Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Italian War of 1542–1546

Italian War of 1542–1546
The first real article I've written in more than a year now; I'd be very appreciative of any sort of feedback that others might provide. Obviously, copyediting and additional images are needed, and I'll be providing both; but I'm particularly interested in the content itself. Is the narrative clear everywhere? Are there parts that need more detail? Less detail? (I've tried to avoid descending into too much trivia, as I'm wont to.) Do some points need more or better explanation? Kirill 05:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

victor falk
I did some wikilinking. In general, I don't think there is too many details; but it is a very detailed article, and I think an very short overview (just a 'graph with a few lines, not a section) between the lede and the prelude would be helpful, maybe just a slightly modified version of the stub. the treaty of Crépy: its article is now redundant; it should either be merged & redirected into the #Treaty of Crépy section, or that section should be merged & redirected to the treaty article, and summed up in a few words that link to it. The first option has the advantage of consolidating, the second of making the article more concise.--victor falk 08:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the linking. I intend to expand the lead by another paragraph or two; that will probably provide a good overview once it's done.  I'll look at the Crépy article; unless there's a lot of additional detail there (and I doubt there is, based on what I know of the treaty), I'll probably wind up merging it here, to avoid having the article sitting without the full context available. Kirill 12:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In which Crépy was this treaty signed?--victor falk 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Don't ask stupid questions you already know the answers to.":) It was [Crépy]], the red-linked one of course. I'll stub it.--victor falk 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Larry Dunn
The article looks good. It's got lots of good detail and many cited sources. It'll be a useful article to broaden the scope of your article on the Battle of Ceresole.

I made a few minor changes -- I checked around and Piedmont seems to be referred to more often in modern english as simply "Piedmont" rather than "the Piedmont." The Wiki article on Piedmont does not use the "the."

At the risk of looking ridiculous I might suggest a map -- yes, the war was of a truly gigantic scope, but a map might help to bring the whole thing together. This would be an ambitious one for someone like Mapmaster to sink his teeth into.

The article gets a little dense sometimes -- now and then, it's a bit terse when there's lots going on, and I dropped the narrative thread a few times, although I am very familiar with these campaigns. It might be productive to open up the text a bit so it's not so compact.

Small points though, as the article appears to be in great shape. Larry Dunn 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the comments! A map (or several maps, more likely) would indeed be a quite helpful; as I'm a very poor cartographer, unfortunately, I'll have to go look for help on this.  You're probably right about the prose being too dense; my normal style tends towards the unduly ponderous to begin with, and the strictly chronological ordering of points may break the narrative thread.  I'll be copyediting the article quite a bit in the future, so hopefully I'll be able to smooth over some of the rough spots.
 * (But it'll probably be a while before I get back to major work on this; I've just gotten a copy of Cecil Roth's The Last Florentine Republic, so I'll likely be focusing my attention on my earlier, never-completed article on the Siege of Florence.) Kirill 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what that's like -- I wanted to finish up the analysis of Pike and Shot as well as the Battle of Tagliacozzo, but haven't been able to find the time to do the research in a while. Larry Dunn 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06
Not my period at all, so it's a bit hard to hold the thread of events. The main actions seem to have occurred in the north, but I assume the convention, given the casus belli was Milan, to call it an Italian War? Is this the usual historians' title? Buckshot06 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The name comes from the Italian Wars. Historians are pretty consistent about labeling the entire series of conflicts, but the nomenclature within that tends to vary quite a bit.  This particular war, for example, could also be called the "Ninth Italian War", the "Fourth Italian War between Charles and Francis", or even just "the 1542—46 war"; I've decided to go with the dated option for the sake of simplicity. Kirill 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)