Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Cologne War/archive1

Alt text

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but some work is needed:
  • Image:Godesburg 1583.jpg lacks alt text.
  • The coats of arms have alt text that isn't right. For example, the alt text for the image in " House of Neuenahr-Alpen" is "Coat of Arms of the House of Neuenahr-Alpen". This has two problems. First, alt text is supposed to be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), and only an expert in that period of history would recognize the image as being that of the coat of arms of Neuenahr-Alpen. Second, the alt text is not supposed to repeat caption or other adjacent text (see WP:ALT#Repetition), but this alt text repeats the nearby "House of Neuenahr-Alpen". Most of the coats of arms are like this one: they are purely decorative in the technical sense that they repeat adjacent text, and so they should be marked with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. However, the coat of arms in File:D'argent croix de sable.svg is not purely decorative (no adjacent text says the same thing), so it needs alt text in the two places it appears. This alt text should be visual (e.g., "dark cross on a white background"), so that it's verifiable.
  • The alt text "Map of key cities and towns of the Cologne War" doesn't give the gist of the map, plus it repeats the caption. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for advice and examples.
  • Please spell out "3/4" as per WP:ALT#Text. Also, please reword the containing sentence so that it's grammatical.
  • "man in holding" isn't grammatical.
  • Phrases like "Copper plate engraving of", "copper engraving of", and "depicts" should be avoided as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.
  • The following phrases contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded and/or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability: "Werl, by M. Merian (early 17th century)", "Recklinghausen", "Neuss".

Eubulides (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of these issues. When you say "verified" do you mean "recognized"? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much better, and I struck the parts that have been fixed so far. By "verified" I mean verified in the sense of WP:ALT#Verifiability or the Wikipedia verifiability policy: namely, that all the claims in the alt text can be verified by someone who is looking at the image (or at citations for the claims, but alt text normally doesn't contain or need citations). Some further comments about the recent fixes:

• I see that many of the shields are marked with "|link=|alt=Some description" rather than with "|link=|alt=" (with an empty alt description). It's better to use empty alt for these images, because the alt text just gets in the way of the visually impaired reader for purely decorative images like that.
• I had suggested "dark cross on a white background" but looking more closely, shouldn't that be "Black cross on a silver background"? The two alt text entries for these two images don't agree: one claims it's a Crusaders' cross, which is surely wrong.
• The alt text for File:Cologne War 1.svg shouldn't say "Electorate", since the image itself doesn't say that it's of the Electorate. Just say "territory" or something like that. Also, the image says "Rhein River" so the alt text should use the same spelling (or better yet, the image's spelling should be changed to "Rhine" to be consistent with the article and with the usual English spelling).

don't want to change Rhein to Rhine, because the names of towns are Rheinberg and Linz am Rhein, not Rhinehill and Linz on the Rhine. I'll put the translated version in the caption, with Rhein in parens.

• The alt text for File:AgnesvonMansfeld.jpg shouldn't say "Agnes von Mansfeld Eisleben" because this is not verifiable from the image itself, and because it repeats the caption.
• Similarly, the alt text for File:Gebhard von Waldburg.jpg shouldn't say "Gebhard" or "the emblem of his office".

Just Man or woman

• Similarly, the alt text for File:Werl-Merian--1.png shouldn't say "Werl".
• Similarly, the alt text for File:Godesburg 1583.jpg shouldn't say "Frans Hogenberg, a Dutch engraver and artist of the 16th century, was living in the Electorate of Cologne during the war, and engraved this picture of the destruction of the Godesburg (fortress)."

Eubulides (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I will fix these issues. Am I correct in understanding that you want me to remove alt text from the ones that have link?Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the shields that have empty |link= should also have empty |alt=. Please see WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. The exception is File:D'argent croix de sable.svg, which is not purely decorative in the W3C sense. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

okay, I've removed it. I read that instruction WP:ALT #Purely decorative images several times when constructing that box, adding those images, etc., and couldn't figure out what it meant. I finally decided to leave in alt text, figuring it could be removed later. I'm going to leave the blackcross on white (rather than silver) because it looks white, and it's not clear to me what color it is. BTW it is a crusaders cross. But we'll just leave it as a cross. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed one stray "Electorate" and it all looks good now. I'll add a shield as an example to WP:ALT #Purely decorative images; perhaps that'll make it clearer. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments

Moved from the main review page (Ucucha 03:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)):

---

I read the article and have a number of comments listed below. However, I am not at all familiar with the conventions for articles such as this and not very familiar with the background of this conflict, so please just ignore my comments when they don't make sense. This is a great article and my comments have more to do with the text and the phrasing than with serious flaws in the article content, but there are a few places where it seems that you are often trying to condense too much information into too little words, resulting in sentences that may be difficult to understand to someone who doesn't know much about the subject. Also, you should link each term or person when first mentioned and delink it on subsequent occurrences (currently, for example, Gebhard's brother Karl and Duke Frederick are linked at their second, but not first, occurrences in the articles).

• (Infobox)
• I found it surprising that you are listing houses (i.e., families) as the belligerents. Shouldn't that be states, such as Bavaria and Electorate of the Palatinate, as listed in the lead?

most of these "Houses" especially under the column of Gebhard's supporters, are simply that: Houses (usually Protestant). They were not states. In some cases, these houses governed a state, but when that was the case, I used the shield of the state (for example, Philip of Spain). Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it more common in such cases to list "Spain" and "Bavaria", for example, as belligerents, instead of the houses and individuals which governed them? Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

well, that isn't correct either. The Duke of Bavaria did not declare war on the Archdiocese of Cologne, or the electorate, they simply provided troops. If Bavaria had declared war, then there would have been a different kind of scandal in the HRE, with one state declaring war on another. Originally, I had left out the list of belligerents, but one of the ACR commentators said I should list them. I think, though, that it is raising more questions.

Well, the US didn't declare war in the Iraq War either, and they're still listed as a belligerent. But I can see the problems you are having here, and I don't know either what the best course of action is-perhaps it would be best to have someone else have another look at this. Ucucha 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get someone else to take a look. The sources all refer to so and so of the House of such and such, so I'm inclined to leave the text the way it is. The military types didn't see any problem with the shields/wappen. Well into the 19th century, these generals and commanders were referred to by their house names, not their states. A goodly number of the generals in Austrian service during the Napoleonic wars were not Austrians. we're accustomed to thinking about war and nations, but the way a lot of younger sons made a living was by hiring themselves out as mercenaries. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, that indeed makes sense. Striking now. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Lead)
• What is "tertiary involvement"?

indirect, as in "third party" .... England and France sent, in some cases, funds (France), or, in the case of Elizabeth, moral encouragement. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I thought as much, but I'm not sure this is a very clear phrase to use - would replacing "tertiary involvement" with "nonmilitary support" make sense? Ucucha 02:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

well, the pope was involved "tertiarily" by paying for 5000 troops. So did France, and so did Dudley. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but that is not clear from the text in the lead. Without context, "tertiary involvement" could (in my estimate) as well mean that they were neutral third parties, which they obviously were not. What is wrong with using "nonmilitary support"?

if the pope pays for 5,000 troops, he's essentially sending military support. I've "tweaked." see if that makes better sense now (and the paragraph after it). Also I've added a sentence later that goes into more detail on what exactly the pope sent. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, that makes sense. Ucucha

• The translation of cuius regio, eius religio you give ("who rules, his religion") is not as literal as the one in the article on the phrase ("whose realm, his religion"). I am not sure what should be preferred--a literal translation or one that flows better (though not much better) in English. Also, shouldn't it be italicized, as a Latin phrase?

It's italicized now. I've been told, though, that if something is a common Latin phrase, it shouldn't be italicized. Or it doesn't have to be. But I think it should be. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You do it in the rest of the article, so it would make sense to also do it here. The translation is, on second thought, good enough, so I'm striking this. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you should link both "Dutch Revolt" and "Eighty Years' War" in the lead; those articles should be merged anyway as they describe the same conflict.

I agree with you on both counts here, but I am not editing the 80 Years war or the Dutch revolt. Originally this article was considered to be part of the 80 Years War, and I took that out of the conflict box. Your comment here has emboldened me to make another change:

The conflict occurred simultaneously with the Eighty Years War (also called the Dutch Revolt), 1568–1648, which encouraged participation of the rebellious Dutch provinces and the Spanish.

That is true, but I still don't see why you should link to both of the articles. When something is wrong with another set of articles, that shouldn't be reflected here. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the two articles are not entirely satisfactory; however, the Eighty Years' War and the Dutch Revolt are not at issue here and I don't want to get involved with making a judgment about which of those articles to give precedence. One could argue that the Thirty Years Wars were also part of the 80 Years War, and therefore those articles should be combined. I'm not going to try to make that argument either. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning. I do think it is a disservice to this article to link to essentially the same topic twice, but I'm striking the comment as you're entitled to your own interpretation here. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks. when the people with vested interests in the Dutch Revolt and the 80 Years war make a decision on that, I will adjust this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether the lead really makes clear to someone who knows nothing about the period what the conflict was about; perhaps an additional sentence is in order to make clear exactly what the ecclesiastical reservation means. It now just says "protect", which could mean a number of things.

It should be understandable to someone who doesn't know the period. So, I've tweaked it some, and see if that paragraph makes better sense to you now, okay? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good now. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Background)
• The first paragraph stands on its own a little too much: how is the reader supposed to know why those Catholics and Protestants were fighting, or who Charles V is? The subsequent paragraphs do a good job in explaining those things, but I think it may be better to simply strike the first paragraph.

This was supposed to be a summary...you don't think it helps make sense of the next sections? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I am not sure whether it is helpful to a layperson, because it introduces a number of people, such as Charles V, who are not linked and whom the reader presumably doesn't know anything about yet. The rest of the "Background" section does a great job in providing necessary background, but this additional summary may not be needed. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

fixxed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The map should make clear that the borders of the Netherlands shown are modern and did not exist at the time of the conflict.

Actually, those are the 1583 borders. Amazing, isn't it? that some of the Dutch borders didn't change that much? That is map based on one from the early 1600s.

I seriously doubt that. Roermond was actually Spanish at the time, and my understanding has always been that the current border of Limburg was drawn after the Napoleonic Wars. This map, although somewhat later, also shows very different borders in the area. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The map description in fact says "The gray lines show modern day national borders." I would personally consider the borders during the time of the war to be more informative, but I have no strong problems with using current borders instead. The caption should make clear that these are current, not 16th-century, borders, though. Ucucha 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I went back to the correspondence with the map making guru, and he used present borders and present river courses (they have changed too). Yes, Gelre was on the northern edge, between the Niederstift and and Vest Recklinghausen. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We still need the caption to make clear those are present-day borders, though. (And I believe you misplaced Gelre in your comment above, as Gelre was actually west of the area around Rheinberg, but that is not relevant to any text in the article.) Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FIXED. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• "One faith in a Christian land" - what about Eastern Orthodoxy? Of course, Orthodoxy is not relevant to this article, but it may be better to say "One faith in the Holy Roman Empire" instead. fixeed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• "The reform theology galvanized social action in the Peasant Revolts (1524–1526), which were brutally repressed and the popular political and religious movement crushed" - sentence needs a rewrite. The grammar is shaky and it's unclear exactly what the popular political and religious movement is--apparently Lutheranism, but when it was "crushed", why were there still Lutheran princes?

Okay, it was the peasants who were crushed in 1525/26, but the Lutheran princes were worried they would be next. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's what I understood, but the sentences imply to me that the peasants were also Lutherans and the grammar still doesn't feel right--you really need to explain this in a few more sentences, I think. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

some of them were Lutherans. They adopted Luther's writing as a social political tract. the Peasant War article is severely lacking, and I really don't want to go into that in this article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern was with the clarity of the text here. I changed "reform theology" to simply "tensions", as it doesn't seem to be clear that the Peasants' War was theological in nature, and struck the "popular peasant movement crushed" part, because it was, in my opinion, ungrammatical and redundant. Do you think that this phrasing is accurate? Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed it now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm striking now.

• The summary of the reservatum ecclesiasticum in the box (when ruler converts, subjects don't have to convert) and the article (when ruler converts, subjects don't have to convert, but ruler is expected to leave) is at odds with that in the article about the concept (when ruler converts, he forfeits his see). Which is it?

he forfeits his see, he is expected to resign, That's what the war was about. I've tweaked it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Forfeits his see" means to me that he automatically loses his see no matter what, quite different from just being expected to resign voluntarily. Anyway, the problem seems to be with the article reservatum ecclesiasticum, not this one, so I'm striking this as resolved. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Both seem to be expected. First, he should resign voluntarily, if not, then he will forfeit. In this case, he didn't give it up, even after another Archbishop was elected. That was the problem, because the clause did not deal with it sufficiently. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The summary of the Declaratio Ferdinandei in the box doesn't make clear to me what it was about, but the one in the text does. It seems to be difficult to summarise it accurately in the little space available in the box, but what about "The Declaratio Ferdinandei granted certain exemptions to the principle of cuius regio, eius religio to some knights and cities"?

Yes, and like the ecclesiastical reservation, is was ambiguous. Fortunately, the knights didn't fight a war over it. Basically, Ferdinand's declaration said that cuious regio didn't apply to some of the sov. families, some of the knights, and some of the imperial cities. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is what I understood, but to me the current statement in the box next to the text reads like a restatement of "cuius regio, eius religio". I think the text I proposed above (amended slightly now) is somewhat better at making the clear the meaning of the Declaratio. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we okay on this now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not completely - what do you think of the rephrasing I proposed for the Peace of Augsburg box placed next to the text? The text itself is fine. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The third principle, known as Ferdinand's Declaration, granted certain exemptions to the principle of cuius regio, eius religio to some knights, sovereign families, and imperial cities.  ?? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we even talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the big box to the right of the text that is titled "Peace of Augsburg". Ucucha 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to move the box, but it will show up where it wants, depending on how much else is cluttered around it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited it myself to the version I like best. Of course, the version I like best shouldn't necessarily be the version that should be in the article, but I think this version does a good job in (a) giving a clear, but concise explanation in the box that explains the difference between the Declaratia and cuius regio and (b) explaining the Declaratio in more detail in the text. Please edit or revert it if you feel that's necessary. Ucucha 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The use of the italicized terms "ad hoc" and "Declaratio Ferdinandei" right next to each other is confusing.

fixed. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, with his reign, he established the position of emperor as a chief member of alliances among princes." It's better to explain this in a few more words. Does this even belong in a section on why Ferdinand was the best choice for Holy Roman Emperor?

fixxed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "more far-reaching" - more than what?

fixxed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "the constant ebb and flow of Spanish men and provisions on the Spanish road to and from Flanders" - would this be better as "the constant ebb and flow of Spanish men and provisions from Spain to the Netherlands" or something similar? fixxed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. Any reason you're specifically naming Flanders, as that was generally not where the actual war was being fought? Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

reworked this. Okay??? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Cause of the war)
• "The capital of the electorate had been Cologne (until 1288) and, thereafter, the smaller cities of Bonn, approximately 30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Cologne, and Brühl, 12 kilometres (7 mi) south of Cologne, on the Rhine River, served as its capital and residence of the archbishop." - Perhaps rephrase this as "The cities of Bonn, 30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Cologne, and Brühl, 12 kilometres (7 mi) south of Cologne, served as the capital of the Electorate and as the residence of the archbishop, respectively." For this article, it isn't relevant where the capital was three centuries before the war; it's odd for one distance to be "approximate" when the other is not; "on the Rhine River" isn't very relevant and contradicts the map, which shows Bruehl close to, but not on the Rhine.

well, that's not what I meant either, so I've changed it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks, but still it isn't clear what's going on with Bruehl on the Rhine--either the map or the article text is wrong. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bruehl is 4 miles from the Rhine. I'm not sure what the problem is. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

the Mapmaker told me he used a pre-1650 map to make this. I'll check back with him and find out what's afoot. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that "on the Rhine" actually means "bordering it", not "being within a few miles of it", but I may be wrong there. I am striking this now as it's mostly resolved. Ucucha 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Johann von Fuerstenberg" - do you mean Johanna? Gay marriage probably wasn't legal yet.

Fixed.:)

• "He was a career cleric, although necessarily qualified to be an archbishop on the basis of his theological leanings, but by his family connections" - what? Please rephrase.

• will fix in the next 24 hours. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)::::Fixed Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reference to "Allgemeine deutsche biographic' Worterbuch" - that is not even correct German. Please give some more details on this reference.

• fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this the same as "Allgemeine deutsche Biographie", with the Wikisource link? There's still some versions of this going around in the footnotes that don't make sense in German. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

fixed. It was not that way in my original text (the one I wrote in word and copied into the section, so I'm not sure how/why it changed. Anyway, it is correct now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see it. The reference is in refs. 31, 33, and 98, each of which gives a different title and different information. Ucucha 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Got them now. fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. You don't seem to be following your normal citation style here, though, unless I am missing something, as you normally give detailed citation information on the first occurrence of a reference only, but here you give a very detailed reference in ref. 91 and much less detailed references in refs. 32 and 34. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please be consistent on (not) capitalizing "cathedral chapter".

• will fix in the next 24 hours. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• fixed, Cathedral Chapter when it refers to Cologne specifically, cathedral chapter (or chapter) when it refers to a chapter generally. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, I fixed a couple more. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• What is the curia?

• the sources refer to it as we would today refer to "news from the Vatican"....I could change this to papacy, I suppose. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• That would be good. The current link to curia doesn't lead to the correct article. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg is coming out of nowhere here. What exactly is he bishop of?

• He was a member of the Cathedral chapter and his title was "bishop"....Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Right. Well, your rephrasing improves this sufficiently, so I'm striking this.

• (Course of the war)
• "The war had three characteristics" - do you mean "phases"?

Yes. Phixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Count Adolf von Neuenahr" - why didn't you refer to him as a "Count" earlier?

Adolf, Count von Neuenahr? I'll make that standard throughout. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Ferdinand's able command" - which Ferdinand? Not the Holy Roman Emperor, I suppose.

No, not him. Ferdinand was the brother of Ernst. Maybe I should continue to link him? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• He isn't linked before (except in the infobox), only Charles's brother is. Is the Ferdinand who was elected to the chapter ("Aftermath") yet a different one? Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

yes. Ferdinand who was elected after Ernst was Ernst's nephew. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. You refer to both these Ferdinands (brother and nephew) as just "Ferdinand of Bavaria", though, which is confusing. Ucucha 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I tried to fix the names on the wiki articles, but that didn't work. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (See Cologne Riot.) - I have no problem with red links, but directing readers with a "see also" to an article that does not exist seems inappropriate.

Article is under construction, but I've taken it out for now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good luck with writing it then. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The borders of the Dutch Provinces backed on the borders of the Electorate. Those that did not border one of the Dutch provinces abutted the Duchy of Cleves–Julich." I believe the Electorate did not exactly border the United Provinces, though it came close. I have no idea what the second sentence means.

The Electorate was surrounded by Gelderland, Duchy of Cleves Julich Mark, and part of the Electorate of Koblenz.Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• That "Gelderland" presumably was Upper Gelre, which is outside modern Gelderland and is actually in northern Dutch Limburg (Roermond, for example). Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Should I get mapmaster to change the map? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My problem is rather with the text - if I am interpreting this correctly, the Electorate did not border any of the "Dutch Provinces" at all. It might have bordered Upper Gelre, but that was Habsburg, not Dutch land at the time. It may actually be best to strike these sentences and the preceding one, as the previous paragraph already says about the same. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See if this meets your approval. I've reworded. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Venlo on the Neuss River" - do you mean the Maas?

*I have to check my source on that. I think you're right and the source may be wrong. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

• "80 years of bitter fighting" - poetic though this description is, it ignores the Twelve Years' Truce.

• fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The claim that Schenck did Gebhard more harm than good doesn't really materialize in the article now. Would it be good to say exactly in what way Schenck damaged Gebhard's cause?

• tweaked. He was an SOB. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Good enough now. Ucucha 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Aftermath)
• Bishoprics which were surrounded by Protestant territories - this is not true for Liege at least, as it was surrounded by the Spanish Netherlands.

• No, Liege was not in danger, nor Aachen after Parma took it over in 1581, but a lot of the others were. I'll be less specific. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

Er, what? I don't see any changes in this section. Ucucha 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

HMmmmmm....maybe I didn't save it. Try again. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (External links)
• Do these add enough to the article to justify links to sites that are not in English?

• No, they were there when the article was a start, not sure why I never took them out. One has some pictures that are fun to look at, but they are gone now (well, INVisible now). Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ucucha 22:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously a great article and most of my concerns have now been resolved (except for the Declaratio thing, which we'll also sort out). I'm willing to support, but I think you should give the article another good look to check that:

• Your spelling is consistent (Eighty Years War vs. Thirty Years' War, Counter-Reformation vs. counter-reformation, comma before "Truchsess").

• Thirty Years' War is spelled that way in one instance, relating to the name of an article; Geoffrey Parker also refers to Thirty Years Wars, not War, while other refer to them as Thirty Years War (no s). I prefer the phrase Thirty Years Wars, because it seems like several conflicts, not one.
• fixed by removing references to 80 Years War. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. You still need to establish whether or not you place a comma before "Truchsess", though; usage varies in the article for Karl, Gebhard and William(,) Truchsess von Waldburg. Ucucha 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• placed the comma. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• For each person you mention, you should give the full name and possible further data at the first occurrence and a consistent short name after that. For example, you now have: (1st occurrence) "Karl, Truchsess von Waldburg", (2nd) "Karl", (3rd) "Karl Truchsess von Waldburg (1548–1593)", and there may be others.

• these should be okay now. I've created stubs for most of them also. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are no inconsistencies in the references (ending each reference with a period, spaces after (German), using pp. for multiple pages). That's all minor things, but we want it to be consistent in an FA.

• these should all be done now. I've gone through the citations several times, and it looks like they are consistent. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I caught a couple more, but I think it's all good now. Ucucha 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I may do this myself when I have time over the next few days. Ucucha 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• thank! Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---