Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revolt of the Comuneros/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008 [1].

---

Revolt of the Comuneros

Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk)

A-class review

No, I never heard of this revolt (well, before July or so) either. Nevertheless, while Hernando Cortes was busy conquering Mexico, huge swathes of Spain itself were fighting a civil war in which the rebels even controlled the capital! Just think: If the French had ridden to the rescue of the rebels about three months earlier (or the rebels had just stalled better), we might have seen a rather different Spain under some kind of constitutional monarchy (but also with a healthy dash of xenophobia). Meanwhile, in the course of about 10 years Charles V turns from useless 16-year old puppet king controlled by nobles to administrative badass.

This started as a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia Featured Article (and thanks to User:Rastrojo and others for their work there), and has since been rewritten and expanded. The article now uses English-language sources on the topic whenever possible. Some friends of mine helped copyedit it, and it's passed an A-Class review.

Anyway, let me preemptively note and then respond to some possible questions/criticisms of the article:

• Sourcing: This article relies mostly on Stephen Haliczer and Henry Latimer Seaver's books. This is because they are basically the only two pieces of English-language scholarship exclusively on the topic, as best I can tell; sure, your average History of Spain book will spend 2-10 pages on it, but that's only overview stuff. Joseph Perez is used to complement those two, and also has the virtue of being recent (2001) as well as less potentially biased than most other Spanish work on this (Perez is French). Nieto is used a teensy bit; he's got a bit of an axe to grind, but seems to be the only historian who wrote a lot on other 20th century intellectual views of the revolt. Some of the very recent developments are sourced to a 2002 doctoral thesis. The reliability of the (very few) links to Spanish-language websites is discussed in the A-Class review, but I think they're all fairly non-controversial.
• Images: There are two MOS exceptions in the article. First, there may be some squishing between the two images at the very end. However the only place those two images make sense is the very end of the article, so there really isn't any other option. I'm going to invoke the "reasonable common sense exceptions" clause to the MOS here. Second, there are a few images with specified sizes due to the original being small, looking bad at low resolution, etc. More on that at the A-Class review as well, and the guideline explicitly says that "looks bad at wrong resolution" is a fair reason to specify a size.
• Size: The article weighs in at 49KB readable prose, which is toward the upper end of the scale, but reasonable I think considering this is an article about an entire war.

Comments and suggestions welcome. SnowFire (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current refs 104 (Lopez, Adalberto and Kuethe, Allan) are lacking page numbers

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added page numbers. Mostly was just trying to cite the fact that those Latin American revolts exist, even if their connection to the original revolt was quite loose. SnowFire (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've followed the evolution of this article on English Wikipedia and it's awesome. I'm so glad to SnowFire. He has done a similar work with the article (first diff comparation) as hard as I did a couple of months ago with the original one on the Castilian Wikipedia. I did this article in Castilian because it's a very complex, completely unknown and quite manipulated topic. I had the objective of write a complete article about the Comuneros, but now, I'm fully satisfied with this translation. I see it as a new step that clarifies the topic in two of the most important languages on the world: English and Castilian. Congrats to SnowFire and best regards. Rastrojo (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - Most of these images had excellent descriptions and sources - thank you! A few minor points:

• Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Johanna I van Castilië.JPG - The description says "own photo" - does that mean User:Viewer took the photo? If so, could we make that explicit?

• Image:ComunerosCityControl.png - We need a source for the information put into this map.

• Image:BattleofTordesillas.PNG - Was Halliczer the basis of the rest of the information in this diagram? If so, his work needs to be listed as a source.

• It is best to list all of the publication information for the source, including the date, publisher, and publication information. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Castillo de Torrelobatón (torre del homenaje).jpg - There is no license for this image.

These issues should be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Joanna: I assume so. I've edited the description to say so, and dropped a message off at Viewer's talk page to confirm this. As for the city control, I'm 99% certain that it's Perez's Los Comuneros, but I'll let Rastrojo confirm since he made the original map. Regardless, the map matches up with what's in Perez anyway, I think, but I'll try and confirm it. As for the Battle of Tordesillas, both Haliczer and Seaver discuss it, but Seaver does it in more detail, so I'll probably list him as the chief source I actually used (since as noted in the description I'm actually ignoring one part of Haliczer's account). As for the Castle of Torrelobatón.. uh, that's a weird error. The Commons page shows the licenses clearly, but I see what you're saying, it's not showing up on the English Wikipedia. I'm stumped on that one; anyone know what's up with that? Worst comes to worst, we can always add a text notice as well. SnowFire (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, source added for the city control map (and I was wrong in my guess). Thanks again, Rastrojo. SnowFire (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Full publication data also added for the Tordesillas image. SnowFire (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. I've done a slight punctuation copyedit, although if you disagree then please change it back. This was a fascinating article on a subject I'd never heard of and I think it is certainly FA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Notes, the lead in the image breaches WP:ACCESS. Please review the dab links identified in the toolbox. There is one gynormous image that breaches WP:MOS#Images, many that breach WP:ACCESS on layout, and puncuation is off on most captions per WP:MOS#Captions. Surprised to learn that Juana la Loca is referred to as "Joanna" in English: ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation links: The only one, to Comunero, is the hatnote on the top of the page. Obviously that's going to be a link to a disambiguation page (though you'll note on the talk page that there's a discussion on the hatnote, which I wouldn't mind input on.) (Edit: There was another one, since removed; see below.)

Re image in the lead: Could you clarify what your complaint is about this image? It's in an infobox with no custom modifications, so it should be a pretty standard deal. I read WP:ACCESS before, have reread it twice, and have no idea what issue you are referring to. Only thing I can think of is that you're referring to the image of the church, but that's intentionally not part of the lead. It's there more as a prelude to the Origins section / filler to not make the TOC be completely alone.

Re Large map image: I assume your complaint is the size? MOS:IMAGES says that "Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts" is an explicit reason to set a size, and the {{wide image}} template was used on the recent TFA Harvey Milk#Tributes. I'm going to firmly stand next to keeping this one here: Your average English-speaking audience is not going to know where all these towns in Spain are, and the color denoting who controlled the cities is practically illegible at a smaller scaling. Some of the people I ran this article through first specifically noted the large map as quite helpful.

Captions: Was under the impression that using periods consistently for fragments was okay, but see that's apparently only for when they're mixed with other sentences. Lone sentence fragments now consistently have no period.

WP:ACCESS: Okay, from your changes, I gather that if there is a level 2 caption and a level 3 caption immediately beneath it, images must go beneath the level 3 caption. I've made that change throughout the article, but this isn't entirely clear from WP:ACCESS - it says that images should be inside sections, which I feel they were previously, just that the images applied to the entire level 2 section (for example, the "BattleofTordesillas.png" image clearly is part of the whole level 2 section on the Battle, not just the Leadership Disputes subsection). Perhaps the wording could be clarified at WP:ACCESS? (To be clear, I've made the requested change, though.)

Re this image you moved: This wasn't a case of ignorance of the guideline; the problem is that that image violates a guideline no matter where it's at. If it's right-aligned (your change), it can cause stack-ups on large resolution monitors and violates "alternate which sides an image is on." If it's left-aligned beneath the header (what it was for most of the article's history), then it violates the "don't have a left-aligned image beneath a level 3 header" guideline. If it's placed above the header (a change I made just before the FAC to try to comply with image placement guidelines, actually), then it's placed above the section it describes. Personally I think that the two options in which the image is left-aligned look better in far more cases, since we're going to have to make an exception anyway. Thoughts?

Re Joanna: Yeah, Joanna is kinda archaic. Both the main English sources called her Juana, but it seems Wikipedia uses Joanna, so that's what I've done. SnowFire (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ACCESS#Lead section; the problem is the placement of the image of San Pablo church. Doing what is done there throws off screen readers. Re Dabs, see WP:RED. The gynormous map is disruptive IMO, and 500px would do the job, but that's just my opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the image of the church: A screen-reader would read the image after the lead but before the TOC, which is fine here, right? The image is more a prelude to the Origins section, not part of the lead itself, but this is a case where vast amounts of white space next to the TOC is undesirable and unsightly, so the image is used to fill the space out and hint to readers to keep on scrolling down for more. I don't think that this is in any way bad for screen-readers; they hear it exactly where other readers would see it.

If this is an opposable problem, then I'd rather remove the image for now pending asking about the issue on policy pages. It's not part of the lead so shouldn't be moved up, there isn't room in the Origins section for it, and it isn't essential to the article.

As for Dabs: Actually edited out what I had there before and changed the article at the same time as your reply. There actually was an Italian republics article, but I just made that redirect - "Italian Republic" unfortunately redirects to Italy (and lots of articles use it) with no disambig page linked in Italy's hatnote, so "Repubbliche Marinare" was annoying to find.

Re the map: Fair enough. I will point out that all of Castile is within the leftmost 500 pixels of the map, so even on small resolutions where the scrollbars pop up, readers will still see the most important part without need to scroll. SnowFire (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not an oppose; it is merely advice to fix an easy issue that I have already reviewed many times at WT:ACCESS. Images go before the text in the lead; filling the white space with an image causes problems for screen readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed my mind on removing the image in general. Image moved to beneath infobox. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose by karanacs. This is a very interesting article, but I think the prose is not at FA quality. There is too much redundancy and too many areas where prose is much more complicated than it should be. Please note that the prose issues in the list below are examples only. I only read through the early 1521 section, so there may be other, non-prose issues, that I have missed.
• The lead contains details not in the body of the article; for example, that other heirs died before Joanna and Philip gained the throne (I'd just remove this from the lead, not add it into the article body). Charles's youth is not mentioned in the section dealing with Ferdinand's regency either.
• Grammatical and punctuation errors (listed are examples only)
  • King Philip the Handsome ruled for a mere two years; he was replaced by Archbishop Cisneros as regent for a short time, and then Ferdinand who ruled from Aragon -- missing comma after Ferdinand, two halves of the second sentence don't mesh - should be "and then by"
  • The government had expelled the Jews in 1492 and the Muslims of Granada in 1502, a move that undercut lucrative trades and businesses - instead of "a move" should be "moves" - those are two different events
  • The population greeted him with skepticism - why not just "the people"?
  • With the arrival of the new king in late 1517, his Flemish court took positions of power in Castile; young Charles only trusted people he knew from the Netherlands -- very awkward sentence
  • "With the unrest growing, Charles' paternal grandfather Emperor Maximilian I died in 1519" -- these two clauses have nothing really to do with each other
  • The cities responded by sending their militias - could be simplified to "The cities sent their militias"; prose tends to flow better when redundant wording is removed
  • Uprisings throughout Castile occurred - should be "Uprisings occurred throughout Castile"
  • In turn, dissenting voices inside the comuneros now began to be heard, especially in Burgos - had these dissenting voices existed before? what made them only "heard" now?
  • Valladolid, the former seat of royal power, was considered especially likely to turn, but supporters of the king had been away from the political life of the city for too long and it remained rebel-controlled - not sure about the importance of the supporters of the king being gone so long - did that mean they couldn't accurately read the town's mood, or that their absence contributed to the rebel's control?
  • I understand what you mean here Girón was one of the few noble comuneros, apparently because Charles had refused to grant him the Duchy of Medina-Sidonia to him - but it is not clear; at first, it appears that he was not granted a noble title, so how could he be a noble.
  • Outnumbered, the town nevertheless resisted for four days, thanks to its walls' -- very awkward wording
• The paragraph on the succession doesn't ever actually mention that Joanna was Ferdinand and Isabella's daughter, and that's why she was the theoretical heir
• Short quotations (less than 4 lines), should not be offset; they should be part of the paragraph, per WP:MOSQUOTE
• Be consistent on whether Cortes is italicized or not
• Why is the Beginnings of Revolt section subdivided into other sections? They are so short that it seems a little pointless
• Per MOS, only the first word of a heading should be capitalized (unless there are proper nouns in the heading). revolt should not be capitalized
• Headings should also not begin with "The"
• The people of Segovia, led by militia leader and noble Juan Bravo, closed ranks around the Comunidad -- what is this supposed to be saying?
• Watch for overlinking. Adrian of Utrecht is linked multiple times (not counting his image caption). He is also referred to in two different ways- as Adrian of U. and as Cardinal Adrian. Let's be consistent (Joanna also overlinked)
• The section on the Battle of Tordesillas may be too short to need 3 subsections
• Meanwhile, the rebellion in Burgos scheduled for January 23 - while the article says a revolt was encouraged, it is never mentioned that it was official until now

Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Will return later, but I agree with some of your changes but disagree with others. Some notes (might have more added later):

• Cortes is consistently not italicized, as it's basically a word in English. It is italicized upon introduction as it is used as a word (MOS:ITALICS#Words as words), and it's also italicized when part of a title not in English as then the entire phrase needs to be in italics. But those cases are incidental.
• No headings begin with 'The' except "The Junta of Ávila" and "The Junta of Tordesillas." One, it sounds incredibly awkward to leave "the" off in those cases, and two, in both the Spanish books I read on this (and the Spanish article) these Juntas are almost always referred to as "La Junta de Ávila" or "La Junta de Tordesillas." I'm not sure it qualifies as a proper name including "the/la", but if not, it's darn close.
• I don't follow your complaint about Burgos - the article says they were planning a revolt, and then it discusses the aftermath.
• Short quotes: I hesitate to invoke "other crap exists" at FAC, but that guideline has to be one of the most ignored on Wikipedia. A quick look at transclusions turned up Apollo 11 using JFK's short quote about landing a man on the moon right in the lead, for example. Is there a problem with emphasizing shorter quotes with the indent? I mean, again, if this is actually a big deal then I'll change the one shorter quote that's in the article to be in-line, but I think it works for emphasis and guidelines admit exceptions. (Admittedly I think this guideline should be considerably weakened so am perhaps not the best judge of what would qualify as a good exception.)
• Short sections: This came up in the A-class review. The usage of short sections is intentional, and I see this more as a stylistic choice. I don't like giant walls of text, and lots of sections helps break things up and remind the reader what's happening in a longish article that they might skim. Almost all of the sections do comply with the minimum length in Help:Section, though.
• Re consistency of title: I disagree on that. What's wrong with using all of George Washington, General Washington, and President Washington? Many important people had multiple titles / positions / epithets, and switching between them seems the best way of getting it across. I'm not even using "Regent Adrian" except once (and then with Cardinal to be clear).
• "With the unrest growing, Charles' paternal grandfather Emperor Maximilian I died in 1519." Maybe there's a rephrase that could help here, but yes, these events are interrelated even if one didn't cause the other. Consider "With the children playing with matches, the gasoline can tipped over." Events that would normally be boring and humdrum can turn into explosive sparks for action if the conditions are bad. "With the unrest growing" sets the scene; Seaver specifically talks about how Maximilian's death was a completely forseeable issue that only became a crisis because distrust in Charles was so high.
• "King Philip the Handsome..." Fair point on adding the word "by," but I'm pretty certain that a comma is optional in the last part.
• "In turn, dissenting voices inside the comuneros now began to be heard, especially in Burgos" [had these dissenting voices existed before? what made them only "heard" now?] Not really, since anyone who opposed the comuneros wasn't a comunero before and thus wasn't really an internal dissenter. As for what only made them heard now, it was mostly upper class / aristocratic rebels getting cold feet after they saw the peasant revolts and feared what would happen, as is discussed in the section immediately prior.
• To be clear, thank you very much for looking the article over and giving your suggestions, and I'll adjust the text with regards to most of your suggested changes. As for the prose in general, I'll give it another runthrough, but I've mostly already shot my own cannons on this. Would you be willing to continue looking over the rest of the article, or should I go ask for a copyeditor somewhere else? SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

FAs are supposed to adhere to MOS guidelines, hence why I mentioned some of the inconsistencies with the MOS above. I would recommend a run-through by a copyeditor just to iron out any other glitches. The prose isn't bad, it just needs a little more polishing. Karanacs (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, back (was out over the weekend). I had another friend look over the article, but they didn't have much to say. I've dropped another request off at the Guild of Copyeditors, though I'm not sure that's the best/right place for it. More concerns and comments... (de-indented)

• (your change) "Economic growth created new urban industries and powerful people not tied to the aristocracy" -> "Economic growth created new urban industries and enabled non-noble individuals to become powerful." I understand that the previous sentence is a bit wordy, but this changes the sense of things. Non-noble people were powerful before, but A) There were fewer of them and B) They were powerful because they were the king's treasurer or the like. I'm trying to get at the creation of the budding middle class, people who got rich off of not toadying to nobles (and thus being "tied" to them) but via being merchants, lawyers, etc. I've tried "Economic growth created new urban industries and offered a route to power and wealth not tied to the aristocracy" - hopefully should read clearer.
• "The people of Segovia, led by militia leader and noble Juan Bravo, closed ranks around the Comunidad " - changed to "rallied." It's supposed to be saying that it cemented their support and changed previously neutral parties to pro-comunero ones.
• "...but too many supporters of the king had been away from the political life of the city for too long and it remained rebel-controlled." With regard to your queries: Yes, to both of them. I've changed it to "...but too many supporters of the king had left city politics and lost their influence. It remained rebel-controlled."
• Joanna: You removed "Queen" before Joanna in the lead. I've restored it, because it's highly important that Joanna was the -Queen-, not some powerless Queen Mother like in other countries. She officially had a lot of power and had high standing equal to her son the King, hence why the comuneros latched on to her. Also removed "wished for" an alternative ruler; I had originally said "need," but perhaps we can just go with just the facts that they "chose" Joanna.
• Re your comment about the potential to confuse Giron with being a non-noble, how does this sound? "Girón was one of the most powerful nobles who supported the comuneros; his rebellion is thought to originate from Charles' refusal to grant Girón the prestigious Duchy of Medina-Sidonia a year prior to the war."

Will try and continue looking over the article more in general. SnowFire (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• comment mutliple wikilinks to the same article need to be removed. Many, many. Hmains (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue came up in the A-Class review, and I already removed a significant number of the duplicated wikilinks which I felt were borderline then. The relevant guideline from WP:CONTEXT: "A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section." The thing is, this is a longish article, so often the most recent link is considerably earlier. I also want to respect readers who have forgotten who's who- there's a lot of names in this article, and I don't expect it to always be obvious that this is the same person as linked above and force the reader to go hunting for it. Within a single section, repeated wikilinks occur occasionally due to consistency in lists. It looks strange and bad to have only a single city unlinked in a list of cities, for example, just because that city was mentioned earlier. So any kind of list, I think it looks far better to be consistent and either link all the people/places or kept them unlinked. And captions can have wikilinks as well.

Re specific copyedit changes: Toledo is the main topic of "Rebelliousness in Toledo" section and it's been awhile since the previous link, so I've restored that. I also restored it in a list of cities later for the consistency reasons noted above. As for the Battle of Villlar aftermath... why not just use the simple past, "was struck a crippling blow?" "had been" struck a crippling blow isn't wrong, but it places the reader in time a bit after the battle, almost like a new section. I've left that as is, just figured I'd toss that out here to see if anyone else had thoughts on it. SnowFire (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lean oppose: 1. Caption of picture in "Origins" is too long and also causes a formatting disruption. Cut this to only two or three lines as most. 2. Picture of "Juan López de Padilla" should be moved and is facing the wrong way. He needs to be on the left. 3. Sections are too small. Each section should probably have at least two full paragraphs. These should be condensed. 4. The huge picture of Spain seems to be off, or too large. 5. Other pictures have captions that are too long. 6. Sandwiching of images in "Later influence". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mm. There is a method to my madness; again, I'm familiar with the relevant guidelines, but I firmly believe that most (all?) of these issues are minor and acceptable stylistic choices.

• 1: "Causes a formatting disruption?" You'll have to be more specific than this; I've examined the article at lots of resolutions and it seems fine at all of them. The caption is long, yes, but I also feel that it's fairly vital - it sets absolutely crucial background information in one place (rather than the more chronological take in the Origins section). If readers know one thing about Charles V, it needs to be the size of his empire. The caption really only has two "thoughts" - the artist, and what exactly Charles was king of.
• 2: Except that there's a bulleted list on the left, which would look awful if a picture was staggering it. That image absolutely must be right-aligned, and the relevant guideline specifically forbids flipping an image just to make the face point the right way.
• 3: The sections are within the lower bound guidelines of Help:Section. Yes, they're often short, but they often occur in different geographical locations, cover events notably separate in time, and are useful for people skimming the article and only wishing to get a sense of what happened there. As an example, the "Expansion of the Revolt" section includes short sections on Blockade of Segovia -> The Junta of Ávila -> Burning of Medina del Campo -> The Junta of Tordesillas-> Scope of the rebellion. This is exactly the logical progression the rebellion took - one incident, increased discontent and a meeting, another incident, the Junta expanding, and then the rebellion fully breaking out across the country. This, in outline form, is probably the best way to understand the early rebellion. Furthermore, these sections don't combine easily- I could make it three sections with "Blockade of Segovia and the Junta of Avila," "Burning of Medina del Campo and the Junta of Tordesillas," and "Scope of the rebellion," but that would seem just overly wordy. Alternatively, each of these sections could be very easily expanded to be longer than just one paragraph, but then this article would start running into WP:SIZE problems instead. I've tried to keep the writing clipped and to the point (although apparently still not enough from karanacs' request for a copyedit- something which I am looking into and asking editors about, by the way), but as a result, some topics will have short sections. That said, I will combine the Consequences section in the Battle of Tordesillas, since that was pointed out by several other editors and is the one section that I don't think meets the Help:Section lower bounds (though just barely if so).
• 4: See above. Especially since it's a .png, the fonts will look just awful if it's compressed and the color of the dot for who controlled the city will be hard to make out. And moreover I don't see a large map as really a problem anyway; I think it's helpful considering the woeful knowledge most people have of geography.
• 5: I'll look into it and see what I can do. That said, some of the captions have some useful "sidebar information" (like the number of soldiers per side at the Battle of Tordesillas) which for whatever reason didn't flow well with the main text, and I'm less keen on moving those since it would make the text ungainly.
• 6: Yes, that is directly noted in my nomination. Are you saying that this is an objectionable problem, though? If you think this is a serious problem, then one of the images could certainly be removed, but I think this is exactly the kind of case where an exception is intended- there is no logical place for those two pictures to go but the end of the article, so they can't be moved about.

With the exception of #6 (which, as noted in the nom, does not follow the MOS but is a merited exception nevertheless in my opinion), I firmly believe that the other issues raised are legitimate choices grounded in the current guidelines. SnowFire (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My monitor is 1280 x 1024, if that helps. 1. "the artist, and what exactly Charles was king of." I don't know if it helps to have that in the caption, when it would seem that the images are secondary to the text. If someone reads the text, it should have the info, making the caption redundant. No? 2. "Except that there's a bulleted list on the left," Sigh, yeah. Um. I really don't know where it could go, or how to remedy it. Its just an MoS thing that could be ignored if the reviewers are really nice. :) 3. "Yes, they're often short, but they often occur in different geographical locations" Its just an reading/aesthetic thing. I tend to read larger chunks and my ability to comprehend is disrupted by the breaks. Others may have a different experience. 4. "Especially since it's a .png, the fonts" Yeah, it would have to be an exception. However, it did provoke a reaction from me when I did not expect it. Perhaps it was the color choice? lol. 6. "Are you saying that this is an objectionable problem" Sometimes people remove images. Sometimes they just move them. Sometimes they just expand the section. Add a sentence or two to the first paragraph. Split the third paragraph. Add a sentence to the fourth paragraph. That might do it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re 1: I doublechecked again, seems fine to me in various resolutions in all of IE, Firefox, and Konqueror. As for text in captions, well, yes, I do think that using them as a sidebar of sorts can be useful, and this is incredibly common on Wikipedia. Heck, the full-text sidebars see use too a la educational texbooks (an example in an FA), especially for things like timelines; versions associated with an image are probably even better. 2-4: Fair enough. 6: Sure, I'll try and expand the section even more. Alas, I had to return my library books already (and lost my loaning privileges), so I can't do this right away, but I will add a few sentences when I get the chance to make the sandwiching less evident. SnowFire (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose until a complete audit of the awkward and often ambiguous arrangement of ideas within sentences is conducted. Our readers have to work unnecessarily hard.

• "With the deaths of the other possible heirs, Ferdinand and Isabella's second daughter Joanna the Mad inherited the throne with her Burgundian husband King Philip I." So three people inherited the throne? Maybe. And can you re-order it so the reader won't at first wonder whether Ferdinand and the daughter were the other possible heirs? Maybe they were. Unclear.
• "young age"—>"youth".
• "He came to Spain in October 1517 ..."—consider "arrived in".
• "Soon, a series of riots broke out in the cities against the government and local city councils (Comunidades) took power." Again, the order of the ideas could be misleading as the reader progresses through the sentence, requiring, at the least, reverse disambiguation: the cities [that were] against the government? And put "soon" after "riots". Can you audit the order of ideas within sentences throughout?
• chose for an alternative ruler --> "as an".
• "The rebel movement also took a radical anti-feudal aspect, supporting peasant rebellions against the landed nobility." Also? I'm searching back to locate what other aspect you've told us about. And try "dimension" rather than "aspect". "took ON"?
• "After nearly a year of rebellion, the reorganized supporters of the emperor struck a crippling blow to the comuneros at the Battle of Villalar on April 23, 1521." Somehow better as "On April 23, 1521, after nearly a year of rebellion, the reorganized supporters of the emperor struck a crippling blow to the comuneros at the Battle of Villalar."
• "The following day, rebel leaders Juan de Padilla, Juan Bravo, and Francisco Maldonado were beheaded. The army of the comuneros fell apart. Only the city of Toledo kept alive the rebellion, until its surrender in October 1521." At first I thought the city of Toledo did something "the following day", too. But no, I had to work harder to disambiguate in reverse. The last sentence is somehow unsatisfactory: did "the army" surrender in Oct 1521, and Toledo was the only city to keep alive the rebellion? Same issue.
• "The character of the revolution is a matter of some historiographical debate." Spot the redundant word. Keep it just for "scholars" in the very next clause. (Watch those close repetitions, too.)
• "Others consider it a more typical rebellion against high taxes and perceived foreign control." So the taxes were real and the foreign control just perceived? I have to work hard to tease out what might be the intended meaning.
• positive commemoration has "risen"?
• Comma after "revolt".
• "the revolt has been mythologized by various Spaniards, generally liberals who drew political inspiration from it". You know I hate "various". Can't it be straightened out to: "the revolt has been mythologized by the generally liberals Spaniards who drew political inspiration from it"?
• How are "motives" different from "government"? (All government occurs as the result of motivation.)
• "the incident is often referenced in Castilian nationalism." "Referenced" is a strange and ambiguous word here. "referred to in connection with"? I really don't know. Tony (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

General comment: Since it seems that the only issue raised so far has been copyediting, I'm willing to do whatever is necessary here. I've already had it copyedited three times by acquaintances of mine, and have asked at least one Wikipedia editor to take a look at it. If you're interested in going through more of it, I'd be more than willing to work with you; I would like to see this make FA status, but my own copyediting skills have mostly been exhausted here.

Specific notes:

• "Ferdinand and Isabella" are like "peanut butter and jelly;" it's a single phrase that unfortunately includes an "and." I suppose I can see the potential for confusion, though. "Joanna the Mad, Ferdinand and Isabella's second daughter, inherited the throne with her Burgundian husband..." then.
• I don't think your fix keeps the intent of the sentence. Specifically, it was riots against the government, with cities against the government being a tertiary thought. Still this clearly meant that the original sentence could use some work if that was unclear. That said, I disagree about soon; it's referring to Charles' departure for Germany in the previous sentence. Maybe it should even say "Soon after" for clarity, though that might be redundant, too. "Soon, a series of anti-government riots broke out in the cities, and local city councils (Comunidades) took power." any better?
• Well, that bit felt disconnected from the throne claimant part, so the "also" was meant as a transition there. And isn't "took on" the same as "took?" "His face took a fierce mien" vs. "His face took on a fierce mien." Mostly trying to follow your own prescriptions for removing redundant words here, but sure, I'll put that in.
• "The following day, rebel leaders Juan de Padilla, Juan Bravo, and Francisco Maldonado were beheaded. The army of the comuneros fell apart. Only the city of Toledo kept alive the rebellion, until its surrender in October 1521." Er, don't the periods clearly delineate the differences here? The army falls apart as a result of Villalar and the loss of their leaders, and the next sentence says that the city of Toledo continues on 'till October 1521. Even if the reader keeps the "The following day" thought, it's true that Toledo was still resisting the following day, even if nothing in particular happened then. And the middle sentence makes it abundantly clear that the army falls apart in the immediate aftermath of the battle. I guess some make-space continuation like "Soldiering onward, the city of Toledo kept alive..." could be added, but that feels unnecessary and awkward. I'm fine with changing this, but as I don't quite follow the potential source of confusion, could you suggest a fix?
• Yes, the taxes were real but the foreign control was far more disputed, especially in the views of pro-government types (Charles was later rehabilitated as a True Spaniard to a degree, and he spent a good 10 years or so in Spain later). This seems put pretty bluntly - "They thought it was about A and B." And they did indeed think it was about A and B.
• Re "commemration has risen:" Any better suggestions? I wasn't overly happy myself either, but "grown" sounds weirdly organic, and "increased" sounds faux-scientific. All three do the job, but none are perfect. Trying "grown" for now, I guess.
• I considered phrasing it that way, but while that phrasing does allow for the existence of conservative admiration of the revolt (which did exist), it implies that the default orientation of liberals is to be pro-Revolt. I wanted to emphasize that traditionally, a majority of pro-Revolt types were liberals (true), but not that a majority of liberals were pro-revolt (false, except perhaps very recently). Maybe that's just an imprecision price we have to pay, though.
• Motives are why the comuneros revolted at all, and government was how they actually conducted themselves while in power. Many socialists would admire the motives of the Russian Revolution and deplore the government that followed it, for example, and plenty of politically unappealing groups whose motives were in question turned out to be decent rulers. The conservative view would say that the comuneros were a bunch of bandits who were whiners about taxes and took power so they wouldn't have to pay, and furthermore massively screwed up once they were in power. I think these ideas are distinct enough that they both merit a mention.
• "has been an inspiration for Castilian nationalism" is perhaps more direct, but also sounds way too sunny, since inspiration also has positive connotations that would be a bit POV here. "has been a source of" sounds clinical. I guess I'll go with "referred to," but the usage needs to imply something broad here (which hopefully is distinct from "ambiguous") - it wasn't used for just one specific book or anything, but rather in many different ways.
• Suggestions I didn't comment on: Sure, will make those shortly. SnowFire (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts: I can see why you don't like "various Spaniards," but all of the fixes I've tried so far seem even worse. I don't think that "mythologized by the generally liberal Spaniards who drew political inspiration from it" works because that seemingly implies that Spaniards are generally liberal, and requires reading further to realize it's only talking about those who were interested in the revolt. I don't know, maybe this whole section needs to be rephrased to not have to combine these two ideas into one sentence, but I can't see a better way of combining "pro-Revolt types are generally liberals" and "people who liked the revolt turned it into a heroic drama." Will try and return shortly. SnowFire (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.