Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/War of the League of Cambrai

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War of the League of Cambrai

[edit]

Self-nomination. Went through a peer review here (the only comment was regading the addition of a map). I think that this article is a rather comprehensive treatment of an obscure historical episode; the only real issue is the fairly small number of pictures. Kirill Lokshin 06:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1.The article is full with details: names, dates, places which are very difficult to remember and make the reading very hard. For example:

On April 15, 1509, Louis left Milan at the head of a French army and moved rapidly into Venetian territory. To oppose him, Venice had hired a condottiere army under the command of the Orsini cousins — Bartolomeo d'Alviano and Nicolo di Pitigliano — but had failed to account for the fact that the two disagreed on how best to stop the French advance. Consequently, when Louis crossed the Adda River in early May and Alviano advanced to meet him, Pitigliano, believing it best to avoid a pitched battle, moved away to the south. On May 14, Alviano confronted the French at the Battle of Agnadello; out-numbered, he sent requests for reinforcements to his cousin, who replied with orders to break off the battle and continued on his way.[10] Alviano, disregarding the new orders, continued the engagement; his army was eventually surrounded and destroyed. Pitigliano managed to avoid encountering Louis; but his mercenary troops, hearing of Alviano's defeat, had deserted in large numbers by the next morning, forcing him to retreat to Treviso with the remnants of the Venetian army.[11]

In this paragraph, it is very hard to imagine what is really happening without knowing where is the Adda River or what means south in ...moved away to the south. Do we really have to click on condottiere army to understand what is the relationship between Alviano and Pitigliano, and the Pope? What means and continued on his way? It is unclear. Perhaps a way to make all this understandable would be to put some schema of the battles or region (a simple map with a few arrows and names: the provided historical map is nice but too complicated). Another hint: why not introduce a table summarizing all the names (who fought for whom? With Pitigliano and Alviano ordered below Julius).
2. I was interested in the name because I thought this war happened in Flanders. However I haven't found any trace of the reason why Cambrai is associated to this War. Why not putting this in the lead such that people interested in the history of the Low Countries would directly see this has nothing to do with that.
Vb 08:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I cannot agree with your first point: I find the paragraph you quote, and the entire article, to be clearly written and easily followed. As for your second point, a sentence explaining why the League of Cambrai was so called might be a good idea. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the second point, I've added a parenthetical note in the lead that explains the origin of the name; hopefully, that will clarify the issue. Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Mousekateers, let's put on our thinking caps:>

Pope Julius II had intended that the war would curb Venetian influence in northern Italy, and had, to this end, created the League of Cambrai, an alliance against the Republic that included, besides himself, Louis XII of France, Emperor Maximilian I, and Ferdinand I of Spain. Although the League was initially successful, friction between Julius and Louis caused it to collapse by 1510; Julius then allied himself with Venice against France. The Veneto-Papal alliance eventually expanded into the Holy League, which drove the French from Italy in 1512; disagreements about the division of the spoils, however, led Venice to abandon the alliance in favor of one with France. Under the leadership of Francis I, who had succeeded Louis to the throne, the French and Venetians would regain the territory they had lost through their victory at Marignano in 1515; and the treaties of Noyon and Brussels, which ended the war the next year, would essentially return the map of Italy to the status quo of 1508.

So lessee if I got this right-In 1508 the Pope did not like the Venetians, who at that time lived in Venice. So he formed an alliance against them called the League Of Cambrai, presumably because this is where the emmisaries and ambassadors met to hammer out the details and sign the paperwork. This league originally included the French. But the Italians soon discovered(as does everyone eventually) that despite their differences, they disliked the French even more, and so allied against them and donkey punched them out of Italty. But being Italians, they soon began to quarrel amongst themselves, with the Venetians (still residing in Venice, BTW) approaching Les Francais and their new king, Les Francis for an alliance this time. They regained some lost territory, which finally compelled the Pope and his possee to the negotiating table and a year and two treaties later everything was basically back to where it was in 1508. Status-Quo ante-matter. Does that sound about right? Did I miss anything there? If not, it seems pretty clear to me. But then again I'm a victim of the U.S. Public Edumacational system.:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, many paragraphs sound a bit like : X did that. Y did that. Then he went there and killed Z. It is difficult for the layman to keep the flow and gain some overview. Moreover many names and places are not described and the reader has to click on the link to know where or who it is. For example, the name Cambrai is now cited in the lead but it is not written that it is a city in Flanders or Nothern France. Cambrai is not Paris or New York it is not a city which could be assumed to be known all over the world just like the Adda River which is also not the Rhine nor the Nile. But I think my objection could be easily removed if a schematical map would be provided where one could read the important places and maybe troop movements. The provided map is not readable without clicking on it and include much too many details. I think also too many secondary characters appear. About the example above wouldn't it be clearer to say things more simply in one sentence without mentioning any names nor places that I don't know and I don't mind about. If places are important then point them on a map or write a short comment like "Cambrai, a city in Flanders". If not than remove them. The same is true for names, if some persons are important put a picture, a table summarizing all of them. If not then skip them. Vb 13:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me provide a new example:
In the aftermath of the First Italian War, Pope Alexander VI had moved to consolidate Papal control over central Italy by seizing the Romagna. Cesare Borgia, acting as gonfaloniere of the Papal armies, had expelled the Bentivoglio family from Bologna, which they had ruled as a fief, and was well on his way towards establishing a permanent Borgia state in the region when Alexander died on August 18, 1503
I don't know what is the First Italian War. Do I have to click on this? Couldn't one editor write behind that (14??-15??, between Sweden and Japan). What is gonfaloniere? Could someone write behind that some words defining this? had expelled the Bentivoglio family from Bologna, which they had ruled as a fief: Do we really have to be told about the Bentivoglio family? Couldn't one say simply "conquered Bologna"? Is the exact date August 18, 1503 really that important? Why not write simply 1503?
The full article is full with such details and need in my opinion a througout re-edit. Vb 13:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I believe that FA criterion 2b ("an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details") explicitly forbids this; I simply don't see how an article about a war can be considered comprehensive without giving the specific details (names, places, dates) that you're objecting to. It also seems to me that the use of internal links for terms (rather than a duplication of the content of those links in the article itself) is standard Wikipedia convention.
I'd appreciate any input from more experienced editors on the degree to which this objection is considered actionable. Kirill Lokshin 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the most important things in an article is its flow. It must be fluidily readable by non specialists in a reasonable amount of time. This implies not too many parentheses, lists, short paragraphs and links. If you think the exact dates are important make something like a timetable in a table. When you write an article about math you have to define each word unknown to undergrad students even if those words have a specialized article of their own. You cannot expect any reader to read all WP math articles if she is interested in the main topic of your article. This is the same for historical articles such as this one: when you use the word gonfaloniere please define it because if the aricle about gonfaloniere is more interesting than War of the League of Cambrai your reader will not come back again. :-) Vb 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The condottiere were mercenaries and the gonfaloniere was the commander (or Captain general) of the Papal armies. There! See, you've learned something! :>. Your main objection seems to be this article is too in depth and complex. To me this is a plus. It is better to err on the side of completeness than omit in order to dumb an article down and cater to the limited attention spans of some readers. Apart from that you seem to dislike its style and topic. You are entitled to. However just nitpicking the article is not very helpful or constructive. You seem to be mostly saying "I just don't like this...BLEH! DRY!". --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No I really try to be constructive. One way to improve the article would be to add some figure like "Image:Ww2summarymapeurope.gif" even if this picture is for my taste too detailed with too small characters. Vb 09:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In order to answer to your point about details let me cite this critique to the article human: What's wrong with details (particularly dates)? This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to have details.(...) Referee's reply: Wrong. The purpose is to omit as much detail as possible, leaving only the essential. I utterly agree with this referee Vb 09:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, historical articles should be full of names, dates and places. That's what they are about. I see no issue with the flow of this article at all. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not your opinion. I think historical article should also show global viewpoints, interpretations, summaries: history is not only a sequence of facts. Moreover a feature article should be some kind of self contained. The example of Cambrai and Bologna is illuminating: while Bologna can be assumed to be a city known to a reader interested in an Italian war, one cannot expect the reader to know where is Cambrai. Details should be put in overview tables or maps or in subsections, clearly specialized paragraphs or in daughter articles. If I want to know the exact date of Alexander's death, I look at Alexander's article not at War of the League of Cambrai.Vb 07:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, we can assume that the exact location of Cambrai would be of no interest to "a reader interested in an Italian war", while the date of Alexander's death — given here because it is the event that sets the precursors to this war in motion, not because Alexander himself is of great interest to us — is directly relevant to the subject.
The objection to human isn't really applicable here, in my opinion; human is a much more general article, which must cater to a wide variety of readers. Nobody will read past the lead section of War of the League of Cambrai unless they are interested in the details of the war; I see no reason to deny these details to the curious reader. Kirill Lokshin 12:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the test of a good article is not whether someone can memorize every detail on a single reading. Just one question, I noticed the spelling "detachements", which I'm not familiar with, is it British English? --Michael Snow 19:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was a misspelling, actually; I've corrected it. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written. But I have no idea what everyone's arguing about. Not only is the article extremely understandable, but other articles that have been elected have been less legible. Most articles would bathe this article's footnotes or tend to it's paragraphs. Kirill has done a great job on this article, it needs to go the whole hog. So there's my terribly written thought(s). Have a nice day.... Spawn Man 08:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I've added a warbox; I'll see what I can do about a better map. Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/War_of_the_League_of_Cambrai&oldid=1138475179"