Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Godesberg/archive1

Siege of Godesberg

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

• Featured article candidates/Siege of Godesberg/archive1

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk), JN466 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

• Comment—no dab links, nor dead external links. Ucucha 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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

• Bibliography
  • What makes http://www.bonn-region.de/english/sightseeing/fortresses-and-castles/fortress-godesburg-with-st-michael-chapel.html a reliable source?

  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)

• Use of p. and pp. should be consistent now. [1]. --JN466 03:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• MacCulloch and Parker ISBNs added, Parker title fixed, clarified that it's the 2nd edition. [2] --JN466 03:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• For queries related to the citation style, please note User:Auntieruth55/Consistency_of_Citation_style. --JN466 16:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• Thanks. I've fixed the two wording issues in the lead. [3] --JN466 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• 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)

I've removed some of the specificity and added Parker as a source. auntieruth (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --JN466 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments have been adressed.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

replied on my talk page.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Thanks. You are right about the missing word; I've added it. --JN466 00:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • JN, didn't we have this conversation: Sahara desert? Godesburg fortress? auntieruth (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
    • these concerns should be fixed now.  ? auntieruth (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • 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)

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)
• 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)
• @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)
• @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)
• @Fortress: "the world for mountain" should be "the word for mountain" · fixed --JN466 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• @"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)
• @"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)
• @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)
• @"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)
• @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)
• @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)
• Hope this helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Am commenting in small font on your points above. --JN466 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Support. A well-written, well-structure article. The editors have clearly worked hard to get this right. Thank you for your patience in addressing my comments. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

• Support Yep, its all that. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article, very impressed. Everyking (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Image review needed, please ping in an image reviewer; it doesn't appear that any supporters reviewed images, and I'd love to see nominators take on the responsibility of making sure images are cleared when other hurdles have been passed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pinged Jappalang. --JN466 10:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Image review:

Niggling (would help to improve the article, but not big violations of policies/guidelines):

• File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg and File:Hogenberg Poppesdorf 1583.jpg: why does the original source state the date of creation to be 1572? Is this not 11 years before the siege?

Of concerns (best to resolve):

• File:Gebhard von Waldburg.jpg: Where does 1579 come from? The actual source does not point that out.
• File:Godesburg Kirchenfenster Kloster Ehrenstein-Wied.jpg: Where does 1506 come from?
• File:Beschuss und Sprengung der Godesburg 1583.jpg: From what is the layout of the castle based on? What about the source for the attacks?
• File:Bad Godesberg Burgruine Johann Andreas Ziegler.jpg: Point to page, not to image per WP:CITE#IMAGE.

So far the above. Jappalang (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.

• File:Beschuss und Sprengung der Godesburg 1583.jpg is drawn by hand in Paint and Photoshop, following several similar layout plans drawn at various scales and levels of detail in Tanja Potthoff's dissertation (p. 30, p. 149) and on p. 199 of the book "... wurfen hin in steine, grôze und niht kleine...": Belagerungen und Belagerungsanlagen im Mittelalter; the sketch in the book shows the road layout of the village, based on a historical map from 1791, as well as the location of the cannons. The actual location of the cannons would be well beyond the margins of the picture; hence the arrows indicating the direction of fire. --JN466 05:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that all down in the image's page the next time like this. For self-created diagrams used on FA pages (I would think preferably all articles), the information used to create them should be verifiable. Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Will do. Thanks for adding the info, and for tidying up the image arrangement in the article; that's great. --JN466 09:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:Godesburg Kirchenfenster Kloster Ehrenstein-Wied.jpg: 1506 comes from the caption at the top of this page. --JN466 06:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have replaced it with a colour version, File:Godesburg Kirchenfenster Kloster Ehrenstein-Wied (colour).jpg. Take a look. Those conversant in German should check out the sources provided on the image page to see if I got the information correct (translated via Google). Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• I've created a cropped version at File:Godesburg Kirchenfenster Kloster Ehrenstein-Wied (colour) (cropped).jpg and updated the article with it. --JN466 12:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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.

• As I understand it, it was Gebhard's official portrait after his election. We can see if Vochezer has something to say about it. auntieruth (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've updated the source link on File:Bad Godesberg Burgruine Johann Andreas Ziegler.jpg, it's [6] --JN466 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• The year 1572 given by the source page is in error; the inscription at the bottom of the image itself states that the events described took place in 1583. Also see [7][8]; the image (no. E9) was created after 17 December 1583. (Hogenberg was talented, but not that talented.) --JN466 10:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• What is up with upper and lowercase of Fortress/fortress here?
• 3 Investment of the Fortress fixed --JN466 09:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 3.3 Destruction of the fortress (17 December 1583)

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

I've done another close proofread and copyedit. --JN466 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have as well. auntieruth (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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
• 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 army
• 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".
• "Italian mercenaries hired with papal gold increased the Catholic force." - "increased" isn't the right word here, should probably be something like "augmented".
• "Cathedral chapter" - please explain what this is.
• "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.
• "canoness", "cloister" - somewhat unfamiliar terms, particularly for those not familiar with church history. Brief explanations or even dablinks would help.
• "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?
• "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"
• "As the competition grew more heated," - what does this mean? Was the rhetoric more heated? Fist-fights? Riots?
• "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".
• To invest the fortress - "invest" is not typically used the way, "besiege" or "capture" might be more easily understood terms.
• pillage, arson, murder and rape. - there is an earlier use of "pillage", that is the one that should be linked.
• The distance between the curtain wall and the valley floor - "curtain wall" is already linked earlier, WP:OVERLINK.
• 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]
• at around one pm, - more commonly written at around 1:00 pm,
• All sources are agreed that the explosion - should be All sources agree that the explosion
• 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

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)