Talk:Cologne War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Much improved over previous concerns; well done!

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: