Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cologne War/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Karanacs 21:15, 17 November 2009 [1].

Cologne War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because...it has been through a stringent review process in Military History Project, and recently passed the ACR. Upon re-reading it for the Xth time and comparing it to the FA criteria, it clearly meets them. This article started life as a request for a translation of an article on the same topic in the German wiki. Since then, I've expanded it to include several "children" of this article (bios of key individuals, some of the battles--these are emerging over time). Thanks for reading, and thank you for constructive criticism. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but some work is needed:
Alt text commentary moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha comments

(Resolved comments moved to talk.)

Support. Auntieruth55 has done a great job in bringing up the quality of this and related articles and I'm now convinced that it meets the FA criteria. Ucucha 23:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I looked primarily at the content of the article; I did not check whether the images are good (3) or whether this article reflects a thorough survey of the literature (1c). Ucucha 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a good point, Ucucha. Part of the frustration of this particular article was the paucity of "modern" source material (that is, source material written in the last 50 years). I found no "recent" monographs whatsoever, nor much in the way of periodic literature on the war itself (on related aspects, yes). Max Lossen wrote a magnificent two volume study of the war in the 1870s, for which he is justifiably famous among historians of the Reformation and Early Modern Germany, but only the first volume is readily available. There appear to be only 6-10 copies of the second volume extant!!! Since the requirement for Wikipedia is readily available sources, I did not draw (much) on Lossen, except for some material on Gebhard himself. I chose instead some studies that were informed by Lossen, primarily Hennes and Ennen. The modern works cited refer to the Cologne War, but are not specifically about it. The encyclopedias I consulted are remarkably brief for such an important conflict. If one searches Worldcat for the Cologne War (as keyword), there are about 1400 hits, but only a couple dozen actually belong to this subject: the rest are Cologne in 1918 or Cologne in World War II. Or Cologne and its Nazi past. So the material on the Cologne War itself is spotty; I'm hoping someone does a dissertation on it soon! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said this mainly as a disclaimer, as the WP:FAC instructions encourage. I think I've amassed a fair deal of general historical knowledge over the years, but I certainly don't have the grasp of the academic study of history that would enable me to assess with confidence whether this article fulfills criterion 1c, although my strong impression from reading the article and your comments is that it does. Please let me know when you can use any help from me with this or similar articles--I have access to an enormous amount of sources at Harvard, and I may also be able to help with Dutch-language sources. Ucucha 01:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Buchraeumer Comments: It says in the article that William of Orange was murdered in July, and that..."Elizabeth responded in early November, directing him to talk to Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester....". Now, William was murdered in July 1584, but Leicester only departed for the Netherlands in December 1585, one and a half years later (and received his command only a little before that). I would have corrected this little chronology error myself, but I don't know which November is meant...Otherwise a very interesting topic (I must read it with more care yet); thanks for including the funny note on Agnes von Mansfeld allegedly travelling to England! Buchraeumer (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC):::You're welcome. I thought it was a great bit from Tenison. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weeelllll....I've clarified the chronology a bit...these 19th century sources (which are the only monographs on the war) are sometimes either misleading or misinformed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: I put the Peace of Augsburg at the beginning of the religious reservation, it was somewhat confusing in the middle of the paragraph. Hope it's o.k. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign involvement: I have removed November, no year for the moment and inserted late 1585, I hope this solves the problem by blurring; one could also leave out specific dates altogeher, to avoid confusion. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I have just looked up "Truchsess" in Leicester's Netherlands correspondence: Elizabeth instructed Leicester to help him in her general instructions to him, dated December 1585. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'll add the reference re L. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book is: *Bruce, John (ed.): Correspondence of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leycester, during his Government of the Low Countries, in the Years 1585 and 1586 Camden Society 1844 [2]. The page is 15 (where she commands him to help Gebhard). I assume that Mabel Tenison simply forgot to mention the year, or else Gebhard could have written to Leicester to in England, before L. went over, but then he would not have been E.'s "emissary" yet. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has now 5 paragr.s, should not have more than 4 (MOS). I am sorry it's so long now, it was perfect with three paras. I am satisfied with the chronology, but still have to read it through. Buchraeumer (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I'm okay with 5 paragraphs, and it summarizes better what the article is about.
  • Wasn't Maximilian II, Ferdinand's son, the emperor who came nearest to being an inofficial Lutheran. Historical convention and textbooks are pretty sure of that. I thought Ferdinand was very orthodox. I will not quibble about that, but if Ferdinand was anyway Lutheran, his son was much more so. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Background': first section is IMO too detailed/long, I doubt we need the whole Reformation here and it's not an easy read, one short para would have sufficed; but this will no way warrant an oppose; just my personal impression. In contrast, the following three sections are excellent and flow much, much better!
  • It's considerably longer, then shorter, then longer than it used to be. Previous reviews have been unable to decide how long it should be. I think it is needed to set up the complexity of the later situation, a morass of political, dynastic, ambitions that acquired a religious "excuse", but were less about religion and more about imperial politics and personal ambition.
  • 'Election of 1577':
  • Salentin resigned when? There is no date in the sentence; it cannot automatically be assumed it's 1577. Could have been considerably earlier.
  • What is a co-adjudicator? It's not linked, and it is odd not to learn after so much detail about Cathedral Chapters before. It is also unclear why Ernst couldn't become one, as 'Trentine proceedings' links to the Council of Trent in general. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gebhard at Augsburg: Augsburg had only a bishop, it pertained to the archbishopric of Salzburg (see e.g., Putzger: Historischer Weltatlas); so was his uncle rather the bishop of Augsburg? Or was he another archbishop altogether? Buchraeumer (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Implications of conversion': why not the conversion, as in Causes of the war?
  • who is Karl, the "stadthalter"? I guess Geghard's brother, but it's unclear.
  • yes, but we established earlier who Karl was.
Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to follow the conventions of the articles about them or their families.
  • 'Sack of Westphalia':date discrepance: "on 18 March they captured Werl through trickery", how come they get attacked from outside the city on 3 March, and retake the city on 8 March, while soon afterwards Schenck is already heading to Venlo? Should be clarified. Buchraeumer (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, I tried the 4 paragraph lead, and it is not as effective as the 5. Having a lead of 5 paragraphs is not an actionable objection, as I understand it. Four paragraphs is a guideline, and in this case, each paragraph deals with a specific element of the article. The fifth paragraph was added up front based on comments of a reviewer who said it should not be assumed that everyone would know where the Electorate was located. She had a valid point about the lead, so I fixed it, and that made it five paragraphs. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Having carefully read this article, I think it meets the FA criteria, as far as I am able to judge. It is well-structured and presents this complicated conflict in a very enjoyable way. It is neutral, comprehensive, factually correct and well-illustrated. The wider consequences of the war were of great significance and the article presents this aspect excellently. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I don't like the first sentence.
The Cologne War, 1583–1588, also called the Seneschal War or the Seneschal Upheaval, was triggered by the 1582 conversion of the Archbishop-Prince Elector of Cologne, Gebhard, Truchsess von Waldburg, to Calvinism, his subsequent marriage to Agnes von Mansfeld-Eisleben in 1583, and his declaration of religious parity for Protestants and Catholics in the electorate.

You've told me what triggered it. It's like beginning an article on World War I with "World War I began when the Duke of Austria was assassinated..." State that it was a war between who and who about what issue. State in the first sentence what country (or present-day country) the event took place in. Don't expect people to know where Cologne etc are. Amandajm (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes! That tells me as the reader just what I want to know. Small matter of expression:You have used the word "occurred" twice in succession. Is there another way of prasing it in one or other of the sentences? Amandajm (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • CommentsSupport: this is a very good article in my opinion and I will be happy to support it for FA status, although I currently have a couple of issues that I feel need to be addressed:
    • could the citations that are the same be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS? (I don't know if is necessarily a requirement, so I won't oppose on this point, it is just a suggestion), e.g citation # 7, 8 & 10 are the same (Holborn p. 241) and the ref checker tool indicates four other refs that are the same (Holborn pp. 243-246, Holborn pp. 201-247, Benians p. 708 and Parker "Flanders" p. 17);
  • This is not a requirement, and makes it difficult to add material and sources, plus it makes identifying the footnote ponderous. Some of these citations are incorporated into annotated footnotes as well. Once the "named" refs template goes into effect, this cannot be done. I think they cut down on the flexibility of citing, not to mention making it difficult for someone trying to locate the cite (you have to find the a-b-c-d- etc.), and are altogether ponderous and bothersome. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the lead is possibly one paragraph too long at the moment. Isn't there are requirement for it to be only four paragaphs, while it is currently five? Could one of them be consolidated perhaps?
  • Yes it is 5 paragraphs, and the MOS says it should be four. However, creating four paragraphs of the lead makes it less accessible. Each paragraph deals with a primary issue of the war; that said, I've combined paragraphs 3 and 4. 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The MOS does not require that the lead is no more than four paragraphs, it only gives this as a general guideline, and in this case, I agree that the five-paragraph layout is preferable. Ucucha 18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked the images and they all seem to have correct copyright tags, however, the image of Gebhard von Waldburg is missing a date, which makes its copyright expired tag a bit of a leap of faith (although I'm fairly certain it is copyright expired, if there was a date, even an indicative date, e.g. c. 1700 or whatever, it would make this certain);
    • In the References section not all of the works are formatted with a template, e.g. {{cite book}}, (the Gotz work, for example)
The Goetz work is actually an encyclopedia and the cite encyclopedia template stinks. In fact, this is the last time I will use these templates for anything. They are unmanageable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The References section is slightly out of alphabetical order, e.g. Lossen appears before Jackson.

Otherwise, as I stated above, I feel this article meets FA criteria. Very well done and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • The Catholic Encyclopedia is in fact a publication of 1913, why is this a reliable source for information on Colonge, William V of Bavaria and Westphalia? Are you using this in a historiography section where almost 100 year old concepts of history are discussed? Otherwise, I suggest finding a more up to date source.
  • I'm using them to supply definitions and facts that require documentation. Definitions of a Cathedral Chapter haven't changed, nor have definitions of communal life. And these sources are readily accessible. Ernst is still the third son, regardless of how old the source is. He didn't cease being the third son with newer publications. Ernst was still the bishop of Liege, Friesing, etc., regardless of how old the source is. The rationale for using these, rather than something "newer" (i.e., a current encyclopedia, for example), is that in those old sources, these facts were included. In newer sources they are not included, quite often. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for the Encyclopedia Americana from 1918.
  • Same for Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
  • What makes "Schenck, A.D. (Alexander DuBois) (1883). Rev. William Schenck, his Ancestry and his Descendants,. Washington: Darby" reliable? It's here on google books and I can't say that I'm that impressed with its scholarship and lack of footnotes.
  • no, not particularly impressive scholarship-wise, but he has consulted (not cited) the relevant publications (Hennes, Ennen, Lossen) on the battles and issues in question. It is in English, although without citations), but his narrative corresonds to the German scholarship. and since it is one of the few pieces in English, it would be readable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the publisher for the two Waldburg authored pieces? Is this a family genealogy website? If so, what makes it reliable?
  • the Waldburg family websites are connected to the Waldburg museum. I found nothing there that contradicted the material I read in an Bader, Karl S. (Karl Siegfried), Der deutsche Südwesten in seiner territorialstaatlichen Entwicklung, Stuttgart, Verlag Müller, 1950. And it is far more accessible and verifiable than Bader's book. There is also Joseph Vochezer, Geschichte des fürstlichen hauses Waldburg in Schwaben, 1907. I found that the Waldburg cite corresponds in fact (although not cited) to the material contained in these books, and is generally more accessible to the average reader. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you italicise the titles of books in the citations but not in the references? This is inconsitent, suggest italicise all.
  • this is why I DETEST the citebook template. It won't italicize titles. should I convert everything out of the template?
  • Cite book italicises just fine... I think your problem is that you have them as {{cite book |title=''European warfare, 1494–1660'' |last=Black |first=Jeremy |authorlink=Jeremy Black (historian) |coauthors= |year=2002 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=9780415275323 |page= |pages= |url= |accessdate= }} when you want {{cite book |title=European warfare, 1494–1660 |last=Black |first=Jeremy |authorlink=Jeremy Black (historian) |coauthors= |year=2002 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=9780415275323 |page= |pages= |url= |accessdate= }} Note that the first gives you Black, Jeremy (2002). European warfare, 1494–1660. New York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415275323. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) while the second gives you Black, Jeremy (2002). European warfare, 1494–1660. New York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415275323. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). Remove the '' from all the titles in your citebooks, you don't need them and it'll do the italics automatically. In fact, in ANY of the cite templates you don't put in any wiki formatting, as the joy of the templates is that they do it for you, whether it's italics, bolding, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just went through and removed the templates from the bibliography. For the sake of consistency with the citations. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC) (p. s. I still don't like the templates...they don't do the citation in the style I use).[reply]
  • Current ref 33 (Wember, Family Genealogy table" lacks a publisher and last access date. Is this a personal site on genealogy? If so, what makes it reliable?
  • He's actually a fairly reliable genealogist, consults the relevant historical sources on the different families he's added.
  • these cite such a minor point in the text, just points of interest, really (for example, were Karl Mansfeld and Agnes cousins or siblings), that I cannot imagine they will be an issue. If they are, I will delete the whole part that uses them. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really rather that the older scholarship not be used, but it's your choice. There are any number of places that the information would be available, any college level textbook on the time frame would give you the information you want, I would expect. It's your choice, though, but it may get you opposes. I will leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to use new scholarship too, but we can't always get what we want. In this case, older scholarship is what is available. Max Lossen wrote the definitive (19th century) piece on the war in 1870-1878, but only one volume is readily available (there seem to be only a dozen or so copies of volume 2 extant), and only 2 other books have been done on it since then, both shortly thereafter. The war is mentioned in other sources, but not discussed in detail, except in some of these encyclopedias (Herzog, for example). In the interest of completeness, I used them. Catholic Encyclopedia, etc., these were just filling in some specific details, checking on names, etc., getting definitions of stuff. You might be surprised on how much of the event is not included in modern text books. I always use when I teach the period, but there is very little in the text books. Holborn covers it some, but...not that much. There hasn't been a monograph on the subject, in English or German, since Hennes and Lossen's. A couple of articles, but everything else is just a mention. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving the rest of these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • File:Werl-Merian--1.png - The date and author of this image are incorrect - they need to be the date and author of the engraving.
  • This is still incorrect. Notice that the date is "June 2008" - that is the date of uploading. Please add the date that the engraving was published. Also, the author is clearly not "User: Mbdortmund", as he is not a 17th-century engraver. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Godesburg 1583.jpg - Please add the detailed information from the version on the German Wikipedia to the image description page so that the author, date, etc. are correct.
  • I'm not able to fix this because it is scheduled to be featured on the Main Page. Fixed on Wikicommbons page here but cannot fix in the english Wiki page. Apparently whoever runs the Main Page is not as particular about detailed information as FAR is. Adewait, if you have the clearance to get this fixed, here is the detailed information.

artist: de:Frans Hogenberg (* 1535 in Mecheln; † 1590 in Cologne) and de:Georg Braun (1541-1622), Civitates Orbis Terrarum, published 1572-1617 (first volume in 1572 and last in 1617. Braun was a cleric in Cologne, and Hogenberg was also in Cologne during the wars. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't edit a protected page, either. We'll have to wait a few days. In the meantime, the Commons page has a few issues. Note that the date, source, and author listed for the image are for the upload, not the image itself. Please fix that (same as the issue above). Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, the issues of date and artist are fixed. We shouldn't have to edit the protected page, I think, because it should be deleted after the picture has been on the Main Page. The Commons page is correct now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have the attention span to give this a proper reading right now, but I've done some work on the citation formatting. First let me say that they were in better-than-average shape to start with :) I don't think you'll have any quibble with my individual-citation edits, but you will want to look at the last one, where I tried to clean up a lot of very minor issues (mostly moving punctuation outside quotes/italics around the titles of works, and some fullstops->commas where it matched your predominant style). I did make a few educated guesses in that last edit, in places where italics/quotes/plaintext seemed warranted. By all means revert me if I've made some boneheaded errors, but I promise, I was careful. Incidentally, are you familiar with the editrefs script? It's not an automated fixer (I would never recommend such a thing), but makes editing references for this type of cleanup much easier. Ping me if I can help walk you through it; it's very simple. Maralia (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Maralia. I've gone through and moved commas inside the quotation marks. I would swear I've done that at least once already. I've not used the editrefs scripts, and cannot locate it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then my last edit made more work for you—I misread the style you were using, and had moved some of those outside. Very sorry for that, and I'll take another look at a later date to make sure none of the errors I introduced remain. Are you following an established citation convention? It's by no means required; I'm just curious for my own edification, as I can't recall a style with this particular punctuation, and I'd rather avoid any future blunders, however well-intentioned.
I will drop a post on your user talk explaining the editref script.
A point of clarification as regards the summary below: I have not yet read the article, and from reading Amandajm's review comments lately, she seems to be commenting on article leads, so she may not have read the full article either. Maralia (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magicpiano comments
This article has come a long way even since I passed it for GA -- it also came a long way during the GA process. I will make only one minor comment, that does not detract from my support for this candidacy. While I originally criticized Auntieruth for (among a list of other issues) not having enough explanation of the background, I think the article may have tipped a little too far in the amount of background (thus putting me into the "it ought to be shorter" camp on that count). I realize the subject is a complex one, and much of this I suspect is not widely known to a North American audience, which is why I don't think this criticism is sufficient to impede the article's promotion. (I'm also not sure exactly what to trim, other than to observe that Religious divisions and Charles V's abdication are probably where I would start looking for material to trim, compress, or relocate.) Magic♪piano 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary. Have I dealt with everyone's issues? Trying to make this easier for Sandy to find and sort out.

Support from Ucucha, Buchraeumer, Magicpiano, JN466, and AustralianRupert.
ref review from Ealdgyth, some resolved, 3 left open because she isn't sure how to handle.
Maralia, Amandajm have read and not opposed or supported.
Adewait has to weigh in on the images once more.

What else needs to be done? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a long article, and while I participated in the A-class review, I have lacked time to review it properly. Unfortunately, my time is still very limited. Comments below:
    1. We say, "in the so-called destruction of the Oberstift. Villages, abbeys and convents and several towns, such as Linz am Rhein and Ahrweiler, were plundered and burned, by both sides.", sourced to Hennes p. 64. Hennes says, "Im Oberstift nahm Salentin von Isenburg die Städte Linz und Ahrweiler und das Amt Altenrath für das Kapitel in Eid und Pflicht." While the page does name several places that were destroyed, in Eid und Pflicht nehmen does not mean "destroy", but "to take an oath of allegiance from"; so Linz and Ahrweiler were sworn to allegiance. They were not among the places destroyed according to the indicated page. --JN466 08:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I still think we have a problem with the Hennes page numbers. Auntieruth kindly let me have a pdf of Hennes (1878) and Ennen (1880) a few weeks ago, and said at the A-Class review that she had originally referred to another copy of Hennes. The version listed under references is the 1878 version. A number of the citations in this (permalink) version of the article don't check out:

*##Ref. 25 is to page 110 in Hennes; there is nothing about Salentin on that page.

      1. Ref. 38 is to pp. 78–80 in Hennes; there is nothing about Agnes on these pages.
      2. Ref. 51 is to page 45; there is nothing about Karl on this page.
      3. Ref. 52 is to pp. 45–46; there nothing about Gebhard and Agnes travelling to Zweibrücken and Dillingen on these pages, nor anything about Adolf.
      4. Ref. 60 is to page 50; our text describes Adolf as "a successful and cunning military commander whose army secured the northern part of the territory." Page 50 does mention Adolf being active in the Niederstift, and describes his (unsuccessful) attempt to take Rheinberg through a ruse.
      5. Please check through the remaining Hennes refs.


    1. I'd feel better if we had a reference for "Before she would accept Gebhard's proposal, she insisted that he convert to Calvinism." Neither Hennes pp. 6–7 nor Ennen p. 294, the references given in that paragraph, say that quite so explicitly. Hennes p. 6 says, "Eines Tages erschienen zwei Brüder der Gräfin ..., bedrohten ihn, und brachten ihn dahin, das Versprechen zu geben, ihre Schwester zu heirathen. Anfangs war er entschlossen, bei der Religionsänderung und Verheirathung, die er beabsichtigte, auf das Erzstift zu verzichten." (Gebhard intended to marry her and change his religion). Ennen p. 294 says, "Gebhard's katholischer Glaube, der keineswegs in tiefinnerer Überzeugung wurzelte, kam in's Wanken, als er sich entscheiden mußte, ob er auf die Bischofsmitra verzichten und dem geliebten Weibe treu bleiben, oder seiner Liebe entsagen und ein Glied der kirchlichen Hierarchie bleiben sollte." (Gebhard's Catholic belief, which was by no means based on his innermost conviction, started to waver when he had to decide whether to renounce the bishop's mitre and stay faithful to the woman he loved, or to renounce his love and remain a member of the church hierarchy). --JN466 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the text. The "insisted he convert" seems to come from a English translation of the ref and I cannot figure out if it is mine, or someone else's (old college notes), but based on the references available now, this version makes more sense. I used your translation, J. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking Hennes: I had a look at the Hennes pages given for notes 87 and 89. In case of note 89 they are correct. In note 87 they also deal with Schenck, but it is not the general description of him as in the article. In that particular case, I have reason to assume that the relevant paragraph-portion is wholly covered by Parker, Geoffrey. The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567–1659, which is also given as source. I would suggest to drop the Hennes ref in note 87. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As usual it is very nicely written, and Auntieruth has worked diligently to address any and all concerns and nitpickings we could throw at her. --JN466 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cologne_War/archive1&oldid=1078787584"