Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2018 [1].

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a long and complex blockade of Thessalonica, involving Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottomans, which finally ended with the Ottoman capture of the city. A seminal event, as it heralded the fall of Constantinople, and showed the limitations of Venice's mercantile maritime empire when faced with a large and determined land power. The article has passed MILHIST's ACR and has had a GOCE review. first nomination earlier in the year failed due to me not having enough time to devote to the review, but the comments on prose and other issues made there have been addressed since, along with some minor additions. Any and all suggestions for further improvement are naturally welcome. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- Hi, Constantine, am I right in assuming you've launched a second solo nom because Battle of Halmyros looks close to promotion? Well, yes it does, so go ahead, but per FAC instructions pls run it past a coord first next time. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Ian, that's exactly the case. I wanted to have this up and running ASAP, so that I have time to respond to comments before September. I will definitely run it by a coord if the need should occur again in the future. Constantine ✍ 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the image in the infobox really the best we have to offer of the walls? It is unsharp, badly lit, and seems to have specks of snow all over. Seems Commons[2] has many superior images, Flickr probably too.
  • You are right, but there are not many good pictures in Commons (in terms of composition, i.e. showing the walls rather than simply a small section fronted by people, tourist buses, trash cans, etc). I don't really have time to look around Flickr, but I have replaced the photo with one that is somewhat better.
I think the new photo looks much more dramatic, with the perspective and the view to the sea. Maybe you can use the old photo under "Fall of the city" or similar? The article isn't exactly image heavy. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give dates for some image captions and not for others, could be nice with dates for all.
  • Good point, fixed.
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking this up, and looking forward to your comments. Constantine ✍ 11:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with Christopolis (modern Kavala)" You don't mention the modern name of other cities listed, why this one?
  • No particular reason. Removed.
  • You don't link figures and places in many of the captions.
  • Fixed
  • "maintained good relations with the Byzantines, who had supported him" Any details on how they supported him?
  • Added a footnote on this
  • "But you are Latins" I am not sure if if the ancient meaning you have linked, Latins (Italic tribe), is the right choice. Perhaps the wider Italic peoples (which covers Romance peoples and Latin peoples) is more appropriate.
  • You could clarify that the Aydınids and Karamanids were also Turks.
  • Good point, done.
  • Not sure if this is UK or US English, but you mix ise and ize spellings.
  • Generally I prefer Brit. Eng. Fixed now, I hope.
  • "launched a μαξορ attack" Why Greek all of a sudden?
  • Typo error. Fixed
  • "by a coalition of Ottoman and Christian ships" What is a Christian ship here?
  • The source references the Morosini Codex, Vol. II, Fol. 165v. I have searched for a copy of it in its English or Italian translation, but couldn't find one. I assume that the Genoese are meant here (Venice's perennial rivals), but can't find any other source on this.
  • "ambitions of Timur's son" No link or presentation. In fact, you use the version "Tamerlane" earlier, this should of course be consistent.
  • Fixed "Tamerlane". I don't quite understand what "No link or presentation." is about
You don't explain who it is. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I still don't get it: "Timur's son Shahrukh", for whom "contemporary rumour ascribed to him not only a desire to restore his father's dominance" etc. Both the name, a link, and his motivations, are already present.
  • "and anti-Latin prelate who had opposed the handover of the city to the Venetians, fearing their "corrupting" influence" I guess this relates to Orthodoxy versus Catholicism? If it was a big deal, perhaps state it outright somewhere (you only mention aversion towards Latins, not Catholics, thouh I assume it is meant somewhat synonymously here)?
  • Good point, done.
  • "that the Venetians preparing to abandon them" Were.
  • Fixed
  • "As the civilian population was being massacred" Were they massacred? The later text seems to indicate the sultan wanted the to stay.
  • Not quite: there was a three-day period of plunder, where people were killed, raped, enslaved, etc. Only after these three days did the Sultan enter the city, and restore order. Only then did his efforts to convince those who had fled during the siege to return, and also ransom some of those enslaved during a sack. 10,000–13,000 were left in the city prior to the sack, and 7,000 were made prisoner and 2,000 remained, that still leaves a number unaccounted for...
  • "when it was captured by the Kingdom of Greece" Maybe add a setnence on what happened to the Turkish population there? I assume it was part of the population interchange between Greece and Turkey?
  • Good point, done.
  • The article body says "down from a reported population of 20,000–25,000." The intro says "from as many as 40,000 inhabitants".
  • Good catch; this represents the upper estimates for the city's population prior to the start of the siege. It was in the article, but got lost during one of the copyedit drives by other editors. Restored now.
Hi FunkMonk, I've answered or addressed the points you raised. Please have a look. Constantine ✍ 14:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added one answer, rest looks good, I fixed a couple of typos too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the typo fixes, FunkMonk. I still don't quite get what is missing with Timur's son, though. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not his son, but Timur himself. The reader might wonder who he was. Something like "the Turco-Mongol conqueror" would be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion, added it in the Background section where Timur first appears. Sorry I was a bit dense here ;). Constantine ✍ 19:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Done.
  • Where a specific map has been used, this has been included. Otherwise there are no specific pages, the information is spread over the book content.
    @Nikkimaria: Sorry for the double ping, but how would you do an image review for this particular case? Kees08 (Talk) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically CITE requires more specificity if you want to push for that, up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • File:II. Murat.jpg - can we get the date in English too? Also the description has English listed two times. Also a dead link for source
  • Done.
  • I think the date in the description is the user's signature and upload timestamp.

The US PD tag I may be wrong on; the files are inconsistent in how they do it. Could we make them consistent, in whichever way you prefer? Kees08 (Talk) 06:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kees08, I thought PD-100 automatically covered US PS. Still, better safe than sorry, so I added a US tag as well. For the rest, I think most if not all the points you have raised are addressed now. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Do you know if we needed the extra US PD tag? Kees08 (Talk) 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, per the wording of the 100 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Clikity[edit]

  • Support -I've been copy-editing for errors in the prose and honestly this is one of the best history articles I've read as far as prose concerns. I've tired myself out looking for errors and found none. The prose isn't stuffy and I had a good time reading this. The article is through and clear, and the sources look up to date. The images are very good, so I'd say this article meets all criteria, and it should be promoted to Featured Article status. Clikity (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)clikity[reply]
Thank you Clikity for taking the time to review, and for your kind comments. I am happy that you found the article interesting and accessible. If at any point you found anything that might be improved, however minor, please do not hesitate to say so. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (1a)—I had a quick run-through of the first part. Tony (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


SupportComments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Declaration of interest: I copy edited this article for GOCE in January 2018. I also made some minor suggestions - see article's talk page.

  • "In the meantime, the conflict was mostly fought as a series of raids by..." May read better if started as 'At the same time...'
  • Indeed it does. Changed. Fine.
  • I suggest Wikilinking "pillage" in the lead. (It redirects to looting.) I would also link "sack" which is likely to be unfamiliar to a non-specialist reader.
  • Hmmm, "sack" would also have to be linked to "looting" then. Of the too, I prefer to link sack as it is likely the more unknown of the two. Constantine, your choice, but my reading of the guideline is that it is acceptable to link twice to an article, so long as it is from different usages. (Of course, I have been wrong about things before.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Background seems to start a bit arbitrarily to me. Where is Gallipoli, who are the Ottomans, why did the capture of one by the other (from whom?) initiate "a rapid Turkish expansion in the southern Balkans? (Is a reader assumed to know that Turkish is a synonym for Ottoman?) I think that that first paragraph needs rereading through the assumed eyes of a reader not overly conversant with the period.
  • I've tried to make some changes to start less abruptly, but TBH I cannot really put myself in the position of a total ignoramus here; the links to the Ottomans and the Byzantines are there, the interested reader should read up, the uninterested reader probably won't ever start reading this article in any serious way. I've added a link to the Rise of the Ottoman Empire article and considered also linking to the Decline of the Byzantine Empire, but I dislike the latter article, as it takes Gibbon's old canard of a thousand-year decline and runs with it. Any suggestions or edits to make this intro easier to the average reader are welcome.
  • "Turco-Mongol conqueror Timur". A block of three Wikilinked terms; a little confusing and I doubt that linking "conquerer" to Timurid Empire helps a reader much.
  • Again, there is only so much extraneous context I can put in.... Initially this was simply "Timur"/"Tamerlane", who I assumed everyone with a historical interest knew about. Other users suggested adding "Turco-Mongol" and then "conqueror" as a descriptive. Personally, I would just as soon strike both and leave Timur alone again without further comment, but then there would be no context for the "non-specialist reader" at all...
  • A monor and optional point: "with Thessalonica's local aristocracy jealously guarding their extensive privileges, which apparently amounted to virtual autonomy". "apparently" jars a little. It seems to beg the question: apparent to whom?
  • Clarified. Fine.
  • "Thus, Thessalonica and the surrounding region were given as an autonomous appanage to John VII Palaiologos." Either 'had been' in place of "were" or add the date that this happened.
  • Clarified. Fine.
  • "who was supervised by Demetrios Leontares until 1415." '... supervised by the Byzantine Demetrios Leontares...' may be a little clearer.
  • Hmmm, I rather disagree. It is obvious that Leontares is Byzantine, in a city under Byzantine control, ruled by a Byzantine prince, and appointed by the Byzantine emperor. Why would he not be Byzantine?
  • "if necessary with Western help". You are sharp on this, so it with a little trepidation that I ask: why is "Western" capitalised?
  • "Western European" in this context. Clarified, and moved the term "Latins" in as well. Fine.
  • "assisted by the various Ottoman marcher-lords of the Balkans". The use of "the" implies that he was assisted by all' of the Ottoman marcher-lords of the Balkans. Do the sources support this? (If not, lose the "the".)
  • Done. Fine.
  • "both he and the Despot Andronikos". Either 'both he and Despot Andronikos' or 'both he and the despot, Andronikos,'. (Or, allowably but redundantly, 'both he and the Despot, Andronikos'.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "At long last". Marginally peacocky. 'Eventually'?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "The commander proposed..." 'This commander proposed...'?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "a group of aristocrats persuaded the Despot Andronikos". See above.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • Who or what is "Pseudo-Sphrantzes"?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "they feared the disruption in trade that open war..." '...to trade...'?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "from the collapsing Byzantine Empire, providing bases that secured the city's valuable trading links with the East." Is the city refered to Venice or Byzantium?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "but more immediately a secure flow of supplies". A comma after "immediately"?
  • Fixed. Fine.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gog, are you still planning to return to this? Constantine, have you actioned the comments so far? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This policy brought the republic into conflict with the Despot of Serbia," Should that be 'Republic'? (Genuine query.)
  • Indeed, per the other occurrences in the article. Fixed. Fine.
  • "and other members of the Ottoman court, to gain a sympathetic hearing." Suggestion: 'in order to gain...' may read better.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "a clear indication of the unwillingness of the Venetian nobles to undertake the unprofitable and perilous task." Suggestion: 'this' instead of "the".
  • Fixed.
  • Hmmm, I am not sure here. The siege is linked to in the first mention, you mean linking the second mention? To what end? Well, OK. It's not a deal breaker. (And you are probably correct on reflection.)
  • "From a population reported at between 20,000–25,000 to 40,000 by contemporary Italian sources". This reads very oddly. '20,000-40,000 would be better.
  • Clarified a bit, these are distinct figures for the population: one set of sources puts it at 20,000–25,000, the other as high as 40,000. Fine.
  • "people could no longer access their fields, which were furthermore destroyed by the Turks". A picky point, how does one "destroy" a field?
  • Changed to "devastated" for clarity. Fine.
  • "the Venetian mercenaries that were in contact with the Turks outside the walls". 'who were...'?
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "but increasing dissatisfaction of the Greek population with Venetian rule was evident." Either ' the increasing dissatisfaction' or 'increasing dissatisfaction by the Greek population'.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "Finally, at the fourth hour, the Ottoman troops broke through multiple points along the wall". ' at multiple points'.
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • Suggestion only. "Others, however, were less fortunate: the Venetians lost over 270 men from the galley crews alone." The "however" seems unnecessary.
  • Indeed. Fixed. Fine.

In the notes:

  • "Equally contentious has been the question of dating the event in 1391 or 1394". Should that be 'to' rather than "in".
  • Fixed. Fine.
  • "To these must be added Suriano's claim that the Republic had spent on average more than 60,000 ducats each year pursuing the war." Does this mean that the Venetians spent 60,000 a year, ie 420,000, plus the amounts mentioned earlier?
  • Clarified. Fine.

Hi Ian Rose and Constantine. First run through completed; comments above. I will reread once Constantine has responded. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks a lot for the usual thorough review Gog the Mild. Ian Rose, I am currently travelling abroad, and will not be able to address these issues until Sunday evening at the earliest. Gog, if anything more should come to your attention in the meantime, please feel free to add it. Constantine ✍ 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine, are you back? This has been open a very long time and it'd be a shame to have to archive it because these last comments remain unaddressed when no-one has had any serious objections to promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I'm back and was just about to deal with the rest of Gog's points :). Constantine ✍ 10:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, if you can, please have a look and check off on the issues resolved, and reply whether you are OK or not with outstanding points. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine, a couple of additional bits I noticed while checking your responses:

  • " when the news spread that the Ottomans had offered a peaceful settlement, provided that the Despot Andronikos left the city"; "as well as the tribute of 100,000 aspers that the Despot Andronikos had paid". See above re capitalisation.
  • Fixed, as well as a few other such instances.

Outstanding issues:

  • "Turco-Mongol conqueror Timur". I take your point. If it were me I would leave the wording but delink "conquerer". But it is ok as it is.
  • Background. Hmm. Maybe something like: "In the mid-fourteenth century the nascent Ottoman Empire were a rising force in the near east, coming to overshadow the long standing regional power the Byzantines. Having subdued much of Anatolia, with the capture of Gallipoli in 1354 the Ottomans also acquired a foothold in the Balkans. The Christian powers of the region, notably the declining Byzantine Empire, were weak and divided, allowing a rapid Turkish expansion..."?
  • Sounds good, and is probably uncontroversial in terms of referencing. Have adapted it somewhat.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:, done. Thanks as usual for your very helpful suggestions. Constantine ✍ 13:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A fine article, even by your high standards. Happy to support. Feel free to have a look at another of mine if you have the time Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Cites and bibliography properly formatted.
  • Fine, Nicol, Inalcik, Faroqhi, Setton are known to me as highly reliable scholars.
  • Spot-checked Heywood, Faroqhi, Fine, Nicol, Setton citations. They match the info in the sources with one exception.
  • Nothing in fn #1 supports Adrianople as the third-largest city in the Byzantine Empire. Fine only calls it a major city.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sturmvogel, the article says "third-most important", not "third-largest". In Fine's text, when the Ottoman conquest of Thrace is mentioned, Adrianople is qualified as "the major city". Adrianople was traditionally the chief city of Thrace, and given the geographic extent of the empire at that time, it was de facto its third city. You can see that in the role the city played in the Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, for instance, or the fact that the Ottomans made it the capital of their European domains. Constantine ✍ 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, and it's a fairly trivial point so I'm not fussed about it, but there's a lot of inferencing in your explanation. So I'd be careful in the future to spell things out a little more thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I did not infer it from Fine; this is rather a case of common knowledge (for those familiar with the subject) so I didn't think twice about it, but it is sort-of-there in Fine as well. I can dig up a more concrete reference, if anyone is really uncomfortable with it. Constantine ✍ 17:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am somewhat familiar with the history of the Byzantines and the Ottomans, and I didn't catch it, so I don't think that the average reader would either. I don't think that it's particularly important, per se, but it illustrates one of the dangers of a specialist writing for a general audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Siege_of_Thessalonica_(1422–1430)/archive2&oldid=865135230"