Talk:Siege of Godesberg/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  JN 466  23:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt texts
For our convenience, an overview of the alt texts is here.


 * For the coats of arms, could we add a very brief description of what they look like to the alt text? E.g. add that it shows a black cross on white background for the Prince Elector one. (I added one for the Wittelsbach as well -- JN 466  02:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Both the caption and the alt text for the map of the Electorate of Cologne should be a little more informative. For the alt text, see Alt. The caption should perhaps explain what the colours (especially green, orange) mean. (Are all the towns shown in green, e.g. Nijmegen, part of the Electorate?)
 * I think this is clarified, although alt text isn't required in GA. Since alt text is for vision impaired readers, green/red, etc. doesn't make much difference.  The caption is clearer now, I think.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have not had much time for WP these last few days; but I see you've made some improvements in the meantime. :) -- JN 466  01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the alt text for "18th-century depiction ...", could we avoid the repetition of the phrase "shells of walls"? -- JN 466  23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
I noticed that the image used in the infobox looks much sharper in Cologne War; here it is a little blurred in comparison, at least on my screen. If that is so on your screen too, I propose changing it to the same size you used in Cologne War. -- JN 466  23:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede
The lede has things slightly back to front: we begin by saying when the siege ended. How about something like this:

--

The 1583 siege of Godesberg was a major siege in the Cologne War (1583–1589).

In 1582, Gebhard Truchsess von Waldburg, the Prince-elector and Archbishop, had converted to Calvinism and married six weeks later. For the next five years, he and Ernst of Bavaria competed for control of the Electorate of Cologne, one of the wealthiest ecclesiastical territories in the Holy Roman Empire. The outcome was of primary interest to the six other prince electors; the religion of the man who held it could affect the election of future Holy Roman Emperors. The war was also a test of the principle of ecclesiastical reservation established in the religious Peace of Augsburg (1555).

The siege of Godesberg was the first major siege of this war. The Godesburg fortress resisted a lengthy cannonade by the Bavarian army. The siege ended on 17 December 1583, when sappers tunneled into the feldspar and blew up the outer works. The Bavarian army stormed the citadel and killed all the defenders but one.

--

The last paragraph of the current lede contains more details about what happened after the siege than the Aftermath section that concludes the article. I propose moving relevant content down to Aftermath and making sure that the lede as a whole summarises the article body a whole. Does this make sense? -- JN 466  00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See if this straightens out the problems? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. But we still have some info in the lede (e.g. the reference to the Duke of Parma, or the year 1650) that is not in the article proper. Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize the most important points covered in the article; significant information should not appear in the lede if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I am also aware that two of the three paragraphs in the lede – while beautifully written – are not about the siege of Godesberg, but about the events preceding and following it. -- JN 466  02:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This should do better. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This will do, thanks. -- JN 466  01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers
The Ennen page numbers seem to be wrong; nothing related to this on pp. 155–159. -- JN 466  03:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * both of these issues (page numbers and lead) have been fixed....or I think they have been fixed. ;) I'll probably expand the article further in A class review.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 9 is currently still to page 155 of Ennen. Nothing on that page relates to this (the chapter in question is about the period 1400-1438); nor is there anything on page 155 of Hennes. Could you look into it? -- JN 466  01:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In Ennen, volume 5, page 155-56,yes. In the short version, which is what I've been using, it is not findable.  I've
 * As of this version, ref 10 is to pages 8–9 of Hennes, backing up the following content: "By the fall, 1583, most of the Oberstift had fallen to Ferdinand's army: Gebhard still held the fortress above the tiny village of Friesdorf, called the Godesburg, defended by Lieutenant Colonel Felix Buchner, a Captain of the Guard Eduard Sudermann and a garrison of 72 soldiers from the Netherlands, and a few cannons, the formidable fortress at Bonn, and the fortified village of Poppelsdorf." Pp. 8–9 in Hennes are about the Counts Neuenar, Solms and Bentheim; there is no mention of Colonel Buchner, Friesdorf and Poppelsdorf. -- JN 466  01:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added another cite that provides the names.
 * Ref. 19, to page 120 of Hennes, supports "Ferdinand brought 400 Fussvolk (infantry) and 5 squadrons of mounted soldiers, plus a half dozen heavy caliber cannons to besiege the Godesburg.[19]" There is no mention of the strength of Ferdinand's troops on p. 120 of Hennes. Page 121 mentions 4 squadrons of mounted soldiers from Burgundy, 4 from Italy, and 5 from Belgium (i.e. a total of 13 squadrons) between Godesberg and Bonn, but this may include more squadrons than took part in the siege of Godesberg. -- JN 466  02:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that would be about right, for taking a fortress like this. I changed 121  Auntieruth55 (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 27, inasmuch as it refers to p. 69 of Hennes, and ref. 29 to pp. 156–157 of Ennen likewise fail verification. I really would hate to fail this article, because it is so well written, but each time I look up a reference I can't find anything related to the article content on the advertised page, in either of the two main sources that I have (thanks to your kind help) access to here. We have to get the page numbers right. -- JN 466  02:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very strange, because I checkedc all these. I will check again. Take another look tomorrow. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating, but I think they are right now. If not, just let me know, and I'll get to them later in the week. I've double checked all, and moved some stuff around.   Auntieruth55 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the delay in getting on with this review, real life interfering. I think the penny has now dropped with your mentioning "Ennen Vol. 5" above. None of your references indicated that you were citing Volume 5, published 1880, of the multi-volume edition. I was referring throughout to the pdf of the 1880 abridged single-volume Volksausgabe which you'd sent me. To be honest, it never occurred to me until now that you might have had access to the multi-volume edition when writing the article. To clarify, this is Volume 5 of the large edition:, which describes the Godesberg siege on pages 155ff, and this is the abridged Volksausgabe: So where you are citing Vol. 5 in this series of articles, please make sure it says "Vol. 5 (1880)" in the reference, and where (if at all) you are citing the single-volume Volksausgabe, the reference should say "Volksausgabe (1880)"; that will ensure that all the Ennen references are verifiable. -- JN  466  12:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * all Ennen references were removed. I took out thebit from the bib a few minutes ago.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- JN 466  21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "documents continue to refer to it as Gotensberg, or Gotensberg." These are the same; one must be a typo. -- JN 466  21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Destruction of the fortress
The account we have of the destruction, while very engagingly written, departs from the cited source, Weyden, in a few minor details: Weyden p. 43 says the mines (on the Friesdorf side of the fortress) were detonated on the 15th, while at the same time attackers stormed from the other side, debris raining on top of them, and tried to get in through the latrines (on the 15th, not the 17th as we currently say). In this way they succeeded in conquering the outer ring of the fortress. The defenders in the inner part of the fortress held out however. They took off the roof of the St. Michael's Chapel, and filled the chapel with earth, thus turning it into a bastion where they placed their cannon (also see ). I think the sentence about defenders entering through the chapel's roof may be a mistranslation, or come from another source that has an alternative account. Also note that Weyden is positive that the defenders by this time had dwindled (zusammengeschmolzen) to 72. The original number comprising the "starke Besatzung niederländischer Truppen" must have been greater. We should adjust the number in the infobox accordingly. -- JN 466  22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This source, a doctoral dissertation, speaks of 178 defenders dead (p. 15), so the original number of defenders must have been 180.
 * Page 26, footnote 155, names some sources which may be of use to you as you go on to A-Class and FA (I can tell you now that I will pass this article later today); that letter by Ferdinand to his brother included in Floß 1881 would be great to have. -- JN 466  23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The marble
Having scrutinised the German-language source, and taking into account Pothoff, I propose changing
 * Ferdinand took as a souvenir the marble door of the main gate, on the back of which he inscribed the conditions of the siege, and brought it to Munich, where it formed the basis of a fresco in one of the ducal palaces.

as follows:
 * Ferdinand took as a souvenir the castle's foundation stone, a block of black marble with an inscription commemorating Archbishop Dietrich, the builder of the castle. Ferdinand took the stone, which had been dislodged by the explosions, to Munich, where it was kept in an museum, a fresco painting in an arcade commemorating the siege. Today, the foundation stone is in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn.

-- JN 466  23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Result
I have made a couple of improvement suggestions above (concerning the foundation stone, the number of defenders, and the precise sequence of events in the castle's destruction). We can discuss these further, but I don't want to delay the article's GA status any longer; you have waited long enough. This source may still contain further detail, and if you can locate Ferdinand's letter, apparently included in Floß (1881) ''Eroberung des Schlosses Poppelsdorf, Sprengung und Erstürmung der Burg Godesberg und Einnahme der kurfürstlichen Residenzstadt Bonn. November 1583-Februar 1584.'' Ann. hist. Ver. Niederrhein 36, 110-188 this will have more detail on the fighting to help the article towards A and FA status. Thanks for your work creating the article. -- JN 466  23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The writing is outstanding.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I am sorry about the problems due to our having referred to different editions of Ennen's work.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (main aspects): b (focused):
 * The article provides lots of historical context, which is good to have, but given that we have an article on the Cologne War as well, I would suggest we should not expand this context any further. It seems near the upper limit now for the article still to be called focused.
 * 1) It is neutral.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Luckily tempers between Calvinists and Catholics have cooled over the past 400 years.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: