Talk:Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I find the article somewhat unfocused. For instance what do the two very lengthy sections at the beginning — Ideology of the HRE; The HRE in the 18th century — have to do, even remotely, with the dissolution of the Empire, which had never been contemplated by friends or foes before Napoleon? They contain a lot of debatable information (the nature and ideology of the HRM are extremely contentious issues among German historians today) and add nothing to the article, which should focus on the dissolution. What on earth do those many digressions about the feud between the Papacy and the Emperor, the Reformation and the emergence of modern sovereign states have to do with the dissolution in 1806? I think those two sections should be deleted entirely. I think also that a GA is way too premature.--Lubiesque (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the article is unfocused at all. Sections 2 to 5 are 100 % on the dissolution of the empire; "Wars with France and Napoleon" provides the geopolitical background and explains why the Austrians found giving up the title necessary, "Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine" provides context for the Confederation of the Rhine (same justification as the previous one), "Abdication of Francis II" is self explanatory and "Aftermath" describes what happened after, bringing up reactions to the dissolution and what happened to the successor empires. All of these are highly relevant to the Dissolution of the HRE. I don't really understand why you have a problem with the two background sections, the aim of any article would be to provide a complete overview of a topic and if the article does not introduce its key concepts in a good way (if the HRE as a institution is not explained) then it does not succeed. The first background section introduces key concepts - the HRE sees itself as the successor of the Roman Empire, the HRE perceives itself as the universal monarchy and its emperors as the only true emperors in Europe and it explains its decline from the role it had in the Middle Ages, these concepts are all explored in conjunction with the empire's dissolution later in the article. The second background section, about the HRE in the 18th century, is even more relevant as it explains inter-imperial politics and ideologies in the century/decades before the dissolution - it goes off the previous background section and provides more context before the rest of the article. I definitely oppose the notion that these two sections should be deleted. I'm not sure why you think a GA is too premature - what information do you think is missing here? Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You've done good work, Ichthyovenator, but you proposed this for GA when it did not even mention the Peace of Pressburg or Napoleon's ultimatum. I think you missed some of the trees for the forest. I can't speak for Lubiesque, but I think this is what is meant by "unfocused" and "premature". The aftermath section does not say anything about the reaction of those powers and members (e.g., the UK and Hanover) that refused to recognise the legality of the dissolution at first. Srnec (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: Thank you, and yes, I agree. The Peace of Pressburg and Napoleon's ultimatum should have been in before the GA nomination. In the past I have sometimes added more content to articles while they've been nominated (as articles can be on the nomination page for months before someone picks them up) and that's never been an issue before but I suppose it can raise concerns, especially if the editor adding the info is someone else. I still don't really see what Lubiesque means with "unfocused" and I disagree with their assessment that the background sections are unnecessary but I can see that some more things could be added, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Decision

I'm sorry but in view of the comments above and some recent changes to the article I must conclude that it fails WP:GACR#5 – stability, because of content dispute. I think all interested parties need to work together and agree on the scope of the article and decide what content is within scope. This is a pity because I think the article would probably have passed most if not all of the other GA criteria, although I haven't completed an in-depth study yet.

Once you can agree on scope and content, I see no reason why this should not be nominated again. If you can do that fairly soon, you may not have long to wait for a review while the current GAN Backlog Drive is in progress. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: What? A removal of a paragraph or addition of small sections (I assume these are the recent changes to the article you're talking about?) does not constitute some big content dispute. The only person who has disputed the scope of the article (none of the major editors of the article have) is you and you didn't even respond to my comment above in which I questioned why you found the article unfocused? I'm considering just re-nominating immediately because this feels very abrupt and strange. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, you need to look again at the top paragraph on this page because it was written by Lubiesque, not by me. The points raised by Lubiesque amount to a dispute about content and that logically means that there is disagreement on article scope. Unless I can be certain that the article is stable and will remain so, I am obliged by the GA criteria to fail the review. Sorry, but there it is. I suggest you liaise with Lubiesque to try and resolve your differences and then, as I have said, work towards an early renomination. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Oh my god I didn't see that you were two different people, sorry. I guess it just felt like a really sudden fail - without any real discussion - and I just assumed that the person who failed it was the person who was conducting the review. I should have looked at the usernames. I will try to resolve the issues raised and re-nominate it in the future. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)