Talk:Cretan War (1645–1669)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, excellent article, well written, well referenced, everything a good article should be. I have some minor points for clarification (below). There are also some sentences I think should be referenced, not because they are controversial, but because such a good referencing job has been done everywhere else, it would be a shame to leave these ones out! I have used the marker to indicate these sentences. I will put the article on hold for 7 days, to allow for modifications, but it will definitely pass.

Minor points:
 * Names of battles - these mostly aren't explicitly named in the text. While I understand that this helps the flow of the text, I wonder if they should be explicitly named somewhere in the article (other than the campaign infobox)? Perhaps you could use the at the start of some of the sections, just for clarity.
 * Hmmm, that might become ugly. If I were to include the individual battle links directly below the heading, say in "The battles of the Dardanelles", there would be 6 battles to fit in. I'll try to make them a bit more conspicuous (where possible), though. Constantine  ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On a related point, for Cretan War (1645-1669) and Cretan War (1645-1669), I think it might be better to use the template to link through to the main articles.
 * Funnily enough, on other reviews I've been encouraged to replace with  . I think I'll keep it the way it is ,especially for the naval war, which doesn't have a dedicated article either way. Constantine   ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The terms 'Serenissima' and 'Most Serene Republic' to (I assume) refer to Venice, but these terms are not explained. Could they be clarified (even just linking them to the 'Republic of Venice' would be fine)?
 * Done Constantine  ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Knights loaded their loot on a ship, which docked at a small harbor on the southern coast of Candia for a few days" - Is this supposed to be Candia or Crete? I realise the Venetians might have called both Candia, but I think for the purposes of this article, the island should be referred to as Crete.
 * Quite right. Fixed. Constantine  ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At the start of the section "Early operations in crete", we are told that the Venetians were fooled by the Ottomans, but then that they had been preparing for war since the previous year. These two statements are at least partially contradictory - they can't have been that suprised. Could this be clarified?
 * Well, the Venetians were worried about Ottoman preparations either way, and not quite sure where this massive armada was going, so prudently they shored up their defenses. But, the arrival of the Ottoman fleet at Crete did indeed surprise them. Constantine  ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same section "In mid-June however, a small Ottomans routed a larger body of Venetian mercenaries." Needs correcting
 * Done Constantine  ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "For 1654, the Ottomans marshaled their strength: the Arsenal produced new warships". The use of "the Arsenal" suggests it is a proper noun referring to a specific location, as opposed to e.g. "their arsenals". If it is supposed to be "the Arsenal", can you provide an explanation of where and what this was?
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the infobox and the lead paragraph, the Venetian gains in Dalmatia are referred to as 'Minor' and 'Small', but in the "The war in Dalmatia" section, they are referred to as 'significant', and the as 'territory tripled'. Could these conflicting statements be reconciled?
 * You are right. The point is "comparatively minor" to the loss of Crete. Fixed. Constantine  ✍  14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thumbs up and for a thorough review. A couple of points & questions on the referencing, where I'd also like some advice. The fact of Candia being the second longest siege is nowhere explicitly stated. What is stated in several books is that it was the longest siege in history. However, I did a search to verify this and came up with the case of Ceuta, which, although relatively little known, is longer. I have tried to present the issue in the citation. Do you think it's OK? Also, on the issue of Greece's union with Crete, officially it was in 1913, but de facto, Greece acknowledged and effected the union in October 1912. As this is not really something that can be contested, is a citation necessary? The same goes for the last sentence in the "The Siege of Candia begins" section. The Ottomans had conquered the island, and, as the next paragraphs show, they could not be dislodged from their holdings (e.g. Canea). A the same time, they made no large-scale attack on Candia either, until 1666. This sentence is merely a summary of this interval. I'll try to find a direct citation of the statement made here, but it may not be possible. Either way, thanks a lot and cheers, Constantine   ✍  15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I agree it will be unwieldy to add for all battles, and if you're happy with  where you have it, then so am I. As for Ceuta vs. Candia, I think the solution you've used is fine, and presents the point in an appropriate format. I don't think it's wrong to contradict sources when they are obviously wrong!
 * The two sentences that you mention don't really need referencing – these are non-controversial statements. The only reason I asked for citations there is that I have been advised in the past not to leave the last sentence of a paragraph without a reference. I thought that if you could locate a reference, then add it in; but if not, it didn't really matter! I'll remove the tags. Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks again. I'll try to find some references anyway. Also, since I intend to ultimately bring this to FA, what would you suggest I add/change? Constantine  ✍  13:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm no expert on FA - I haven't spent enough time reading FA articles to see how much better you need to make them than GA. I suspect that GA reviews are quite variable, and that some reviewers treat them more stringently than others, and I therefore suspect that some GA articles are already well on their way to being FA. I 'think that this is the case with this one; the writing is generally very good, everything is well referenced, it's NPOV. I see you previously had a peer-review from the WPMilHist team - they're generally pretty good at spotting problems, so if they didn't give any indications of anything missing/anything extra needed, then there probably isn't much. Maybe the next step is to submit it from an A-class review from MilHist?
 * The one suggestion I have is to include a '(Historical) Significance' section at the end of the article. I guess this works well for some articles and probably not others, but I think it might work here. Although the war is, as you say, rather neglected nowadays, it seems to have had quite a significant impact internationally at the time. And it is significant in showing the decline of Venice, and the zenith of Ottoman expansion (but at the same time making the beginning of their decline evident??). What was the cultural impact on Crete? and so on. This kind of section helps put the whole of the war in some kind of longer-term context. However, I don't think it is essential, and they can be quite difficult to reference!
 * Ultimately, I'd like to see this go for FAC, so if you need any help (any proof-reading etc. - I'm probably not going to be able to help with references), just let me know. Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)