Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Ceresole

Another quite obscure (but very interesting) battle. I've tried to make the narrative as easy to follow as possible, as the events themselves were rather confused. The article has undergone a peer review by the Military history WikiProject; I look forward to comments from a broader audience! Kirill Lokshin 15:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I support it, many details, and written very well. (I am in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history though I didn't participate in the peer review.) Hello32020 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The Cryxic would definitely hit it. FA in every way.UberCryxic 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great article, easy to read deserves FA. Kyriakos 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another quality submission by Kirill. Rlevse 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, another great article from Kirill! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support'. Well annotated and referenced. Nice supplemental graphs, charts, and images. Good structure and balance. --Randy Johnston 23:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Guys, "We belong to Military Project, hence we always vote for each other" principle is not very helpful. I would like to have an illustration of the battle. Has it never been painted? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I know, it hasn't. (Or, in any case, any paintings of it aren't actually labeled. There's plenty of period engravings with titles like "Landknechts in battle" and the like, but it's almost impossible to guess what actual battle—if any—they depict.) Kirill Lokshin 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I still would like to have one of these engravings illustrating the article. That said, I support the nomination. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added Image:Bad-war.jpg, and I'll see if I can find one with arquebusiers in it. Kirill Lokshin 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not part of the MILHIST project and I do not always vote for their FACs and I resent the insinutation that I do. That being said, I've found Kirill's (not the project's) FAC submission of the most consistent and highest quality.Rlevse 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am part of the MILHIST project, but do not always vote for their FACs. Very well written overall. But what is the significance of the battle. Granted, the current WP:WIAFA does not require that an article have some broader relevance. But I strongly believe that the difference between a really good article and an article worthy of being a featured article is some commentary on its context and significance. Give us a few lines about:

• The causes of the war – the French-Habsburg Wars of 1521-1529 and 1535-1538) — the French goal of recapturing Milan.
• Alliances - Tell us about the French alliance with England’s Henry VIII of England and it's relevance (or link us to the main article).
• The denouement - was this important in the later development of the war — in the peace treaty of 1544 (you'd think) — the Council of Trent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamborg (talk • contribs)

Hmm, wouldn't such material be more appropriate for the actual Italian War of 1542 article? WP:WIAFA calls for the article to be "focused on the main topic", and that topic happens to be this specific battle, not the broader Franco-Habsburg rivalry of the preceding half-century. As far as your specific points:

• I've added some comments to the "Prelude" section about the specific strategic situation in 1543–44; but the entire sordid history of the previous few decades needn't be rehashed in every individual battle article, in my opinion.
• Umm, what "French alliance with England’s Henry VIII"? France hadn't been allied with England since 1528, by this point. In any case, I think that issues of broad politics are best dealt with in the article on the entire war.
• No, it wasn't really important to any of those (i.e. "the battle proved to be of little strategic significance"). The war as a whole was relevant to Trent, but this battle in particular was not, having led to something of an anti-climax.

Broadly speaking, the battle—beyond getting an inordinately high number of people killed—wasn't really significant in any long-term sense. Kirill Lokshin 05:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reasons you rose are very valid. Nothing that can't be fixed, and I will look into working on it. If they are, I hope you would support. Thanks for your input.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you made a good point, but they are fixable. So i hope that after they are fixed, you can support this article.-- ¢² Connor K.   18:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written, but not in a language that is incredibly foreign to me. Many sources, very NPOV, complies with MOS, and interesting. Great pictures. Strongly believe it of the quality.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose!!! The FA criteria are totally inadequate for this article. Why did you submit it here? This article is beyond FAC criteria. First create a new category for such superb articles and then submit it there... Anyway ... Until then I support!--Yannismarou 18:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No useful external links?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sixteenth-century warfare seems not to be the most popular of topics on the web. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Just glancing through, I saw many red links, could they be at least stubbed? btg2290 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Down to four redlinks now (three in the navigational templates and one in the footnotes); I'm not certain if I have enough information to make meaningful stubs for these. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And now down to just two redlinks. Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  In any case, red links are not an obstacle for FA status.--Yannismarou 17:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Well written, but largely based on a source in which accuracy in (especially Italian) names is like brain for George W. Bush (nearly zero). I think it needs strong revision to check all such names and location errors on which I didn't surf on. --Attilios 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]