Talk:Cologne War

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cologne War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

General issues

• A 5-year war probably deserves a longer article, with more detail on military movements and strategy (currently only one paragraph on actual hostilities). If this sort of information is not available (somewhat understandable given the age), this should be explicitly stated and cited.

not sure how to cite the absence of information.....?

I'm more of the "new military history" school, as Geoffrey Parker calls it, in which movements and troop strength, although important, is not as important as the causes and consequences. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

*There should be an infobox ({{Infobox Military Conflict}}) outlining the belligerent states and their commanders

• There should be a map showing the theater of war. I'm somewhat familiar with German and Dutch geography; people who aren't will be lost.

working on this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Things like troop strengths and casualty counts should be reported to the extent known. (If they are clearly not known or ambiguous, this should be stated and cited.)

not sure how to cite the absence of information.....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

*WP:LAYOUT: "Literature" should be "References", "Weblinks" should be "External links"

• Article needs copyediting, but only after factual deficiencies are addressed.
• Are there any battles or sieges that are large enough (and/or documented well enough) to have their own articles?

not really. It mostly to-ing and fro-ing and ransacking territories. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some terms need wikilinking (e.g. Holy Roman Empire, William of Orange (William the Silent?)), others need better ones (e.g. Palatine --> Palatinate (region) or Electorate of the Palatinate)

working on this as I add sections.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• A better summarization is needed for Cuius regio, eius religio
• It should summarize the war, including the cause, lead commanders and outcome

Trigger

• should be "Background"
• More background on the nature of the Protestant/Catholic conflict in the area is needed, as is Cologne's geographic and political strategic importance (if any).
• has some more detailed background, and implies that Gebhard ended up in Strasbourg, not Hague (also seen in other sources and Gebhard's WP page).
• need to mention Gebhard's desire to marry as a reason for his conversion (and that his marriage precipitated a crisis)
• unclear why players are gearing up for war (is the excommunication the reason for military buildup? or something more?)
• unclear who started military planning and operations first (principal antagonists)
• Who were the military leaders? Johann Casimir of Simmern for Gebhard?
• What triggered actual military hostilities? (are there other events that raised tensions?)
• What was the role of the Eighty Years' War (and the 1584 assassination of William the Silent) in the Dutch participation in this war (on both sides)?

Course of the war

• What happened in 1584,5?
• I have no sense of military movements -- who moved from where to where, with what troops and what purpose.
• Who were the military leaders from the Netherlands?
• Second paragraph has too much passive voice; I don't know who is plundering and overrunning.

Aftermath

• German-style quotes should be removed; the confessional problem should be explained -- I have no idea what it is.

Most of the factual questions above show a lack of breadth in the article (WP:WIAGA, A3). The most important to me, since this is a war article, is the lack of information on actual military movements and conflicts. I'm inclined to fail this article, because I'm doubtful the large number of issues can be addressed in a reasonable review timeframe. That said, I'll put it on hold, and let time take its course. I'll give up to two weeks to address the issues as long as I can see progress being made. Magic♪piano 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Much improved over previous concerns; well done!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Map

are you going to do the map in layers? If so, perhaps the basic one could just be the boundaries, and the adjoining territories, to give the lay of the land. So we'd need Brabant (Spanish Netherlands), Liege, Limburg, Gelderland, etc, as on the outline map from the book I sent you. The territory of the electorate should show Bonn, Bruehl, the imperial cities of cologne and Neuss, Vest Recklinghausen.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest map

Just uploaded the first version of my map. I plan on adding the western-most outline of Westphalia to the map, and probably changing the background color from white to the more-standard cream color. I tried to include every town that is mentioned in the article, but I may have missed a few. I also added other nearby major cities (e.g. Dortmund) to give readers some reference points.

I would like to create a larger geo-political map as well.

What changes would you like to see regarding this map? MapMaster (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

it's a terrific map so far. I think the color changes will enhance it. Limz am Rhein is spelled wrong (it's Linz). Probably Rhein ought to be in English: Rhine. Eventually need to place Nijmegen on the map too, and Rheinberg. Those were the last battles. When you do the geopolitical map, it will have the other states on it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

looking at it again. As I read the description of the electorate, Werl is part of the County of Westphalia. You're showing it as separate.  ?? I realize that old map is difficult. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new map, adding the cream-coloured background as well as the outline of the western edge of Westphalia and Nijmegen. I would like to keep the river spelled Rhein since there are two other placenames spelled Rhein: Rheinberg and Linz am Rhein.

Regarding Westphalia, I understand that although it was a fief of the Elector, it was not part of the Electorate. For example, no maps of the Electorate show Westphalia.

As you may have noticed, I ensured that Cologne was not shown as part of the Electorate.

How's that?? MapMaster (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I did notice that, but perhaps the city could be a different color, so it's clearer that it is not part of the electorate? As for the fief, perhaps it could be outlined, but not colored the same way? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks very much. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

translation credit in Cologne War

This is not in the history, because it wasn't done on the article page. It was done in one of the review pages, and I cut and pasted it into the article, with the translator's permission. Consequently, it should remain sourced to the user, because citations and sourcing takes precedence. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. So, it's cited now. I mean, it's in the history of the page, just like any other credits and citations. Since it's an accessible thing that is verifiable, there's no reason it can only be translated by one editor. Further, the vpp consensus is very clear on translation credits. I'd suggest it go up to VPP if you disagree. tedder (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 has reverted (so the translation credit was removed). Here's a followup thread on VPP. I tried to capture some of the threads going on there. tedder (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a message from j saying it was okay to remove, so I did. In terms of not following up with you, I did what I said I would do, and what I was asked to do. Did you doubt that I would? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear points

I found the lead unclear. Reading the whole article solved the puzzles, but I think basic points should be in the lead.

The lead says that Gebhard converted and the Catholic faction appointed another archbishop, but this is confusing as no first archbishop has been mentioned. It should be stated that Gebhard was Catholic archbishop as well as prince-elector, and so not allowed to marry, which would explain the significance of his marriage.

Who won the war is a basic point which whould be in the lead and the infobox, but you have to read through to the end of the article to find out that the Catholics won.

Another point is that in 'Gebhard's conversion', second paragraph, it says that rumours of his conversion caused consternation in England and France. Why as they were then protestant? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars distinguish tag

The article currently starts with this clarification:

This article is about the 16th century conflict. For the series of battles in the Star Wars fictional universe, see Clone Wars (Star Wars).

This is a joke, right? I mean, it is quite funny. It's like the old version of the guano article, which began, "Bat shit redirects here. For information on mental illness, see mental illness."

But, kidding aside, are Star Wars fans looking for info about the Clone Wars really going to wind up on the Cologne War page? It isn't like you'd accidentally type an extra "o" and "g" in the fortuitous spots. Or you'd hear the characters talk about cloning an army and somehow think they said they were "cologne-ing an army".

It seems clear that this tag helps nobody, and wastes a little of each reader's time. I'm going to take it out. If anybody decides it is needed, please add an explanation here. TypoBoy (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, it's resolved: while I was writing the long-winded passage above, somebody fixed it. And now I see in the history where it was added, and the tongue-in-cheek check-in comment shows that, yes, it was a joke. And, yes, I'm slow on the uptake. So, as Emily Litella would say, "Never mind." TypoBoy (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cologne War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430155251/http://www.gen.heinz-wember.de/waldburg/ to http://www.gen.heinz-wember.de/waldburg/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430155251/http://www.gen.heinz-wember.de/waldburg/ to http://www.gen.heinz-wember.de/waldburg/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430155251/http://www.gen.heinz-wember.de/waldburg/ to http://www.gen.heinz-wember.de/waldburg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)