as the way it is now sounds awkward, and makes it sound like the Revolutions of 1848 were only in the German states.
 * "or could not because of the German political climate being unfavorable to liberalism at the time." in the lead sounds awkward. Consider changing it to "or could not because of the German political climate at the time, which was unfavorable to liberalism."
 * Revolutions of 1848 should only be linked the first time it appears.
 * So should liberalism. I would recommend making sure there's nothing else linked twice that I missed.
 * "Emperor William, seeking to raise the capital of Berlin to a great cultural center, appointed Frederick as Protector of Public Museums." makes it sound like he was trying to improve the capital of the province, country, etc. of Berlin, not a city. It might sound better as "seeking to make Berlin, the capital city, into a great cultural center..."
 * In the Illness and brief reign section, it might be better to write the full names of the doctors the first time they appear, instead of just "Dr. Bergman" and "Dr. Virchow." Besides those problems it looks good, although I would suggest a more through copy-edit before you take it to FA, as there were a couple of awkwardly worded places that I didn't mention here. Joe  ( Talk ) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips, I've made all of those improvements and will definitely get a thorough copy-edit before going to FA.--Banime (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.