Talk:Battle of Gallipoli (1416)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Alex Shih (talk · contribs) 07:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary review: The lede is certainly well written (#1), I am not completely sure if it's concise enough. From my reading, I understand that there were two phases to the battle (the initial withdrawal of the Venetian, and then the re-engagement the next day, which is the actual battle). This part is slightly confusing as it's not so clear for me that why the initial withdrawal wasn't part of the battle. Also, the infobox could probably use a illustration (#6), even an image of Dardanelles would be helpful in my opinion.
I don't think there are any major concerns. I've checked the copyvio detector, and everything appears to be verifiable with no original research (#2). Broad coverage and address the topic well (#3), but I think some of the content like Loredan himself was wounded by an arrow below the eye and the nose may qualify for unnecessary detail. I will come back to this another day. From this initial reading, the content of this article appears to be neutrally written and stable (#4 and #5), having incorporated relevant sources in Turkish, Italian, and other academic published works in English (neutral), in addition to having stayed mostly unaltered since the last major revision on 15 June, despite of the article has been linked to 214 pages (stable).
The background section covers the Ottoman extensively, I think it would be helpful if there were more background information about the Republic of Venice, which I think would help the reader to understand how the Venetian were able to emerge as the superior naval power in the Aegean Sea after the conclusion of this battle.
For the actual battle, a more comprehensive map with legends and naval movements would be helpful for the reader too I think. It's probably not too difficult to add them to the existing map as the file is in .svg format. That's about it from me for now, hope to hear back from you. Cheers, Alex Shih ^Talk 08:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

I am so sorry about the delay, I have been preoccupied with other tasks. I will try to slowly go over each sections of this article before making the final assessment. Alex Shih (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

resulting from an Ottoman raid...in late 1415 and early 1416: According to the "Background" section, there were more than one raid (autumn of 1415, mid-October 1415)? The "Background" section also doesn't seem to mention any Ottoman raid in "early 1416".

Fixed and rephrased somewhat. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that Ottoman commander Çali Bey was only mentioned once in the article (excluding infobox). The name doesn't appear in both the lead section and the "Battle" section, is there a reason for that?

The reason is that he is otherwise entirely unknown, and as the action report was from the Venetian side, unlike Loredan, we don't really know his actions during the battle. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that the claims of Christian captured were executed are being covered at Sanudo 1733, cols. 905–907; I understand there are no better sources available?
- There are two primary sources, Loredan's letter (included in Sanudo) and Doukas, who both mention the execution of Christians serving with the Ottoman fleet. Since Loredan's letter is an action report, which could easily be corroborated and was intended to report the true events, and since Doukas (although differing in details) corroborates it, we are not dealing with "claims" but facts. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I am not sure if the account of Doukas on the raid of Cyclades is completely relevant to this text, but I've changed "The contemporary" to "One contemporary account by" in the hopes to give this text less weight, since it is Sanuto's text that describes the prelude to the battle. If the mention of Doukas is because his text also covers some part of the actual battle (as described throughout this article), there should be more clarification/explanation here in this section.

This is relevant because Naxos too was a Venetian protectorate, so the Ottoman attacks, whether against Andros or against Naxos, were against Venetian interests. I've added the relationship between the Duke of Naxos and Venice. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"informed in time..." by whom?
- Unknown. The source simply states that he had been made aware in time (by merchants? scout ships? spies?) and made preparations. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a demand categorically rejected: The sentence sounded incomplete, so I've added "by the Republic of Venice".

Indeed; changed only to Signoria. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's necessary to link sopracomiti, I cannot even find an entry for this term in Italian Wikipedia nor Italian Wiktionary.

There are very few articles related to the government of Venice, I've been forced to create most of them myself over the past few weeks. It does not help that English sources about them are also few, and not easily to get access to. I can read Italian, but I don't really have access to Italian sources either. I prefer to leave the sopracomiti as a redlink, because it is a notable subject: the post of sopracomito was very specific to Venice, and was given only to noblemen, much like the ancient trierarch. Eventually an article will be created for it. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loredan's appointment was remarkable: Why? Because he cannot hold "office again for three years"? What's so remarkable about this? Needs more information about Loredan, there isn't enough context for the reader at this point. Also, what does it mean by bolstering his vanity?

Expanded/rephrased a bit to clarify. In Venice, most senior magistracies barred their holders from holding them again for some time after, to avoid monopolizing power. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

I think instead of "contrary winds", something like "sailing against the wind direction" might flow better, but this is just personal opinion.
- Not quite the same; you can sail against the wind, but contrary winds means that both the direction and the force of the winds were such that they could not sail in the desired direction. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but the Ottomans, who had assembled a large force of infantry and cavalry on the shore, began firing on them: This part is slightly confusing for me, as I have this image of infantry and cavalry firing at ships from the shore based on reading this sentence. What are they firing with though? No mention of artillery, or are they janissaries? It's not until the next sentence that makes it clear the Turks were firing poisoned arrows. Was that the only weapon they used in firing toward Venetian fleet?

As far as I can make out from the text (it is really archaic and dialectical Italian), the Turks only shot arrows. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep up with their oars, they set sail: I am not sure if this is well written enough. I think it would be helpful if the ship construction of Venetian and Ottoman fleets can be briefly described. Are Venetian ships faster in general? Were the sails being hoisted as the Venetian fleet were trying to lure Turkish ships away from Gallipoli?

Well, to explain the parameters that might make one galley faster than another, I'd have to include an entire article on galley construction and handling. The point, however, is that we cannot really know why the Ottomans failed behind, whether it was because their ships were of poorer make, or because they were less experienced and disciplined than the Venetians (who were excellent mariners), or perhaps both. Having no clues one way or another, we should not speculate. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the Ottoman ships trying to head back to Gallipoli? According to the text, they were pursuing the Venetian fleet, and enjoys the advantage of 32 ships against 10 ships.

32 ships does not mean 32 heavy galleys; many may have been smaller vessels. The Ottomans pursued the Venetians while the latter retreated, but once they turned, they had no interest in engaging in close combat. The Venetians were expert mariners, the Ottomans not; their objective was to keep the Venetians away from Gallipoli, not destroy their fleet; and with the change of wind, they had a chance of returning safe to port. Again, however, this is speculation. I've changed "allowed" to "the Ottomans decided", however. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

second hour of the night: When exactly is this hour?

I've already linked the relevant article, Italian time, at the 22nd hour. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tutti andarono pel fil di spada: What is the purpose of this Italian text? Was it from the source? I am not sure if I understand the meaning even with Google translate ("everyone went to the sword").

The sense is very close to the English "all were put to the sword"), but you are right that it does not really add anything. I've removed it. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a Giorgio Calergi, a rebel against Venice: This sentence is unclear. Are we talking about two people, or just one person?

fixed. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Hamza Bey had the fort razed: I am confused; the Venetian tried to destroy the fort, but only managed to leaving it half-destroyed. So after they sailed on to Constantinople, the Turkish defenders had their own fort razed?

I assume that Venetian interest was the reason: rather than risking the fort to be captured next time, and provide the Venetians with a stronghold, he preferred to raze it outright. Otherwise it might be because it was shown to be vulnerable? The source doesn't really say, and I have found no secondary source that speculates upon it. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I will expand this section on the assessment once my concerns have been addressed, or explained. Really good work, I hope to pass this soon under the criteria. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex Shih, thanks for the review, and sorry for the delay. I've tried to answer your points as best I could. If you have any replies or further comments or suggestions, please be advised that I won't be able to answer them for about two weeks from today. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you for addressing my concerns. I will do another reading in the coming days and do the final assessment with the GA criteria. Cheers to you too, Alex Shih (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria

With sincere apologies on the delay, here's my final check against the criteria.

Well written: My concerns have been addressed, and I think it's fair to say the article is well written, and the format is consistent with the style guide.
Verfiable: Offline sources are all linked, can be verified, and every paragraph is sufficiently supported with inline citations.
Broad in its coverage: For a relatively narrow topic, the coverage is comprehensive, provides readers with good understanding of both the background, scope of the battle and its aftermath.
Neutrality: Balanced use of Italian, Turkish and English sources; no concerns on the tone of the writing.
Stable: 796 page views in the past 30 days, 0 changes to the content. This article is stable.
Images: I was hoping more images could be provided, but I wasn't able to find any myself. For a relatively small battle from the distant past, I think the current single illustration is sufficient for now.
I am passing this article as a Good Article after reviewing the criteria. Thank you for the article, and thank you for your patience. Alex Shih (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Alex Shih for taking the time and for a thorough review. Happy holiday season :) Constantine ✍ 10:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]