Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Order of Saint Hubert
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted -MBK004 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it fills another wikigap, relating to the War of the Bavarian Succession and sundry other spaces. I look forward to your helpful comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you don't like named references? You have a named reference for "Tagore, p. 25" but are lacking them for "Boulton, p. 605." and "Rudge, "Military Orders of St. Hubert."". I think this needs fixing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like them. But Tagore refs are sequential, so I used them. Boulton and Rudge are not sequential, so the named refs are confusing there (IMO) Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you don't like them! But have a look at the FAC review of the Battle of Dürenstein. Here named references are being introduced by fellow reviewers. I think you should reconsider your taste. I also feel somewhat strongly about separating information augmenting footnotes from citations. Have a look at your second note please it reads "Alban Butler. The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints. Dublin: James Duffy, 1866, p. 63; Hugh Chisholm, "Knighthood: Orders of Knighthood (Bavaria)." Encyclopedia Britannica. New York, The Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1910-11. Volume 15. p. 863; William Guthrie, John Knox and James Ferguson date the battle in 1447 (A new geographical, historical, and commercial grammar... London: Vernon & Hood [etc., etc] 1801. p. 563)." The piece of information "William Guthrie, John Knox and James Ferguson date the battle in 1447" is so hidden that it adds little value from a readers perspective. Right now this and the named references are issues that I feel should be addressed.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- that was one reviewer, done counter to the MOS (agreed-upon format) and I'm still steamed. The notes were consistent entirely. I am categorically opposed to not putting the full cite in the first time, because of reliability issues. How can a reader know that a source is reliable if there is only an author and a page number? It requires paging down to the bibliography, finding it, then finding my place again in the article.
- Steamed? I assume this means upset? That is not my intention. However I don't understand why you don't want to separate footnotes and citations. From a readers perspective I think the article would benefit. I as a reader I could tell that there is more information by clicking the [Notes 7]. I would never assume that there is more information to read when stumbling across a [7]. These are just examples. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, steamed means upset. I wasn't upset with you, certainly not. I always assume there is more information if there is a [7], even if it is just the citation. But I read citations before I read the article. Well, after the lead at least, because I can tell if the article is worth reading or not. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Steamed? I assume this means upset? That is not my intention. However I don't understand why you don't want to separate footnotes and citations. From a readers perspective I think the article would benefit. I as a reader I could tell that there is more information by clicking the [Notes 7]. I would never assume that there is more information to read when stumbling across a [7]. These are just examples. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- that was one reviewer, done counter to the MOS (agreed-upon format) and I'm still steamed. The notes were consistent entirely. I am categorically opposed to not putting the full cite in the first time, because of reliability issues. How can a reader know that a source is reliable if there is only an author and a page number? It requires paging down to the bibliography, finding it, then finding my place again in the article.
- I know you don't like them! But have a look at the FAC review of the Battle of Dürenstein. Here named references are being introduced by fellow reviewers. I think you should reconsider your taste. I also feel somewhat strongly about separating information augmenting footnotes from citations. Have a look at your second note please it reads "Alban Butler. The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints. Dublin: James Duffy, 1866, p. 63; Hugh Chisholm, "Knighthood: Orders of Knighthood (Bavaria)." Encyclopedia Britannica. New York, The Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1910-11. Volume 15. p. 863; William Guthrie, John Knox and James Ferguson date the battle in 1447 (A new geographical, historical, and commercial grammar... London: Vernon & Hood [etc., etc] 1801. p. 563)." The piece of information "William Guthrie, John Knox and James Ferguson date the battle in 1447" is so hidden that it adds little value from a readers perspective. Right now this and the named references are issues that I feel should be addressed.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like them. But Tagore refs are sequential, so I used them. Boulton and Rudge are not sequential, so the named refs are confusing there (IMO) Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as far as footnote 2 is concerned, this is a controversy on the date, which I didn't feel was worth elaborating in the text, but it should be in a note. This is a standard method of annotating a dispute. I'll check the footnotes to see if there are mistakes, but I was pretty thorough with this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See if this is clearer now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the external links please MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The one was under external links, so I deleted it.
- Alt text is partly missing MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, alt text is no longer required, but I added it anyway Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support A-Class even though I fail to convince you on the style of references MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Alt text may not be required at FAC, but we pride ourselves on harsh standards, so I expect that alt text will be required for milhist articles passing ACR for the foreseeable future.
- Is there a problem with the alt text? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just remaking that I will continue to hold alt text to be necessary for passage of an ACR. I suspect that the criteria will come back into use down the line, and when it does I want to be in a position to brag that milhist articles already meet the reinstated criteria. Since our project prides itself on going above the call on matters of article quality I think it a good thing that alt text is still included, which is what I meant in the above comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a problem with the alt text? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is the US equivalent to the ducat, reichsthaler, and thalers? The article does not say, but I am interested to know. Additionally, what would the cost be today when adjust for inflation? Is there any way to figure that out? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the basic currencies (like pound sterling, or dollar or yen) for various parts of the Holy Roman Empire. I'll add the equivalencies in a note in the article. Have to find my old copy of Murray. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- okay, a gold ducat is 4 florins 18 kreuzer in some parts of the empire (in 1786) and 5 florins 10 kreuzer in other parts (Bavaria included). An imperial ducat is gold, weight o 60 assay. According to J Reichard, An Itinerary of Germany, 1819. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's a start, but it still leaves us with the problem of modern currency calculations: most of us can not calculate currency outside of our own country, or in my case, can only translate currency roughly from one system to another (In may case, this would be roughly translating US currency into Mexican currency). Is there any way to figure a rough calculation from their currency system to a more modern system for a better idea of the cost involved? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea. Is there a convert template that can do that? A thaler was supposed to be "equivalent" to a dollar, at least in name. (thaler/dollar). The 1800 dollar had 0.77344 ounce pure silver, but it was of course silver. See here So if we can convert a ducat weight 60 assay in gold to a dollar weighing .77344 ounces in silver, then we're set. That math is beyond me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of any conversion template, but Wikipedia is large enough that we ought to have a project or two out there with members in a better position to answer the question. Off the top of my mind, Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics comes to mind as a probably place to get such an answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea. Is there a convert template that can do that? A thaler was supposed to be "equivalent" to a dollar, at least in name. (thaler/dollar). The 1800 dollar had 0.77344 ounce pure silver, but it was of course silver. See here So if we can convert a ducat weight 60 assay in gold to a dollar weighing .77344 ounces in silver, then we're set. That math is beyond me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's a start, but it still leaves us with the problem of modern currency calculations: most of us can not calculate currency outside of our own country, or in my case, can only translate currency roughly from one system to another (In may case, this would be roughly translating US currency into Mexican currency). Is there any way to figure a rough calculation from their currency system to a more modern system for a better idea of the cost involved? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- okay, a gold ducat is 4 florins 18 kreuzer in some parts of the empire (in 1786) and 5 florins 10 kreuzer in other parts (Bavaria included). An imperial ducat is gold, weight o 60 assay. According to J Reichard, An Itinerary of Germany, 1819. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the basic currencies (like pound sterling, or dollar or yen) for various parts of the Holy Roman Empire. I'll add the equivalencies in a note in the article. Have to find my old copy of Murray. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text may not be required at FAC, but we pride ourselves on harsh standards, so I expect that alt text will be required for milhist articles passing ACR for the foreseeable future.
I left a message there, but I'm not holding my breath on a reply. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the value of figuring out the conversion to the dollar, then or now. In 1810, 200 gold ducats was a lot of money, and few people would ever have that much. Even if a ducat was a dollar, it was still beyond the reach of most people in ordinary jobs, who might make 200 dollars in a lifetime. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wow, I figured that the amount would be something like two grand in the states, but that was five digit figure. I am impressed. At any rate, everything is now in order insofar as I am concerned, so I offer my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Overall I believe that this article meets the A class criteria. I have a couple of comments, however:
the opening sentence seems a bit cumbersome, could some of the alternative names be included in a footnote? Also the first sentence is very long, could a full stop be added somewhere.there is a difference between the bolded name (Military Order of Saint Hubert) and the article name (Order of Saint Hubert), should this be so?in the Partial list of recipients seciton, can you please check the date in this sentence: "Friedrich (VI.) Joseph Ludwig Landgraf u. Prinz zu Hessen-Homburg (1769-18290"? [The bracket needs to be closed and the date fixed, as well as an endash being added];the Grandmasters section, could a citation be added to this?should the Explanation of currency section be a Level 2 heading as it is? It looks a bit strange coming directly under a heading of the same level that has no content. I'd suggest changing it to a Level 3 heading and labeling it "Footnotes", but it is just a suggestion.— AustralianRupert (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The citation in the grandmasters section is cumbersome, but I couldn't figure out what else to do with it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: all my comments have been addressed. Well done. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.