Talk:Rüdiger Huzmann/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this one. It usually takes me about a week to get to reviewing things but ping me if it goes over that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos, here's your requested ping :) But no need to rush, I'm unlikely to respond much before Thursday anyway. —Kusma (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whoops! On it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review! I'll get to work on your comments. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whoops! On it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Generic reviewing style disclaimer: Typically I point out structural things related to the GA criteria like completion and prose clarity, the rest are miscellaneous thoughts or questions. I'm open to discussion if you disagree with a comment or don't think it's relevant, and I will never fail an article for not implementing suggestions that aren't directly related to the GA criteria.
Not very much is known...
- Nitpick - not sure "very" is needed. Not a hill I'd die on, just that it's the kind of thing they'd fuss over at FAC- Removed.
One of his predecessors at the school was Benno.
- without context, this is not especially meaningful to the reader. Did Huzmann have a specific connection with Benno? Otherwise why highlight him as a predecessor?- The source uses Benno to highlight the importance of the school; I've tried to give a little more context.
- I feel like "Role in the Investiture Controversy" could do with a paragraph break somewhere.
- Done
Together with Burchard of Basle...
- who's this guy?- Bishop of Basel, now in the text.
On receipt of the letter, Pope Gregory excommunicated Siegfried I
- why him and not everyone else?- My sources don't say. I believe it was because Siegfried as highest ranking bishop was the leader of the pack (the archbishop of Mainz was the primas Germaniae).
which meant accepting to be excommunicated
- this is a bit awkward but I'm not sure how to reword it. "Despite knowing that he would be excommunicated, Huzmann stayed loyal to the king"?- Something like this is better, reworded.
- Actually, this whole sentence is kind of long. Could it be split somewhere?
- Split.
In 1084, Clement III...
- not sure this sentence needs to be in here, as it's not really about Huzmann- Basically the story is that there were two popes and two kings of Germany and they all excommunicated the other side. Maybe I should trim some of it as it is more about the Investiture Controversy / Henry vs Gregory than about Huzmann, but maybe some context helps. In any case, I've added an extra sentence about Huzmann at the end.
- The additional context helps. As an aside, the idea of two sides complete with a pope and a king for each is oddly comical. "God says he doesn't like you guys anymore." "Nuh-uh! He told us he doesn't like you guys anymore."
- Basically the story is that there were two popes and two kings of Germany and they all excommunicated the other side. Maybe I should trim some of it as it is more about the Investiture Controversy / Henry vs Gregory than about Huzmann, but maybe some context helps. In any case, I've added an extra sentence about Huzmann at the end.
- Who restored Huzmann the second time? The article mentions two excommunications, but only one restoration.
- I haven't seen this written out explicitly, but as I understand it, the problem went away after they had counter-excommunicated Gregory and chosen their own pope (there was a conclave in Rome in 1084 confirming Clement as pope, but the Catholic Church later decided to ignore that and declare him an antipope).
- I love it. Everyone just sticks their fingers in their ears and pretends that guy was never here.
- I haven't seen this written out explicitly, but as I understand it, the problem went away after they had counter-excommunicated Gregory and chosen their own pope (there was a conclave in Rome in 1084 confirming Clement as pope, but the Catholic Church later decided to ignore that and declare him an antipope).
Prince-Bishopric of Speyer
- the articles Prince-Bishopric of Speyer and Bishop of Speyer seem to state that Speyer wasn't a prince-bishopric until the 1300s or 1500s (unclear which is correct), both of which are well after the timeframe for Huzmann's rule. I can't read the source and verify unfortunately - could you clarify?- Those articles are wrong (or misleading). Prince-bishop has it right. Basically the bishop ruled territory from 888, and so he was a prince-bishop. I've removed the sentence from Bishop of Speyer, as I could not find out what changed in 1546.
- History of the Jews in Speyer seems to indicate that the Jewish refugees welcomed by Huzmann were actually fleeing pogroms, not just a simple fire, and that he actively invited them to come by granting the protective charter, with the emperor's approval. This article omits the pogroms and is written in a way that suggests that the refugees arrived first, then received the charter. Thoughts?
- My most extensive source on this, Chazan 1987, which you can read on archive.org if you have a free account there, just mentions that they were "fearful of burgher animosity" so it isn't clear there was a pogrom (and there's no source for a Mainz pogrom in 1084 in the History of the Jews in Speyer article; all I could find was the 1090s pogroms). It also says they were welcomed by Huzmann, and that there was a charter of invitation. I don't see a clear timeline. I've combined two sentences in the hope of not giving the wrong impression of knowing what was first.
- I can't find anything explicit about a pogrom in 1084. This source (unknown reliability) mentions earlier pogroms plus a fire in 1084. This book (probably reliable) tells of the Jews fleeing after a fire, and Huzmann inviting them after he learned of the situation. Another source says "expelled ... accused of arson ... welcomed with open arms in Speyer". I think what is in the article is reasonably accurate.
- For this comment and the previous one about prince-bishop-ness - I trust you know the subject area and can assess the sources better than I can, so I'm satisfied with your responses.
- No other GA-criteria concerns - copyright, POV, images, etc, all look fine. I see no reasons to be concerns about the sourcing, which all looks reliable, and is cited inline appropriately.
No rush on replying! Cheers, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the review Premeditated Chaos! I've changed some things and not changed some others. Let me know what you think. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos, here's another ping :) There are some things I haven't done, but I'd like to hear whether you accept my argument not do them. —Kusma (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about the delayed response. I didn't bother re-responding to most of the comments as generally I found your changes addressed any concerns I had. I think this is a pass. Thanks for your patience with me as a reviewer! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Great, cheers! —Kusma (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about the delayed response. I didn't bother re-responding to most of the comments as generally I found your changes addressed any concerns I had. I think this is a pass. Thanks for your patience with me as a reviewer! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos, here's another ping :) There are some things I haven't done, but I'd like to hear whether you accept my argument not do them. —Kusma (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)