Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Gallipoli (1416)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Gallipoli (1416) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Battle of Gallipoli (1416) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The first large-scale naval battle between Ottomans and Venetians was the main event of a brief, almost unofficial war between the two powers, and a triumph for the Venetians. We have a fairly detailed description of it (albeit one-sided) by the Venetian commander, the famed Pietro Loredan. The article was written back in 2017 and passed GA in the same year. I recently completed an on-and-off again overhaul with some additional sources, and it should be ready for A-class and eventually FA. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA edit

  • There are six howevers maybe remove some?
    • Done.
  • "fleet of 42 ships—six galleys, 26 galleots, and the rest" --> "fleet of 42 ships—6 galleys, 26 galleots, and the rest"
    • Done.
  • "by the Signoria on 4 February 1416.[14][12]" re-order the refs?
    • Done.
  • "such as erecting a pavisade around the ships.[41][31]" Same as above?
    • Done.
  • "the engagement lasted until the 22nd hour." Do we know at what time it was in modern time?
    • Haven't been able to find a reliable source for a modern analogy. Will keep looking.
  • "who were likely to use the opportunity to escape." this part looks like a foodnote?
    • Hmmm, why? Put another way, what change do you suggest?

Down to Battle of 29 May. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, very glad to see your initial comments! I have responded to them above. Constantine ✍ 14:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then retired about a mile from" Convert the mile here.
    • Done, although not entirely sure which mile is meant here; have gone with the approximate Venetian mile.
  • "naval engagement since the War of Chioggia" Add a year here.
    • Done.
  • "still menaced by the Hungarian king Sigismund in Friuli" This looks like a MOS:EGG?
    • If you mean Friuly, not really: the geographical region and the political entity were pretty coterminous at the time.
  • "Even so, during the Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)" --> "Even so, during the Siege of Thessalonica of 1422–1430"?
    • Good point, done.
  • In the note h: "demilitarized under the terms of the Treaty of Turin (1381)" --> "demilitarized under the terms of the Treaty of Turin of 1381"? Looks a bit better.
    • Done.

That's everything from me. Apologies that it took way too long to resume my review. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, CPA-5. Thanks for the review! I have addressed your comments. Constantine ✍ 17:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7 edit

Complete outside my area of expertise, so comments deal with trifles. Very informative article though.

  • I draw your attention to MOS:BIRTHDATE: Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance.
    • Replaced these instances with paraphrases
  • And Wikipedia:Citing sources: Quotations should be immediately followed by a reference, even if the paragraph has one.
    • Amended accordingly.
  • Link Ottomanist
    • Done.
  • Antonio Morisini should be "Antonio Morosini"
    • Fixed.
  • Duplicate links: Republic of Venice, Marino Sanuto the Younger, Candia, Marin Sanudo, Lesbos, galleot
    • Fixed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Thanks Hawkeye7, you comments have been addressed. I am very glad you found it informative and hopefully easy to follow. Constantine ✍ 09:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. Happy to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed edit

I have little knowledge of this period of history, so my comments relate more to prose and clarity than anything else.

Lead

  • a fleet of the Republic of Venice and the fleet of the Ottoman Empire : this wording implies that Venice had more than one fleet, which is contrary to note a, and the Ottomans only one.
    • Good point, altered accordigly.
  • Ottoman naval base of Gallipoli.: is it important to refer to Gallipoli as a naval base, as it seems the mentions in the lead to Gallipoli are in the context of it being a city? Maybe reword to "the port city of Gallipoli, a key Ottoman naval base."?
    • Thanks for the suggestion, adopted.
  • killing the Ottoman admiral,: suggest "killing the Ottoman commander," as there is no mention in the article body of Çali Bey being a admiral.
    • 'admiral' was chosen in the sense of 'naval commander', but I get your point.

Background

  • In June 1414, Ottoman: should that be 1415 rather than 1414, the previous paragraph refers to late 1415?
    • The date is correct. There are separate sets of raids and therefore separate chronologies. I've tried to separate the two further.
  • galley captains (sopracomiti), while Andrea Foscolo and Delfino Venier were designated as provveditori (superintendents) : the English translation is provided first for galley captains and second for superintendents. Shouldn't they be consistent or am I missing something?
    • You are correct, amended.
  • and with securing the release of the Venetian prisoners taken in 1414.: are these prisoners from Andros, Paros, and Melos or the 1,500 captives from the second raid of Euboea? Either way didn't these events take place in 1415? The Euboea raid in June 1414 (note my comment on the year though) says 200 were released years later, so assume you aren't referring to these.
    • The captives from the raid of Euboea in 1414 are meant. The others were not Venetian citizens. But clarified.
  • Coming back to this section after reviewing the aftermath section, it seems to me that the 200 mostly elderly, women, and children prisoners are the 200 mentioned in the aftermath section; if I am correct, I suggest deleting the mention in the background section to avoid confusion.
    • Not sure I follow where the confusion is, especially with the clarification added. The text is long, and it bears repeating, as well as warning the reader that Venetian efforts were not really successful.

Up to Battle section, more to follow. Zawed (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

  • convey the two ambassadors to the Sultan.: suggest envoys here (and elsewhere where ambassadors are used) rather than ambassadors for consistency with the earlier descriptions, plus I am not entirely sure they mean the one and the same. Same applies to the mention of embassy later in the paragraph (perhaps delegation may be a better word to use there?).
    • Hmmm. I may be wrong, but envoy is more generic than ambassador, which is what these men definitely were: properly accredited representatives of their government. (It is to be argued even that Venetian envoys were the first true ambassadors in a modern sense, receiving instructions, writing reports, etc.) An envoy might be a soldier sent to meet the Venetian fleet to carry a message from ashore. For consistency, I have changed to 'embassy' or 'ambassadors' where the Venetians are concerned, and kept 'envoy' only where the position of the person is unclear.
  • In hindsight I think was overthinking this one - I should have asked what the sources say, and if that is ambassador, then this is fine (but am happy with your changes also). Zawed (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • he turned on the other Ottoman ships.[60][53]: if it is a thing for you, the cites are not in numerical order here.
    • Not really, but it is nice to have them in order :).

Aftermath

  • Especially the return of prisoners rankled with the Venetians,: suggest "The return of prisoners especially rankled with the Venetians,..."
    • Done, but slightly altered to avoid the repetition of 'especially' further on.

That's my comments on the article, will do an image review separately. Zawed (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time Zawed, have addressed your points or otherwise answered above. I hope it was an interesting read :). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass edit

Looking at the image tags, with one exception these look fine. The only one I am uncertain of is File:Galley.jpg; it seems to me that a tag like the one used for the other non-map image File:Mehmet I honoraries miniature.jpg is more appropriate. Zawed (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, passing image review now. Zawed (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Sources are of good quality.
  • Melville-Jones usually comes before Miller in alphabetical order
  • Spot checks not done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5 and Zawed: Do you support the nomination? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that I have added my support. Zawed (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Given the lack of response from CPA-5 and the need to move this forward given its age, I'm going to do a review. The article is in fine shape, so I don't have a lot to say:

Background
  • Sultan→sultan and Sultan's→sultan's throughout
    • Hmmm, where 'the Sultan' is mentioned, it should be clear that the text refers to the specific holder of the office, i.e. per MOS:OFFICE it should be capitalized, or not?
  • not sure about the initial cap for Interregnum. Sources seem split equally.
  • Duke's→duke's
    • Done.
  • "carried off a large part of the inhabitants" as slaves?
    • Indeed, added.
  • it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more geographical context for the locations mentioned. The map is good, but textual description of where Chios, Phokaia, and Lesbos were/are, for example, would be helpful (ie along the western coast of Anatolia/in the eastern Aegean etc, that the Cyclades are halfway between Anatolia and Greece etc, that Euboea is where it is etc
    • Done as far as possible, but in some cases (e.g. where the contributions of the Venetian colonies are listed) it would be excessive.
  • "200 mostly elderly men, women, and children"?
    • Added.
  • "the right to equip merchant galleys of" what does this mean? To send them there to collect goods?
    • Have tried to clarify, I rewrote the section somewhat.
  • Is the Turkish fleet synonymous with the Ottoman fleet? Likewise Turkish and Ottoman generally?
    • Yes, tbh I am surprised that this is remarked upon.
      • Not confusing for me, and I know the names are used interchangeably, but it assumes knowledge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wouldn't hurt to ensure that is clear at first mention in the body ie "Ottoman (or Turkish)? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have added 'Turkish' to Ottoman realm in the first sentence of the article main body. Constantine ✍ 13:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Battle
  • "which was included by Marino Sanuto"?
    • Fixed.
  • link Marino Sanuto the Younger? Presumably this is him?
    • He has already been mentioned and linked earlier.
  • I'm not sure the the use of Italian time is helpful to the reader, as it requires following a note to establish what the time was.
    • Altered to 'late in the afternoon'
  • "and that the (which fleet, the Ottoman one?) was meant to sail to the Danube"
    • Clarified.
  • "the Venetians would not ferry Mustafa's militias" ws this a consideration of the Venetians? Were they assisting Mustafa?
    • No. It is covered above, that the ambassadors were empowered to treat with Mustafa and other, but only after negotiations with the Sultan failed; here the negotiations had not even begun.
      • I don't think it is covered adequately. The reader knows about Mustafa, but there had been no mention of the Venetians assisting him to cross, and I think you need to reinforce that they were under orders not to do so until they had treated with the Sultan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The galley from Napoli, which sailed to his left, was again showing signs of disorder" disorder? Or poor discipline or battle formation?
    • Clarified
  • why were the Christians executed?
    • Clarified
Aftermath
  • "One of the Turkish captains that had been taken prisoner also composed a letter to the Sultan"?
    • Fixed.
  • "Indeed, on 9 July the Senate" link Venetian Senate here, thereafter use lower case senate
    • Done on the former, re the latter, see my comment on sultan above: when referring to a specific institution or office, it should be capitalized afaict.
  • Dolfino Venier→Venier, he has already been introduced
    • I have kept this to avoid confusion with the Candiot commander Domenico Venier.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Peacemaker67 for the remarks! I've tried to address them, please have a look. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Gallipoli_(1416)&oldid=1181649892"