# Talk:Swiss peasant war of 1653

I'm still looking for a good image for the lead section. I could use Martin Disteli's Gefecht zu Wohlenschwil, but haven't done so because this 1840 engraving is not contemporary and furthermore loaded: Disteli portrayed scenes from the peasant war of 1653 as he imagined them, and also did so in heavily biased ways (he had a clear political agenda); he invariable depicted the peasant leaders as heroes. Does anyone know of some other good illustration for the intro? Lupo 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue solved by using an overview map as the lead image. Lupo 21:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article could use a map of Switzerland, ideally a relief map showing the boundaries of 1653, rivers (at least Aare, Reuss, and the Rhine), and the most important regions and cities, which (for this article) are anything north of Berne and Lucerne until the Rhine and Basel including of course the Emmental and the Entlebuch, and the cities of Zürich, Lucerne, Basel, Berne, Solothurn, Herzogenbuchsee, Langenthal, Lenzburg, Aarau, Mellingen, Gisikon, Schüpfheim, Huttwil, Heiligkreuz, Rüderswil, and Sumiswald. (I hope I haven't forgotten anything.) Could somebody draw such a map, please? I'm notoriously unskilled with such things, and don't have the right programs anyway. Thank you. Lupo 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on such a map which should have nearly everything you ask, except:
It does not show some of the various places and rivers not mentioned in the article (e.g. Rhine/Rhein river).  In general I try not to overcrowd my maps, preferring to highlight the important features (e.g. the Battle of Wohlenschwil) at the expense of the less important (e.g. Lenzburg).
I'm having difficulties with the "relief" part of the map, in part due to the lack of a suitable copyright-free source.
I don't know where to find the "boundaries of 1653".  I have included the present international border, but no others.
It should be done within a few days.  MapMaster 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Good. However, I think the rivers are important as an orientation aid. For the relief part, maybe something can be assembled from the Siegfried map of Switzerland (any pre-1923 edition would do). The boundaries of 1653 can be gotten from this map. Lupo 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, I've published the map.  I was able to squeeze most everything in except for the "relief".  Due to the lack of a good relief map and lack of space, I also found it best (at least in my mind) not to explicitly show the Emmetal and Entlebuch valley systems.  Instead, I used the red starburst to highlight the area where the revolt started.
Let me know if you see any errors or other omissions. There are a few things I would like to change now that I see it in the article but I'll await input from you editors out there.  MapMaster 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. And it's even in SVG! Great. That means that I can do the corrections myself. (Just D/L'd Inkscape yesterday...) There are quite a few, I'm afraid, ranging from geographic issues to simple typos. The two most obvious are the pathes of the rivers Aare and Reuss: the Aare did not enter Lake Bienne in the 17th century, but it does run through Berne, Thun, Lake Thun, and also Lake Brienz; and the Reuss does enter Lake Lucerne in Uri and leaves it again at Lucerne. What you show as the Reuss is actually the "Kleine Emme" (from Lucerne up the Entlebuch valley). I'll do this and some other corrections over the week-end. But thanks a lot for this great start! Lupo 08:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Lupo:
I would be interested in learning where there were typos, just for my own curiousity.
Regarding the rivers, I know that the Kleine Emme does flow into the Reuss just north of Lucerne (at least according to the London Times atlas), but didn't think it advisable to label that branch as the Kleine Emme because the Kleine Emme is not mentioned in the article, because it might confuse readers vis-a-vis the (Grosse) Emme, and because it was already crowded enough in that area.  Similarly, I didn't trace out the entire length of the Aare river.  
You are certainly welcome to edit the map.  Please consider that this map is intended to show the sites related to the Peasant War.  Like Wikipedia articles, a map can be improved by leaving out information/data. 
Also, you may wish to have me edit the text to ensure font consistency.  Wikipedia only supports one style of font in SVG (see this discussion) so I transform text objects into paths.  The text just looks like text, but is really a drawing.  There are some changes I would like to make (for example, the canton capital names are too dense I believe, and there seems to be some inconsistency in the size of the canton borders), so I could make them all at once.
Finally, I have increased the size of the map to 300px.  As I state on my User page, maps need to be available alongside the text, just like they are in every other media. This allows the visitor, as she reads thru the text, to locate the various unfamiliar placenames on the map and then go back to reading (and repeat down the page).  
However, if we reduce the map to a size that requires the visitor to click to another screen, the map is divorced from the text and the visitor can no longer easily locate places.  She will usually just give up rather than click-and-load back-and-forth. 
Looking at it another way, I don't see why images can't be larger.  They certainly don't replace the text, just shift it down a bit.
I would be grateful if we could leave the map at 300px. MapMaster 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Without your lead, I couldn't have drawn these maps. Thanks again! I have corrected the geography of the rivers, and fixed the typo ("Escholzmatt", not "Eschotzmatt"). The text is all in Arial, which the PNG renderer handles fine, so it's not necessary to convert it to paths. There was no need to use fancy fonts on such a simple map. As for the size... I find the maps legible at the default thumb size, and if somebody wants to see them larger, he or she can always open the image page alongside the text. Maybe you could change the default size in your preferences to suit your taste better. I find having a manual thumb size on some images but not others (and different from the default setting) a visual distraction. Lupo 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a critical need to keep the maps large enough that all visitors can easily check unfamiliar names against the map (that is, without having to load a separate page).  Therefore, the size of the letters in the "alongside" map should be at least the same size as those in the text.  I myself cannot easily read the names on either map at thumb size, and they are perhaps 2/3rds or half the size of the article text.
The best textbooks and encyclopedias have variably-sized, optimally-sized images placed right alongside the text.  They do not place tiny images alongside the text and larger images in the back of the book.  The images are just as important as the text and in many cases even more important.
I am at a loss to see why the maps, or indeed any images, need to be at some uniform size.  You mention "visual distraction".  Does this mean that you feel it is more important for the images to be the same size than it is for them to be legible??
I have increased the size of the map to 300px and I plead with you to leave it at a legible size.  Thanks, MapMaster 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S.  I was rude in not mentioning how well you have done in your work on the maps.  The framework of your maps show a wonderful lightness, while retaining the proper emphasis on the important locations.  Changing the battle location icons to red certainly sets them apart.  I also like the light-but-effective troop movement arrows in the second map and you are to be commended for removing some locations from the second map.  Excellent job, Lupo.  My only concern is the large amount of space, perhaps 40%, devoted to the legend.
How about making all images 300px wide, then? If we can do that without botching the formatting completely (at reasonable font sizes, that is), we could have both your preferred slightly larger maps and a uniform image size... anyway, it's a minor formatting decision. As for the large legends: yes, but if they're smaller, I think we definitely get a legibility problem... The rest... well, I have to return the compliments; the first map is barely more than yours with the star replaced by the (approximate) territory, and it was your choice of a slightly transparent yellowish tone that gave me the idea of what to do with those pesky arrows on the second map. Your comment about not overloading maps was very insightful and inspired me to actually use two maps instead of one. And Inkscape has such nice gradient support - much better than the GIMP (which was all I knew until a few days ago). I only couldn't figure out how to define a white background—it's still transparent, despite my setting the document background color to white! Do you have an idea how to rectify that? Lupo 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Lupo, you guessed it.  I imported the PNG map into Inkscape and then hand- (or rather mouse-) traced it, and then erased the PNG map.  I prefer to enlarge the PNG map greatly to get a sufficient level of detail.  Inkscape does have tracing functions, but they just took a lot of time for an inferior result.
And, yes, I also believe that this article is at least an "A" quality.  In fact, I think I'll change it myself.  Of course, some procedures-bound rules-meister will insist that it has to be judged a Good Article first.  MapMaster 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Setting all images to 300px (or even 250px) would work for me.  I'm, of course, concerned primarily about the maps, but I do believe that some of the other images would work better at a larger size as well.
The "slightly transparent yellowish tone" is the semi-official Wikipedia primary color for maps (see this section).
I am very glad you decided to make two maps.  I think it works well and you did a great job in making them complementary without being redundant.
To ensure that you have a white background, add a square to the map, exactly covering the map.  Set the "fill" (and the "stroke") to white.  Then place that square at the bottom of the stack (one can do this by selecting the white square and hitting "End").
I was thinking that these maps could rather easily be added to the German language article, with a few small changes.  That article is, of course, quite a bit smaller, but would still benefit.  I would be happy to do this if you wish.
I hope that you continue to create maps.  Wikipedia needs maps of this quality.
Thanks, MapMaster 23:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, 250px then. I thought that was the default, but I just found out that the default in 180px, which is indeed too small. German translations of the maps are forthcoming... Lupo 07:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
German versions of the maps are now available as commons:Image:Karte Schweizerischer Bauernkrieg.svg and commons:Image:Karte Schweizerischer Bauernkrieg Feldzüge.svg. Lupo 09:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, Lupo.  This article should get a rating IMO.Larry Dunn 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Then rate it! (I can't, being the main contributor.) Lupo 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone beat my lazy bones to the job.  IMO it rates higher than a B, but what do I know.  I like the map -- I have to read up on how you made it, as I need to generate a map or two myself.Larry Dunn 20:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Once MapMaster had provided an initial SVG version, it was rather simple. Inkscape is pretty good for this.  How he got the borders from the PNG map I had mentioned into the SVG I do not know. Maybe he retraced them by hand... (I suppose by loading the PNG into Inkscape, then drawing over it in a new layer on top of it, and then removing the bottom layer with the PNG image again.) Or maybe Inkscape has some automated support for tasks like this... Lupo 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Lupo, you guessed it.  I imported the PNG map into Inkscape and then hand- (or rather mouse-) traced it, and then erased the PNG map.  I prefer to enlarge the PNG map greatly to get a sufficient level of detail.  Inkscape does have tracing functions, but they just took a lot of time for an inferior result.
And, yes, I also believe that this article is at least an "A" quality.  In fact, I think I'll change it myself.  Of course, some procedures-bound rules-meister will insist that it has to be judged a Good Article first (which is not true, if I remember correctly).  MapMaster 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your appreciation of this article :-), but since this rating stuff is local to that "military history" project, I guess you should play by their rules and open a formal A-Class review if you want it to be rated "A". See here... I don't care, though. Lupo 09:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed according to the good article criteria.  It has been placed on hold, meaning that if the problems raised by this review are not rectified within 7 days, it will fail.  The reason it has not failed outright is because it is certainly not without merit, it just needs some work which probably won't take very long.  The assessments and the critereon they fall under are given in full below.

Thanks for the comments. Lupo 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well Written: PASS

The lead section is far too long.  It should ideally be 1-2 paragraphs, max 4.
Despite passing this criterion, should be rectified by the end of the hold period for this article to pass GA.

Combined 2 aras into one, now it's four paragraphs. I feel that a relatively long and broad article may have a slightly longer lead than usual, especially on a subject that may not be well known in the English-speaking world. Remember that leads should be self-contained summaries of the rest of the article. Lupo 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Remember that leads should be consise self-contained summaries, with relatively small details reserved for the main body of the text.  The lead section is still the same length, just shortened into four paragraphs, which is not in the spirit of what I suggested to you.  The peasents demanded relief and threatened the cities, they marched on the cities, they signed a peace and withdrew and were then crushed. If I wish to know the presise names of the men, treaties etc, then I will look in the article, those details are not for the lead in any full scale way. Chrisfow 16:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. A lead should be written such that it is basically possible to produce a "Concise Wikipedia" by just taking the lead sections of the articles. Lupo 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Factually Accurate and Verifiable: FAIL

There is only one reference in the entire, long lead section
Remember that the lead is a summary of the rest of the article. All the facts mentioned in the lead are sourced at the appropriate places in the rest of the article. Lupo 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
There is only one reference in the Background section
Indeed. That's because it's a very brief summary from other articles. I'll see if I can dig up references from there... Lupo 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Lupo 08:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to detail every place where references are needed, but reading this article just once through throws upa lot of obvious, unsupported claims.
Uh, that's not helpful. Note that in general I do not source each and every sentence. For instance, the whole first paragraph of "Causes of the conflict" is sourced to the reference given at the end. Lupo 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Breadth: PASS

This article is brilliantly broad.  It is my opinion that every history article should have a sub-section on the relevent historiography, and this does not disappoint there.
NPOV: FAIL

When their demands were haughtily dismissed by the cities, the peasants organized themselves and threatened to blockade the cities.
Haughtily dismissed?  That is not neutral language, it is emotive.  Either reference it or cut it.
Too tired to source it, I have just removed "haughtily". It is mentioned later that the city council of Lucerne even refused to hear the peasants' delegation, which was very unusual, as the late medieval social contract included an obligation of the rulers to hear the petitions of their subjects. Lupo 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Stable: PASS
Pictures?: PASS
Chrisfow 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth are page numbers commented out?--Rmky87 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
And what can I do to make reference #17 reappear? The original is in the article, but it's not showing up. How about putting the page numbers, with the authors' names and year of publication, in between ref tags and sticking the full references in a separate section? Then this probably would happen.--Rmky87 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Refs changed. Didn't know back then how to implement this in a more or less convenient way. Lupo 23:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!--Rmky87 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
wth? this is easily a GA. Stop being, eh, unreasonable about GA assessment, if you want to bicker about formating issues, you are looking for WP:FAC. Sometimes it really looks like people are just desparate to add red tape to anything that isn't firmly encrusted in procedure. dab (𒁳) 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are formatting issues, and then there are things that make some of the references invisible when not in edit mode. It happened as soon as the commented out page numbers were added.
I will pass this.--Rmky87 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If you could tell me what formatting issues you mean and which references you mean (note that the referencing has been changed since the GA nomination), I will try to fix those issues. Lupo 08:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


### Off-topic
Ah!  We are privileged to be getting a lecture on WP:DICK from a person who has achieved notoriety for using their admin powers to ban contributors they have a content argument with.  I disagree with Rmky87's original stance that the formatting issues stand agaianst GA, but I would suggest dab that you assume good faith - s/he is only trying to make Wikipedia as well referenced and as impressive an encyclopedia as we can.  Why you can't act like Lupo has here, rather than accuse Rmky87 of acting like a dick, I will never understand.  Chrisfow 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
'Scuse me, but why did you post this here? If you've got an axe to grind with dab, please do so on his and your talk pages. This page should be about the article and its content. Lupo 09:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)