Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Swabian War/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Swabian War[edit]

The German version, which was inspired by and partly translated from this article, has already become a featured article at the German Wikipedia. In turn, some of Sidonius' work on that German article has found its way back into our English article. Has been through peer review; the suggestions made there have been acted upon. Self-nomination by Lupo 14:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. References need a lot of work:
    • 13 refs for such a prose length is not enough by any means, whole paragraphs are unreferenced.
    • The "notes" and "refs" section must be consistent, meaning a book in notes must be referenced in references (sic). Otherwise, it belongs to further reading.
  • Watch out for date formats.
  • Things like "(all too) powerful" could appear unencyclopedic to most people.

It is a nice attempt, but with references in such a state, it won't go further. You may want to send it to Military History Peer Review, where you're likely to get more suggestions... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for these comments. On my approach to referencing, see the peer review. I don't understand your "notes" and "refs" comment, please clarify. (Götz v. Berlichingen is under "Primary sources", and so is Pirckheimer.) Finally, of course the fact that the German article went to FA doesn't mean this one should do so automatically—where did I say so? Lupo 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, you have two sections: "notes" and "references". Books used in notes must be exactly the same as books used in references. If you use books in notes and don't list them in references, it is problematic. If you list books in references but don't use them in notes, they belong to further reading rather than references. Under its present state, it's not the case. For instance, Meles, B. (whoever he is) is not in the "references" section.
      • As for "Personally, I employ a different approach in cases where I use a few main sources that give an overview. I consider any sentence implicitly referenced to the main sources", I disagree. There has been an evolution of FA standards and a lot of Wikipedians (including me) think that every fact which is either not common knowledge (e.g. not "Spree flows through Berlin") or dubious, must be referenced. You will notice that I comment on the whole thing and do not object, however, other wikipedians are likely to say the same thing as I did.
      • Finally, I never said you claimed something about en and de wiki, it was just a general remark. Sorry, I have some graphomanic excesses sometimes, so I removed it as to not spoil the page. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I still don't get it: Meles is reference 8, used twice in the section entitled "Further consequences". The article has three endnote-like sections: footnotes, which are short explanatory notices that would be slightly off-topic in the flow of the main text; references, which lists the individual sources, and "primary sources", giving pointers to, well, primary sources. Maybe I'm not seeing the wood for the trees...? Or wait... are you talking about refs 12 and 13 (Sieber-Lehmann and the Idiotikon) used only in footnote "a"? I don't see how that could be a problem... Lupo 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - template {{fn}} is discouraged - please convert the 4 notes to {{ref}}/{{note}}. Also, I find it confusing to see numbers for both notes and pure citations - the notes should use letters (a,b,c,d) to distinguish them more clearly from the citation numbers. Gimmetrow 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Huh? I hadn't noticed it's been deprecated. Why on Earth would anyone deprecate a perfectly useful and sensible way of doing this? Where's the discussion about this? I just played around with this ref label/note label stuff, and it strikes me as utterly complicated and overengineered. The proper way would've been to implement fn/fnb in terms of this complex ref/note stuff, not force people to jump through hoops to get the formatting even halfway right. Lupo 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the fuss. Yes it probably would have been good to rewrite fn/fnb in terms of ref/note; I may do that eventually. Gimmetrow 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I forgot to mention that I did change it to use letters... Lupo 11:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the artilce has had a good copyedit; indecipherable stuff like this occurs throughout the text;
  • The independence of the Eidgenossen and their freedom compared to the common people in Swabia was a powerful model for the latter
  • Other rivalries had been slowly aggravating, too.
  • Concerning the interior politics of the empire, Maximilian I, like other Holy Roman Emperors before and after him, had to face struggles with other powerful princes and he thus sought to secure his position and the imperial monarchy by furthering centralisation.
Someone in the military history project might be able to help--Peta 02:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Rephrased the first, eliminated the second. The third prompted me to do a major expansion of the "background" section; as I have already pointed out on your talk page, such a comment makes it clear that the article did not explain certain things well enough. I hope it's better now. Since you said such problems existed "throughout" the article, would you be so kind to point them out, so that I or others wouldn't have to guess which statements you alluded to? Lupo 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)