Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Godesberg/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:30, 7 August 2010 [1].

Siege of Godesberg edit

Featured article candidates/Siege of Godesberg/archive1

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk), JN 466 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'd never heard of this before, and I think I understand what happened now, and you've done a good job of keeping a complicated story on track. The one (minor) change I'd make is to "Bavarian and mercenary soldiers surrounded the Godesberg" at the very start of the lead; it wasn't clear to me until I'd read on quite a bit further that the Bavarians were the besiegers, not the defenders forming a defensive ring. – iride scent 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Please can I change that map? "River Rhein" looks ridiculous; either go with "Fluss Rhein" or "River Rhine". – iride scent 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, re the map, and JN's drawing drew some fire on the last round also. I'll clarify in the lead. Thanks for comments. auntieruth (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have redone as this as a rough start, but it looks a bit crude so I'm not sure it's usable at the moment. When I get the chance I'll fiddle with it. – iride scent 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope nobody minds, but I put my bold foot down (hopefully not in my mouth).[2][3] Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's great! --JN 466 00:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my earlier comments in the original version of this FAC Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've followed several of the Cologne War articles for a while now; this is good work. My comment on use of English vs. German names and old maps: it seems odd that some names are in English (Cologne, Bavaria) and others in German (Ernst). In articles I work on, maps are frequently in different languages (French, German, English), and often contain creative spellings even when in English. When the spelling (or sounding out) of names is sufficiently similar between what is on the map and modern names, I simply use the modern English name, and assume my readers are capable of making the association. If there is ambiguity with what appears on the map, I either parenthetically note the difference in the text somewhere, or make the connection in the caption. In this particular case, I would lean toward use of English names (Rhine, Cologne, Ernest), simply because some of the German names (Köln and Bayern, for example) are likely unfamiliar to a significant number of English readers. (If English-language sources bias toward using German names e.g. Ernst instead of Ernest, I'd parenthetically note which name sources use.) All IMHO. Magic♪piano 14:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piano helped me with the Cologne War at GA review, and has indeed had a finger (or a hand) in several of them, with helpful suggestions and advice. Regarding the use of names with German spellings (for people): typically, if the person is not a king or queen, most of the books tend to spell the name in the German spelling. Thus, Ernst, not Ernest, but King William I, not Wilhelm I. If there is potential for confusion (for example, King William I of England and King William I of Prussia), then the German spelling is usually applied. There are few English sources that specifically deal in any length with this war: they almost universally use the German spellings for the primary players. auntieruth (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: per the old nomination, I spot nothing that would warrant an oppose from me. Images are either in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Gebhard's portrait might need a better source for its date, but I believe the inscription on its frame. Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per my comments at the earlier version of this FAC. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.