Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Swiss Confederacy

Old Swiss Confederacy
Wow. Extensive, detailed content; great use of some beautiful images/maps from de: and fr:; highly wikified content; excellent use of a timeline -- could use better references and footnoting, but otherwise a model article. +sj + 23:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (Vote is below) Great material, but the intro basically requires someone already knowing a lot of background material. Also there are several one sentence paragraphs throughout. Those need to be expanded, merged, or removed.  Finally, the references and citation wouldn't just be nice, they are needed.  The literature links don't even seem to be claimed to have been used as references.  At least a couple English references are needed I would think. - Taxman 23:56, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've merged the one-sentence paragraphs in the "Consolidation" section. Lupo 08:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Still more to go. Its a kinda minor point, but a very simple and obvious breaking of good prose rules with no upside to it. - Taxman 13:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I find three: at the beginning of the "Consolidation" and of the "Swiss mercenaries" sections, and the one with the Swiss saying. The first two are actually mini-summaries of the sections; I wanted to have them visually separated from the more elaborate text that follows. I also wanted to separate the saying from the rest of the discussion of the Burgundy Wars. Oh, there is one more: the 2nd paragraph in "The Dreizehn Orte", but that one (a) is long enough (three lines, and I use a rather small font and a large window), and (b) deals with events not directly related to what is described in the adjacent paragraphs and thus may, in my opinion, remain a paragraph of its own. I don't find any others... I made a concious decision to have these four instances of single-sentence paragraphs, but if it bothers you, go ahead and change them. Lupo 13:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well if they are distinct enough to stand alone, they should be expanded a bit. Especially the first sentence in 'Consolidation' could add one or two more sentences that serves as an introduction to what that section is talking about.  Two of the others I could not see how they were unrelated to what they were next too, so I merged them. The others do seem to have enough clauses and information to stand alone. - Taxman 16:27, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * As to the intro: (1) It is a brief summary of the rest of the article. As such, it glosses over many, many details, and much of the background: it's an abstract. (2) The article is part of a series. Some of the earlier events are covered in Early history of Switzerland (which still needs expansion...). What background info were you missing? Lupo 08:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See Guide to writing better articles for what the lead section should do. Being part of a series is not an excuse for me having to read the other articles in the series or having to click each linked article to know what this one is about.  All necessary material to understand the topic should be included inline. For example "...part of the Eidgenossenschaft, whatever that is". And what is a canton? Also, the intro doesn't need to tell that it is part of an article series, that is nonstandard, but it does need to tell what the Old Swiss Confederacy is.  What was significant about it, what made it a definable period in Swiss history?  What were its primary characteristics? - Taxman 14:44, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Guide to writing better articles clearly says that "the lead should briefly summarize the article", which is what this article's lead section does. I have now added very brief descriptions for "Eidgenossenschaft", "canton", and "reichsfrei" (if someone knows an English term for the latter, all the better), but I don't think much more should be done. And yes, I do think that it doesn't hurt to state in the intro that this article is part of a series. It makes the reader aware that earlier and later events are covered elsewhere. I have improved the intro a little by explicitly stating that the distinguishing characteristic of that period was the continued struggle for independence against the Habsburgs. Lupo 19:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well it may summarize the article, but that is not what I was referring to. Sorry but it&#8217;s just not a very good or very well written lead section. It still contains a number of terms that are not explained.  It takes a reading of the entire lead section, parts of the rest of the article and a number of linked articles to really get what is going on. - Taxman 14:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * That objection is not actionable for me. I did the best I could (try summarizing more than 200 years in a few sentences!). If you think it could still be improved, then please go ahead and show me how you'd do it. And of course you have to read the whole lead, and the article, to really get what's going on. I don't see how it could be otherwise... Lupo 15:46, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well that's not the definition of actionable. Actionable means possible to be acted on.  It certainly is because there are lots of articles with great lead sections that come through here.  And yes if you don't mind my reworking it, I will see if I can't give it a clear definition and start with the most important information and move down.  A great lead section certainly can give a good idea of what is going on with the topic without having to read anything else. - Taxman 14:15, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * See below (my reply to the comment of Chris 73). Lupo 08:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what I was looking for. Sorry if I wasn't helpfully clear about what it needed. - 13:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lack of refs is a real bother. I left a note on the talk page...
 * I've added two references in English and left a comment on Talk:Old Swiss Confederacy. Lupo 07:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, those are fine for me. But the books in the literature section that were used as actual reference should probably be noted as such under a 'references' section, and the others left under a further reading section. - Taxman 14:44, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not. Done. Lupo 19:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, it's an impressive article. The English and spelling needed work in places, but I think I fixed most of the problems; I was a little hesitant to work on a few areas, though, where I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning. Everyking 20:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If there were areas where the meaning wasn't clear enough, we should try to improve those areas. What were they? Lupo 07:46, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. What an excellent piece (we can only wish User:Lupo a long life with a lot of WP time on his hands ;o) &mdash; minor things: the "Gut, Mut, Blut" bit may require translation. "Primeval cantons" sounds a bit... atavistic; maybe "founding cantons" or "original cantons"? dab 09:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For the saying, there is an HTML comment in the text asking for a translation. (And now also on the talk page &mdash;Lupo 11:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I somehow cannot come up with a good one. For the "primeval cantons": where did you find that? I know I have written that phrase somewhere, somewhen, but I can't find it in the text. I like your suggestions and would like to change it&mdash;maybe it was in some other article? Lupo 10:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Found it; it's on the map's legend. Will change it now to "Founding cantons". Lupo 10:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Big support, one of the best things i ever read on wiki, pity Lupo didnt get the gold medal ;) [[:pt:Usuário:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 10:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For those who weren't aware of this: Muriel is referring to Danny's contest, where this article was one of the runner-ups. Lupo 11:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Any more this good, Lupo? Filiocht 11:15, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC) Filiocht 11:15, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Tough subject, but well presented. Two possible points of improvement would be: (A) more images from that time (should be easy, copyright expired). (B) The lead section: The first paragraph This article is part of the series on the history of Switzerland... is somewhat odd, it talks more about the article than about the actual events. However, i do not see a big objection as Taxman does. Great work, Lupo! -- Chris 73 Talk 12:03, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you&mdash;now that was a helpful comment. I have now rewritten the intro such that it no longer talks about the article. Maybe that's what Taxman tried to tell me? If so, I think his objection has been addressed. (I had asked him to jump in and do the changes he wanted to see, but apparently he didn't have the time...) Lupo 08:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, much better. Sorry I didn't get to it, but you've done much better than I could have for a subject I don't know. - Taxman 13:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Also added one two more images. Actually, finding good images of events in the late Middle Ages isn't exactly easy... Lupo 09:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Intro reads much better now. Also, to illustate the Gotthardpass, you could use I added the bridge image from de:Teufelsstein, the first of which was built in the 13th century according to de:Geschichte der Schweiz -- Chris 73 Talk 10:31, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, both bridges shown on that image are much later. The original 13th century bridge no longer exists, it was destroyed in a flood in 1888. The upper one is the third Teufelsbrücke, built in 1958; the smaller one is the second Teufelsbrücke and was built at the beginning of the 19th century. There is a painting from 1833 showing the first Teufelsbrücke and behind it the second bridge in construction. Lupo 10:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Lovely. James F. (talk) 10:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, but please fix and expand the one sentence paragraph in 'consolidation'. - Taxman 13:56, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * It does bother you, doesn't it? I've just removed it. Lupo 21:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)