Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Godesberg/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayen466 (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 31 July 2010 (→Comments by Nev1: re to Nev1 -- some images++). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Siege of Godesberg

Siege of Godesberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk), JN466 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We, Jayen and I, are nominating this for featured article because...it is now ready for the ultimate of critiques and assessments. The article grew out of the Cologne War, which passed the FA process last summer; this is one of the most important sieges, and one of the most interesting, of the war. We've been working on it together for several months, and Jayen has added a lot of the old German material, plus a few more images. We've also tried to balance the background, siege and aftermath. It is comprehensive as well as focused, and gives the reader enough information on the context of the 16th century Germany and 16th century siege warfare, but does not overwhelm with extraneous material. We hope you agree. auntieruth (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I'm not sure I can do much here, given the preponderance of German sources, but here are a few points:-

  • Bibliography
    it is the Bonn city website. Given the nature of what it is citing, it should be a reliable source. auntieruth (talk)
    • Dumont et al: presumably in German? What does the dash after "1883" signify?
    Ongoing publication.auntieruth (talk)
    • MacCulloch lacks ISBN, likewise Parker
    • You should show Parker, not a confusing dash, as the author of the Army of Flanders book, the correct title of which is The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567–1659 Note: this book was first published in 1978.
    this is changed.auntieruth (talk)
  • Citations and notes
    • There is inconsistency in the use of short-form citations. Basically, citations to any of the works listed in the bibliography should be in short form.
    all references are listed in the bibliography. They are listed in full in the for the first citation in the citations section, and after that, they are listed in short form. This is a common and standard form of citation in history articles anywhere (wikipedia and elsewhere: see Cologne War, War of the Bavarian Succession, Unification of Germany, Battle of Austerlitz. auntieruth (talk)
    • "pp." should be used for page ranges, "p." for single pages. See 4, 17, 29 and perhaps others.
    • citation 7 lacks a page number
    swapped it for a better source: Jakob Grimm
    • What work is 68 citing?
    Theodor V. Brodek, "Socio-Political Realities of the Holy Roman Empire," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 1971, 1(3), pp. 395–405, cited pp. 400–401. What is problem....? auntieruth (talk)

Otherwise sourcing seems OK Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've found two wording issues in the article, both in the lead:
    • The word fortress is repeated in the first sentence of the second paragraph
    • and in the second paragraph "Nearby Bonn and other towns loyal to Gebhard fell to the Bavarians shortly after." could be worded better.
    • Also these sentences don't seem to be sourced: "Ferdinand was left with only one possibility: to blow the fortress up. This option of last resort would make the fortress unusable for both Gebhard and Ernst."

These are the only issues I can find at the moment.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 12:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I've fixed the two wording issues in the lead. [3] --JN466 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the two sentences, I've sourced the first one (they were Ferdinand's own words). Perhaps Auntieruth has a source for the second one; alternatively, we could agree to drop it, or to leave it unsourced, as it merely states the obvious and arguably improves the flow of the passage. --JN466 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of the specificity and added Parker as a source. auntieruth (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) --JN466 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been adressed.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kitchen roll, does this mean you support or oppose? You reviewed the article against the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Based on our off page discussion, I understand you may not feel qualified to evaluate on 1c (well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic). Based on your reading does it meet the other FA criteria? auntieruth (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
replied on my talk page.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an outstanding article which easily meets the FA criteria. I knew nothing about either the war or this battle before reading this article, and found it to be very informative and clearly written. My only suggestion is that you might want to say what the Godesberg was in the second sentence (eg, rather than 'The Godesburg had been built in the early 13th century' you could say something like 'The Godesburg fortress...'. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. You are right about the missing word; I've added it. --JN466 00:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • JN, didn't we have this conversation: Sahara desert? Godesburg fortress? auntieruth (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not that I can recall. :( If you think it is better without "fortress", please do delete it again (as well as the two other instances of "Godesburg fortress" we have.) There are quite a few references to "Godesburg fortress" in tourist sites and the like on the net, but looking at google books, it does seem that "the Godesburg" is the preferred way of putting it in published writing. I can see merit in either and am easy either way. --JN466 11:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm okay with it, but some of the German speakers might not be. It will be up to you. The sources I used did refer to it the Godesburg, although not the tourist sites. But most tourists probably don't speak much German anymore. I guess it was Mr.B that wanted it to read just Godesburg. This is why there is the note. I will leave it to you. auntieruth (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As another comment, the fortress is referred to both as 'Godesberg' and 'Godesburg' (and there are two mentions of a 'Godesburg fortress' in addition to the recent addition of 'Godesberg fortress' after my above comment. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • these concerns should be fixed now.  ? auntieruth (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For reference, note that "Godesberg" is the mountain on which the fortress named "Godesburg" was built, and "Godesberg" was also the name of the village that the castle was a part of (today Bad Godesberg, and part of the city of Bonn). Burg means castle in German, Berg means mountain, and -berg is a frequent component in German place names (Heidelberg, Nuremberg, etc.). --JN466 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An impressive article that reads well. I have a few minor comments and questions:

  • No need to use "Rhein"; "Rhine" is the commonly accepted English spelling. Mapmaker used "Rhein" in the map, so we maintained the usage for consistency. auntieruth (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "Ernst of Bavaria" be "Ernest of Bavaria" as per his Wiki title and convention on royal naming? Convention in this article is the German spelling. auntieruth (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Infobox: shouldn't Ernest of Bavaria have a Bavarian symbol to denote who he represented at the time of the battle? Not really. He was the contending archbishop/elector, and thus he should be represented by the Electoral symbol. He shouldn't etc the Bavarian symbol anymore than he should get the Count of Arenberg's or the Duke of Parma's (later). His brothers came to his aid, so his brother has the Bavarian symbol. auntieruth (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Controversy of conversion: "the Count Solms" sounds odd. Is it meant to be "Count of Solms" or "Count Solms"? The Count Solms is the wording used in the sources. I think, also, there was a transition from one count to the successor in the middle of all this. I'm not sure he had the "of" in his title, either. auntieruth (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fortress: "the world for mountain" should be "the word for mountain" · fixed --JN466 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @"lieblingssitz" should be "Lieblingssitz". Or is there a convention about using lowercase for German nouns? Yes, it should, but it kept getting changed (earlier), so I had left it. It is now changed back. auntieruth (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @"bergfried" should be "Burgfried" or, better, just translate it as "keep". · don't mind changing to keep, but note that Bergfried is correct --JN466 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • @Investment of the fortress: "Bürgermeister (mayor)" could just be "mayor". It could, but why not use the German? auntieruth (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @"fussvolk": isn't that better translated as "foot soldiers", as "infantry" implies trained soldiers. this was the phrase used in the source, and in the image's text. It was also the commonly and contemporaneously used term for infantry in the 16th century. auntieruth (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Destruction of the fortress (17 December 1583):"With much difficulty, given the state of mind of the besiegers, and Ferdinand and Arenberg managed to bring the Buchners and Sudermann out of the castle alive" - the sentence doesn't make total sense. "and" needs to come out. Will take care of it. auntieruth (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Immediate consequences:"Furthermore, the victor must maintain and defend all one's own possessions as they were acquired" would be better as "had to maintain ... all his possessions" reworded. thanks! auntieruth (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope this helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's come a long way since I reviewed it back in its larval B-class and GA stages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niggling (would help to improve the article, but not big violations of policies/guidelines):
Would be helpful if a more "affirmative" sourcing is provided Of concerns (best to resolve):
So far the above. Jappalang (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review.
  • Fascinating, I never saw that version on the site. :) Do you think the black and white image we had is an older photograph of the window? The coloured version has joins where the b&w version appears to have unbroken glass. (And it might be worth creating a cropped version of the coloured version, just to have the castle a bit bigger.) Thanks for finding this. --JN466 09:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think the black and white photo could be an older version. The arches and the drawing are the same as well as the thick black line at the bottom right. The two thinner joints might be added much later, perhaps as repairs (either cracks caused by natural forces, expansion-contraction, or stones thrown by miscreants). Jappalang (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am just looking into the Gebhard portrait, and note there are colour versions of that picture to be had as well, on de:WP: [4], [5], albeit with lower resolution. One of these has the frame of the image as well, and the year 1579 is inscribed on the frame. (I see the frame was removed from the de:WP image because of a copyright concern—it's not two-dimensional.) --JN466 09:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've uploaded the colour version of the Gebhard portrait and inserted it in the article. Is it okay? --JN466 15:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I was already aware of that image (yes, the black and white photo would very likely be of the colour portrait), but I thought you might have some book source or something. One uncertainty I keep running through my mind over the lettering of the date on the frame is whether it attests to the painting's provenence or simply artist's method of titling his work (Gebhard in 1579). I am not going to oppose over it but I do think that it would be better to confirm the painting's history.
  • I'm not sure the source page is in error. This was part of a multi-volume series, the Braun-Hogenberg drawings and descriptions of cosmopolitan scenes, called Civitates Orbis Terrarum and the inaugural volume was published in 1572. See Georg Braun. Also Here for a description of the work. The correct date should read 1572— and probably once did. auntieruth (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is up with upper and lowercase of Fortress/fortress here?
  • 3 Investment of the Fortress fixed --JN466 09:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3.3 Destruction of the fortress (17 December 1583)

Please do a general MOS check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done another close proofread and copyedit. --JN466 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have as well. auntieruth (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the 1579 date of the Gebhard painting, I am for the moment stumped. The book by Glaser, which contains a black-and-white version of the painting, only has snippet view in google books, but it does not seem to give a date for the painting. I've added a note to the image's Commons page saying that the date is 1579 according to the painting's frame. --JN466 16:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through Vochezer's vol. 3, which has the family history of Gebhard's generations, and there is no mention of a portrait. Vochezer is more interested in the family's debts, of which Gebhard's were enormous. Given that the painting has the bishop's mitre in it, it is no earlier than 1579, when he was elected. Considering he was deposed in 1583 or 1589, depending on whose version you accept, it is painted in that 10 year period. auntieruth (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that narrows it down sufficiently. I propose we can add a corresponding note and source reference to the image description, if Jappalang feels it would be helpful. --JN466 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did say that it was not something I would oppose over; the frame hints at the age. I just changed the heading to something that reflects the sentiment; i.e. a more conclusive sourcing (like a published conclusion) would improve the situation but it is not something I feel I would oppose over. Jappalang (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JN466 22:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jayjg

Support Comments

  • Bavarian and mercenary soldiers surrounded the Godesberg, a mountain on top of which sat a formidable fortress that commanded the roads leading to and from Bonn and Cologne. The fortress, called the Godesburg,[1] had been built in the early 13th century... - you mention "the Godesburg", apparently a mountain, then introduce it again in the next sentence, but this time it's the fortress. Should probably be Bavarian and mercenary soldiers surrounded a mountain on top of which sat a formidable fortress that commanded the roads leading to and from Bonn and Cologne. The fortress, called the Godesburg,[1] had been built in the early 13th century Godesburg is the fortress, Godesberg is the mountain (as well as the adjoining village). Burg = castle, Berg = mountain. They are homophones in English pronunciation, but not in German. ;) There is a footnote explaining this. --JN466 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • and it was to lead to the castle's destruction. Which castle? You've mentioned none so far. Do you mean the fortress? The words are not synonyms. Was it both a castle and a fortress? If so, it needs to be introduced that way.
  • The fortress came under attack from Bavarian forces in November 1583. The castle resisted a lengthy cannonade by the attacking army - see above. Should probably be The fortress came under attack from Bavarian forces in November 1583. It resisted a lengthy cannonade by the attacking armyNot sure about this. The Godesburg is described as both a castle and a fortress in published sources: [9][10] --JN466 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
    • That may be the case, but here the word "It" is still better. And if you're going to use castle and fortress interchangeably, then you need to explain that up front, before you start using the terms. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • and blew up a significant part of the castle. - see above. There's too much use of "the castle", and too much repetition of "the fortress". If you want to vary the writing, you should should use "it" and "the Godesberg".Good point. Will have a look through. --JN466 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italian mercenaries hired with papal gold increased the Catholic force." - "increased" isn't the right word here, should probably be something like "augmented". Changed to "augmented". --JN466 18:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cathedral chapter" - please explain what this is. done
  • "ecclesiastical see" "ecclesiastical reservation" - you might want to have brief parenthetical explanations of these generally unfamiliar phrase. Yes, they are linked, but a very brief explanation will assist the reader.done

*"canoness", "cloister" - somewhat unfamiliar terms, particularly for those not familiar with church history. Brief explanations or even dablinks would help. Explained canoness more fully, changed cloister to convent --JN466 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • "maintained a lengthy liaison with the Archbishop of Cologne" - what does this mean? Is it a coy euphemism for sexual relations? Does it mean merely correspondence? Friendship? done
    • Where was this done? I can't see it. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Ruth may have placed "done" in the wrong line. At any rate, I think the implication is that the liaison was sexual, or at least people assumed that it was; her brothers were worried about her honour. Quite a few sources speak of a "liaison"; others describe Agnes as Gebhard's "concubine" or "mistress". Sources are positive that he fell in love with her; so it was at any rate a romantic affair, as I think is commonly perceived to be the meaning of the word "liaison". I don't mind using something more modern if you prefer. --JN466 10:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extended religious parity to the evangelical faiths in the electorate" - this is a complicated phrase - something like "extended equal religious rights to Protestants in the electorate" would be easier to understand. Also, you usually capitalize "electorate" in this article.
  • "5000" - should have a comma, "5,000" Done. --JN466 18:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the competition grew more heated," - what does this mean? Was the rhetoric more heated? Fist-fights? Riots?
yes, all of the above. clarified. auntieruth (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "succumbing to the imperial threats of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor or to Gebhard's chronic inability to pay his soldiers." - I don't think "succumbing" is the correct term here. Should probably be intimidated by the imperial threats of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor or frustrated by Gebhard's chronic inability to pay his soldiers.
  • "and the Count Solms" - who is this?
  • Despite these losses, with the support of Adolf von Neuenahr and the Count Solms, Gebhard secured northern and eastern portions of the Electorate and in the fall of 1583, he still held the Godesburg, located near the villages of Godesberg and Friesdorf, as well as the formidable fortress at Bonn and the fortified village of Poppelsdorf. - this sentence is very long, should probably be split, "Electorate. In the fall of 1583". Also, I think you mean secured the northern and eastern portions of the Electorate
  • still made it a formidable adversary - I don't think a fortress can really be an "adversary"; perhaps a term like "structure".done
  • To invest the fortress - "invest" is not typically used the way, "besiege" or "capture" might be more easily understood terms. done
  • ''pillage, arson, murder and rape. - there is an earlier use of "pillage", that is the one that should be linked. Thanks, done. --JN466 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distance between the curtain wall and the valley floor - "curtain wall" is already linked earlier, WP:OVERLINK. Thanks, done --JN466 18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • to blow the fortress up - should be to blow up the fortress.
  • Reluctantly, Ferdinand ordered saps - better: Ferdinand reluctantly ordered saps
  • The sapping was difficult and dangerous.[36] In some places, the sappers had to dig into solid rock.[36] They also worked under continuous attack from the castle's defenders, who fired on them with small arms and the castle's artillery, and dropped rocks and debris on their heads.[36] - these sentences could be combined into one thought, The sapping was difficult and dangerous: In some places, the sappers had to dig into solid rock, and they worked under continuous attack from the castle's defenders, who fired on them with small arms and the castle's artillery, and dropped rocks and debris on their heads.[36] Yep, done. --JN466 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • at around one pm, - more commonly written at around 1:00 pm, Yes, done. --JN466 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources are agreed that the explosion - should be All sources agree that the explosion Done --JN466 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hogenberg lived in Bonn and Cologne in 1583, and could have been expected to have seen the site himself - would be better as Hogenberg lived in Bonn and Cologne in 1583, and likely saw the site himself
  • "In the south, however, Ferdinand's troops hunted the soldiers Gebhard had left in possession of such Oberstift villages as Ahrweiler and Linz; his troops were forced out of their strongholds, hunted through the countryside, and eventually captured." - unclear who the "his" is after the semi-colon. Gebhard, I assume?

An interesting and comprehensive article that is well-sourced and well-illustrated. I think it would be even better if these issues were addressed. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Am answering in small font behind your comments. --JN466 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I've responded to some of your comments. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, please have a look at [12]. I hope this sorts out the confusion between burg and berg, and also establishes the usage of both "fortress" and "castle" in reference to the Godesburg. Does this work? --JN466 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good for the two names, but I don't think really does it for the castle part. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Septentrionalis

  • Oppose.
    • It is regrettable that so little use should be made of English sources; even if they are derived from, or even translations of, German work, they are (if of equal quality) more useful to the reader and therefore preferable.
    • Doing so would have given our editors a chance to see how English deals with German names; Rhein is a public embarassment; Koblenz is possible, but pedantic. The way to deal with the map (if any is needed) is to acknowledge that much of it is in German.
      • We have explained why we've used Rhein (Rhine), etc. English sources deal with these German names in either way: I have read many English sources that use German spellings or English spellings. Furthermore, we have matched the text spelling with the map spelling. This is based on previous experiences in the FA process. Editors have preferred the use of English names, but the mapmaker wanted to use German names. We have made sure it is clear. auntieruth (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read what you said earlier; I disagree. For many places, including Koblenz, common English usage varies significantly; but Rhine, like Cologne, differs: using Rhein is not suitable to an English article. (That you feel bound to italicize it, as a foreign word, is symptomatic.)
    • The etymology from Wotan is "sourced" from 1864. This is nineteenth-century romantic hogwash, incompatible with the Germanic soundshifts; it is mildly interesting that such claims existed, but they should not be presented as current linguistics, unless there is a current source [which I profoundly doubt]. (Derivations from Gott imply that the name is Low German, and should say so.) Solved, if imperfectly.
    • There were many Julians; the mention of Julian the Apostate should specify him, be sourced, and link.solved, if imperfectly.
The material was sourced to Coghlan, page 100 (one of the books mentioned), who does not reffer to which Julian. Regardless, all of it is removed. auntieruth (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the need to associate it with Bad Godesberg, but to identify it as the place where Chamberlain met Hitler is unnecessary. Arguably, most Americans could identify Hitler, and possibly Chamberlain, but to say that this is the town's claim to fame is an overstatement. auntieruth (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be true in Germany; it is not the case in the English-speaking world. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into an argument w/ you on this. I don't think Chamberlain and Hitler belong. The town is famous for its ruins, as are many others in the Rhine valley. I've asked a couple of elderly GIs I know what they know of BG, and they both said immediately, castle ruins. And they were of an age to remember the Hitler and Chamberlain meeting. auntieruth (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done, slightly more elaborately to fit with the existing material. If this stays in, this objection can be struck.
            • I'm happy to leave in the spa material, and have added it to the box, but the meeting between Chamberlain and Hitler is irrelevant. This is not the city's claim to fame nor is it what the city is most known for, which is, instead, its ruin. auntieruth (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at this stretch of text closely, and the other comments, suggest that this article needs a proof-reading by a native speaker before promotion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be this single edit? In itself, entirely justified, but suggesting strongly that there are more lapses in Sprachgefuehl. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for reviewers

Question for reviewers. In other reviews, reviewers have requested that names be consistent w/ those used in maps. For example, if we use "Rhein" on the map, we should use "Rhein" in the text. The reviewer above wants to consistently use the English spelling, Rhine, regardless of the text of the map. The mapmaker refused to use the English words. What is the consensus? auntieruth (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would Rhine (Rhein) on first use, as in the geobox and first sentence of Rhine, solve the problem? Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. --JN466 00:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; if someone wants a similar note in the map caption, that's fine too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nev1

Comment

  • "The Siege of Godesberg, 18 November – 17 December 1583, was the first major siege of the Cologne War (1583–1589). In the siege...": siege three times in the first line, could do with some rewording. Even just dropping "In the siege," would help.
  • Are "Burg" and "Berg" proper nouns? Because if they're not they probably shouldn't be capitalised in the lead.
  • I assume the sources call the event the "Siege of Godesberg"? It might sound like silly question, but I thought it was the castle being besieged rather than the mountain, and the article does later refer to "siege of the Godesburg".
  • The lead states the castle was "Initially a military institution", but not all castles were and their use could be varied and nuanced. This is somewhat lost here. Certainly the context of the construction and the position suggest there may be more than meets the eye. I'd recommend leaving out that assertion unless the sources explicitly make it.
  • As most readers won't know what a donjon is, I'd recommend including a very brief explanation. And it needs be made clear that keep and donjon are synonymous as both are used in the lead. And later bergfried is used. I think this inconsistency is going to confuse readers.
  • It might be worth explaining whether parts of the early castle were timber, or whether it was defended by a timber palisade. Because that's the impression I got when the article later said a curtain wall was added by later bishops. It sounded like before that the castle had no defensive perimeter, that it was just a tower.
  • It should only take a sentence at most to sketch out whether the main defences were originally timber. Otherwise I just don't think it sits quite right. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked through Potthoff, and there is no mention of any timber palisade. The castle begun in 1210 was built from stone, and the outer walls were added at a later date to afford improved protection, probably some time in the 14th century, when curtain walls came into fashion. Note that the keep was surrounded by a ring of stone buildings/walls, and the curtain wall enclosed that ring. So the castle never was just a tower. The tower was built in the middle of the courtyard, and is not the earliest building within the complex. --JN466 22:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. A curtain wall refers to a defensive wall surrounding a courtyard or bailey, so saying that a curtain wall wasn't built until the 14th century, but the inner courtyard was defended by a stone wall before that is something of a contradiction. Nev1 (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I ask you to have a look at the images on this page, in particular the bronze model? The circle of buildings was there first. What Ruth is referring to as the curtain wall is (I believe) the walls that (almost) encircle that circle of buildings, except for one place where the drop was so steep that no wall was thought necessary (and there was nowhere to put one). The Godesburg was a concentric castle. --JN466 00:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it had been enhanced partially in the style made popular by Italian military architects": is this the rounded walls and big gates? Otherwise the only information the reader is given on these enhancements is that they weren't the trace italienne
  • "...one of two outcomes": I can think of a third, although time consuming starvation was an option. Were cities never starved out? This wouldn't have effected castles so much as long as the garrison was small and civilians weren't allowed within the walls, but starving an entire city can be just as effective as bombarding it and though it can take a while was still an option to military commanders of the day.
  • It's odd the source didn't mention it, are there no others you could use? I would expect that a general text on warfare of the day would mention it. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Abbot of Heisterbach, Johann von St. Vith, had been taken prisoner in July 1583 when Sudermann's troops sacked a number of villages in the region and plundered the Heisterbach monastery": I recommend replacing "taken prisoner" with "captured" as "prisoner" is used in the previous and following sentence and it gets a bit repetitious.
  • Is there an estimate for how long the garrison's food supply would have lasted? I think something along those lines would help show the reader why Ferdinand chose to attack (waiting around for months isn't always the best way to spend your time and reinforcements could turn up).
  • Is there a quote for the garrison refusing to surrender on the first day, an in the words of the commander? If available it might add a little flavour.
  • Why is belfry used instead of siege tower? It may be the proper name but people are going to have to leave the article to understand it when it could easily be explained here, ie: "siege tower (known as a belfry)".
  • I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think File:Beschuss und Sprengung der Godesburg 1583.jpg is really of a good standard. Now that may sound harsh as I can't use drawing programs on the computer to save my life, but it's not good enough in my opinion. There are two blobs on the north side of the wall around the upper ward, but I only know they're intentional because I checked the source the plan was created from. I thought the corners on the south side of the upper ward might be the same, but on the actual plan there's a smooth curve. And then on the east side of the wall around the lower ward one of the bastions (I assume that's what is as it doesn't appear to be hollow on the plan) is missing. If I were you I'd find a professional quality plan of the castle and slap a fair use rationale on it.
  • Page 199 of Potthoff's dissertation, which the file gives as the source on which the plan was based. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you must be mistaken. Page 199 is the page reference for the book. The sketch used here owes more to the book than to the pdf dissertation, as the dissertation documents the archaeological dig (including remains from prior use of the site, going back to Roman times), rather than the walls as they are believed to have stood at the time of the siege. The drawing in the book is a very simple (and smaller) black-and-white line drawing, as it is here. If you think there is a particular element that is missing or misplaced, I'll fix it, but it is a good match for what is in the book. --JN466 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're correct, it was 149 of the dissertation it looked at. The issues still stand though, for example the sketch of the south side of the wall of the upper ward looks like it has corners when the dissertation shows it as a smooth curve (the line of the wall appears to be known). I think this would be a good situation to ditch the sketch and use another plan (perhaps the one from the book as it's simpler) under fair use. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scale of the sketch in the book is far too small. The whole line drawing of the castle complex, including the outer ward, is very primitive and just about 1 inch wide in that drawing, because it is embedded in a map that shows the entire environment, including the actual positions of the cannons. If I were to blow this up (not the way Ferdinand did!), the quality would be far worse than what we have. And the sketches in the dissertation do not show what the castle looked like at the time of the attack. So I think we are stuck with making a sketch of our own; I am not aware of any others that show the angles of attack, and the location of the bomb; both are important to visualise the attack and defence strategies, i.e. why the second cannonade managed to breach the walls of the outer ward, for example, or why the defenders transformed the St. Michael's Chapel into a gun emplacement. And what do you mean by the "south side of the wall of the upper ward"? Do you mean the south wall of the outer ward? That certainly has a corner, and looks like it does in all the sketches by Potthoff. Or do you mean the outermost wall to the south of the keep? I agree that I drew that badly, and the walls don't line up as neatly as they should; there are corners in the original, too, but they are less pronounced. --JN466 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In the immediate aftermath of the siege, Ernst's forces had acquired a ruin": but in destroying the castle hadn't they also denied Gebhard a strategic stronghold?

The article is very interesting, and elements such as the quote from Ferdinand add colour to an already interesting story. The article is certainly very detailed, not just laying out the important bits of the siege but with a good background section and excellent explanation of the aftermath. While my comments may come across as nit-picky... well that's because they mostly are. But once they're solved I'll be happy to support the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • Template:Campaignbox Cologne War only appears at Cologne War. Perhaps it should be added on all of its member articles? Also, the Siege of Godesberg isn't mentioned at all in the main Cologne War article. Is there a reason why? Just some thoughts not relevant to this FAC.
  • I don't understand what you're suggesting here. First, the campaign box shows up on all the battle articles that have been done, plus the main article. Second, the Cologne War article has an entire paragraph on this siege. auntieruth (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a main article link for Godesburg in the Fortress section?
    • "The fuse was lit." A bit melodramatic, wouldn't you say? I'd recommend combining it with the next sentence to preserve the proper tone.
    • The last paragraph in the Destruction section is really short. Can you combine it with the previous one? It might help if you remove the mention of the vicar and suffragan from Hildesheim. I don't think that tiny bit is relevant to history on the macro scale.
  • I like the part about the vicar and the suffragan, though. I'll leave this to JN.
  • I'd rather keep it too; several sources comment on it. --JN466 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs have since been combined, as proposed. --JN466 21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the stuff in the Long-term consequences section seems to be more about the Cologne War as a whole and not a consequence of this siege in itself. You may want to summarize and trim it a bit more and link to the relevant section in the Cologne War article.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Siege_of_Godesberg/archive1&oldid=376350067"