Wikipedia:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

Italian War of 1521–1526[edit]

Notified: Kirill Lokshin, WP MILHIST, WP Germany, WP Spain, WP France, WP Italy, WP Turkey, WP England, 2020-01-28, 2021-06-18

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion from editor extraordinaire and MILHIST maverick, Kirill Lokshin. I am nominating it reluctantly because it is the oldest of our WP:FARGIVEN notifications, and has now been waiting almost two years for edits to bring it to current FA standards. Alack and alas, Kirill has not found time to upgrade the article; as MILHIST is what it is thanks to Kirill's early leadership, hopefully others will have the sources and time to restore this star. The main issue is uncited text, with other minor issues that can be addressed if someone is able to cite the article and check that latest scholarship is represented (at minimum, a MOS review, MOS:SANDWICH, probably needs an image review as we didn't do those back then). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no improvement (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, sadly. I was hoping someone would be able to pick this one up, I don't have the sourcing myself. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now looking at getting the images (including the maps) up to FA standard. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now starting on the citations, lots of work needed here, so any help would be welcomed. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125 there is still considerable uncited text; are you able to cite the article considering no one else is helping? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia yes, the article needs a lot of attention. I'm working on the citations at present, and should be ready to do some updating shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125 Happy to see work continuing! Just a weekly check ... there is still quite a bit of uncited text; are you still thinking this star can be saved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these intended to be the same source? Samples .. ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Konstam, Pavia 1525, 28.
    • Konstam, Pavia 1525, 28–29.
    • Konstam 1996, pp. 30–33.
Hi SandyGeorgia, The citations are not yet fully revised, and two sections are yet to be checked for factual accuracy. Still working on the article, but am slowing down this week a bit. It's definitely salvable imo Amitchell125 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the citations have been sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now fully cited, some queries (not a MilHist person, sorry for dumb questions):

  • "The Pope, the Emperor, and Henry VIII then signed a formal alliance against France ... " This is presumably the Treaty of Bruges (1521)? Why don't we name it in the lead? Yet in the body of the article, we leave out the Emperor: "On 28 November 1521 Charles V and Henry VIII signed in secret the Treaty of Bruges."
Sorted. AM
  • Would it be helpful to link the first occurrence of Imperial to Holy Roman Emperor, although that would result in a duplicate link in the lead?
Done, but I used [[Holy_Roman_Empire#Reformation_and_Renaissance]]. AM
  • Which Spain link should be used here? " ... the major European powers ([[Early modern France|France]], [[Kingdom of England|England]], Spain, and the [[Holy Roman Empire]]) were outwardly friendly towards each other ...
Link added. AM
  • Outstandingly feels unnecessary; is it needed (redundant) and does the source support it? Francis was faced with Henry's outstandingly able, efficient and intelligent chief advisor Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, the "power behind the throne"
Word now removed (it was in the source though). AM
  • Unclear to whom pronouns refer ... "all the electors accepted large bribes from him to win his vote" ... him = Pope Leo X? Francis I ?
Oops, history and pronouns don't mix ... AM
  • undefined term ... as the intervention of Henry of Nassau drove back the Meuse offensive ... confused, because Meuse is a river ...
My fault, the different sources all give different terms for these conflicts. Now sorted. AM
  • I can't tell what is going on here in terms of what pronouns refer to whom. "Charles was meanwhile preoccupied with the issue of Luther, whom he confronted at the Diet of Worms in April 1521. Since Pope Leo X, for his part, was unwilling to tolerate such open defiance of his own authority, he now considered the Emperor as a potential ally to support him against Luther, whose backers included Frederick of Saxony." Does this mean, "Charles was meanwhile preoccupied with the issue of Luther, whom he confronted at the Diet of Worms in April 1521. Pope Leo X was unwilling to tolerate open defiance of his own authority, and considered the Emperor as a potential ally to support him against Luther, whose backers included Frederick of Saxony."
Yes, you're right. Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now at Francis I's campaign in Italy, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by melting the church plate ... " link to silver ? or something else?
Sentence amended, as more than just the plate in the churches would have been taken to be melted down. AM
  • "intending to interfere in a conflict between pro-Valois and pro-Habsburg factions in the city" ... odd ... intervene ??
Quite. AM
  • The night following the battle, ... since this is a new section ... the Battle of Pavia ?
Agreed, now done. AM
  • I chopped up and re-punctuated a long sentence here, but there is a missing word.
Sorted. AM
  • Can't tell what the intended meaning is here.
Meaning clarified. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2021 (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_review/Italian_War_of_1521–1526/archive1&oldid=1063235269"