|Habsburg Spain is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 12, 2005.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|Version 0.5 (Rated B-Class)|
|This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
If anybody is taking care of this article, I have improved Isabel Clara Eugenia and created Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand and Alonso de la Cueva, which I think may be ilinked from the current article. I know to little about HS to be sure myself if I am right, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I made a passing mention of Isabel Clara Eugenia and Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand, though I couldn't find a way to make a mention of Alonso de la Cueva without having to write a new paragraph. One of the difficulties with these three characters is that they are integral to Spain's external policy, and one of the chief criticisms of the article the first time it went through FAC was that it was too focused on external affairs. Adam Faanes 12:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Datest in section headers
Consider removing the dates from the sections that span the entire period. In general, dates in headers make them look rather dry and far less dynamic and should be avoided when possible. The time span is, after all, already summarized in the lead.
Peter Isotalo 08:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- So do you propose removing them from only the sections you previously removed them from, leaving part with dates and part without? --DanielNuyu 23:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'd prefer no dates in sections at all, but most of the sections seem to merit them. I don't see any reason to specify dates for sections that indeed cover the entire period and are about very general subjects. Your call. / Peter Isotalo 03:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I added three images back: Zaragoza, by Velasquez, to the economy section, Ricci's Inquisition to the Society and the Inquisition section, and Titian's Charles V to the 1521-1556 section. There are still no more than two images per section, and I don't think that the formatting was damaged. Charles V, at least, certainly deserves a picture in the article. Adam Faanes 12:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Defense of Cadiz´s painter is Zurbaran not Velazquez
Picky bit of semantics
"Spain's maritime supremacy was symbolized by the victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto in 1571, but in the following decades they suffered defeat at sea against England and the Netherlands." The word 'symbolized' doesn't make sense. A lion on a flag symbolizes courage- but the actual act of courage isn't symbolic. It's like saying "walking symbolizes motion." I'd edit it, but since it's in the midst of being featured, I haven't the gumption. Maybe "Spain's maritime supremacy was demonstrated by the victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto..." or just put it in the active voice, "Spain's victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto in 1517 left them as the preeminent maritime power in Europe, but in the following decades..."
This is quite picky, but it is being featured and that sort of error gives the impression of forced sophistication.
- My agreement is symbolized by a significant modification. Hasta Luego. Provocateur (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
inherited the throne from his father
Charles inherited Spain from his grandparents, a bit complicated, but not from his father Philip. Philip left him only the Nethjerlands and Franche-Comte. It is of course easy (but erroneous) to follow the path that everything is inherited by son from his father, but sometimes inheritances go in a different way than the ages-old patriarchal way. This is a sad incorrectness, factual error, in the article. 184.108.40.206 05:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest renaming Habsburg Spain into History of Spain under Habsburgs, as the current name suggest articles about a former states, when in fact it is just history of a current state article. Consider also an example of History of Poland (1945–1989) vs. People's Republic of Poland, or History of Poland (1569-1795) vs. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Note also that as this article is purely history, I don't think this is a valid enough reason to de-FA it (as I am suggested should be done to several others, like Byzantine Empire or Old Swiss Confederacy, but eventually this name must be given up to former state article and current one moved to History of... name. Note this reasoning applies to several others History of Spain articles as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think more information should be given in the respective section. There is no reference to the Black legend and I the article would benefit from more details on how it operated.
Look at this sentence: Although torture was common in Europe, the way the Inquisition was practiced encouraged corruption and betrayal, and it became a driving factor in the decay of Spanish power.
What does torture got to do with corruption/betrayal and eventually with the decay of Spanish power? I dont contest the statement, but it seems to try to condense a whole paragraph into one sentence.
As a historical account, it would benefit from a more clear statement of how the inquisition was set up, how it was organized and the problems it posed. Regards Carlos Cgonzalezdelhoyo 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone who watches this page direct me to a relatively brief, in English, but authoritative account of when, how and why the Mesta collapsed? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"The beginnings of the empire": two questions
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, "However, the Spanish Habsburg created..." — do we mean "the Spanish Habsburgs created" or "the Spanish Habsburg [noun] created..."?
Possible Nomination of GA status
From what I've read, this article could certainly recieve a GA status pending a few edits, but I need to know if the person(s) that worked on this article are willing to edit and add extra citations (most definitely needed) in order for it to qualify (I wouldn't review it, obviously, but I'd like to see well-written articles such as this achieve GA or FA status.) Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)