Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Godesberg (1583)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Godesberg (1583)

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Siege of Godesberg (1583)/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it fills a gap in wikicoverage of the Cologne War (1583), and this was a particularly interesting siege in which the combatant entered the castle through the latrines. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've run the dab tool, and right now, there are no dabs.

all the alt text is present, but I'm thinking that some of it should be link= and no alt text.

the links are all good. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this is an excellent article in my opinion and one that I believe meets the A class criteria. As per above alt text, ext links and dabs all check out. The article is well written, referenced, structured and illustrated and I could find no major MOS issues (I fixed the couple I could find). I only have a couple of points, but they are only suggestions:
- first sentence of the lead, I feel the word "also" is unnecessary; Done
- is there a need to include the co-ordinates in the infobox when they are linked directly above also? removed

Anyway, that is it for me. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Its walls strengthened, and its tower heightened, the fortress was thought to be nearly impregnable. This sentence in the lede lacks context. It's explained in the main body, but it needs clarification or deletion here.

This seems awkward: The cannonade began; cannonball after ball and mortar after mortar smashed against the walls. Not to mention that mortars fire shells ;-)

Either 'the' or 'St. Michael's' is redundant here: They had removed the roof from the St. Michael's chapel in the fortress foreyard And what in the heck is a foreyard? An outer courtyard, the outer ward, what?

The second sentence here seems a bit redundant and/or awkward: They methodically made their way through the rubble, killing the defenders as they went. The Bavarians possessed the ruins of the fortress.

Missing verb in this fragment? when Gebhard's troops plundered the abbeys in the Westerwald, in Westphalia, and brought with a couple of monks, first to Bonn

Shouldn't this be capitalized as it's a title? Wittelsbach archbishop prince-elector in Cologne --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

these ce should make it clearer. A foreyard is exactly that. The source is no more specific. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re foreyard: that should have been forework. That's how I translated it originally, and I researched it at the time. I'll happily admit castle architecture is not my forte though. --JN 466 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German source has Vorburg. JN 466 23:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Def of :VORBURG, f., die der hauptburg vorausliegende befestigung, auch in älterer sprache stadttheil auszerhalb der mauer oder der eigentlichen stadt, vgl. das aus vorburg entstandene franz. faubourg. mhd. vorburc, vurburc, daneben vorbürge, vorburge, vorborge, n. mhd. wb. Found hier on the Uni trier site. This would be the Grimm definition. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could translate it as "outer ward". Looking into it some more, the Vorburg is a special case of the Zwinger (outer ward, i.e. the space between the outer wall and main wall of a concentric castle.) According to my German dtv Encyclopedia, Vorburg is a term used where the Zwinger widens to include buildings. Example: [[1]]. It seems that English uses "outer ward" for such cases as well. At least I can find a number of google books references to a "chapel in the outer ward": [2]. There are no such matches for "chapel in the forework". --JN 466 10:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the location of the chapel in this pdf document (a doctoral thesis), p. 149. It's shown in pink towards the bottom left of the page. --JN 466 10:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer outer ward rather than forework as the latter makes me think of some structure like a bastion or a ravelin rather than the space between two walls. The last remaining issue is this: The usual equipage of siege warfare—the belfry, the trebuchet, the crossbow and the long bow[18]—would be ineffective, given the distance between the curtain wall and the valley floor. I don't think that long bows, per se, were normal siege equipment, unless you happened to be English or Welsh. What I think you're trying to convey is that the range was too great for normal missile weapons, of all types and the besiegers had no choice to use expensive cannon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Per that source just linked, I think we should mention the attackers' having a go at the latrines before the last stand in the chapel, rather than after. The way I read the sources, it took the attackers two days from the explosion to gain entry to all parts of the castle and kill all the defenders. The defenders made their last stand in the chapel, but this was only the last episode in the two days of fighting after the outer wall was breached. The defenders did not hold out two days in the chapel, and the latrines were not related to the attacks on the chapel, but part of the fighting prior to that, when the defenders still held the castle itself. That is my recollection from reading the sources; but extra eyes will be useful. --JN 466 23:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] --JN 466 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's the way I read it too. Thanks for clarifying. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In later correspondence with his brother, Ferdinand wrote that after the storming of the castle, everyone inside was killed: men, women, children, young and old, with the exception of these three; his troops liberated the ecclesiastical prisoners and the commander of the Dutz garrison; he makes no mention of Suderman, Buchner or Buchner's wife" There is logical contradiction in that sentence. Plus the citation seems to be incomplete; I can't find a reference to the contents of Ferdinand's letter on pp. 43-44 of Weyden. --JN 466 11:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about the castle's dead being buried in mass graves. Not sure it is in the best place where I put it; do feel free to move it elsewhere. --JN 466 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for A-Class. --JN 466 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I don't usually voice strong support, but this articles outstanding quality is truly worthy of note. Well Done!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Tom. JN and I are going to extract a few more details from the morass of conflicting reports, and perhaps a bit more on the layout of the fortress, and then we hope to nom for FA. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 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.