Talk:Siege of Krujë (1466–1467)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ZjarriRrethues (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2011(UTC)


 * Wording: Rephrase in order to reflect encyclopaedic phrasing and comply to WP:WORDS:
 * 1) his situation had become desperate/was becoming more and more desperate and needed his intervention and all other sentences that include the word desperate
 * 2) come to terms with Mehmed due to the great pressure/crush the resistance definitively/Gjergj Lleshi (Georgius Alexius) whose name became a legend/putting an end to their campaign/fresh northern warriors/Mehmed grew furious/Venice itself was locked in conflict/victory also sparked enthusiasm/the great moral and material losses/wanted to annihilate the Turkish camp/situation in Albania continued to be dramatic/the political landscape began to change (WP:IDIOM etc.)-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes. Tell me if you think they are okay or if there is anything else that should be changed.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rephrase Pope Pius II, one of Skanderbeg's major benefactors, died and took his plans for crusade against the Ottoman Empire with him to the grave/His efforts came in vain, however/ akıncı was let loose to all sides of Albania/Despite these incredible difficulties/After convincing himself that Krujë would not fall/.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 23:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above presented arguments I think there is a need to change a reviewer and I would kindly invite ZjarriRrethues to no longer make any edits in this GA review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to Reviewing good articles "This is a particular consideration for articles within the scope of a WikiProject where the reviewer is an active member. Sometimes it is helpful for an article to have an expert reviewer, but on other occasions it is preferable that the reviewer is not too close to the topic ." I am concerned that this is exactly the occasion when it is preferable that the reviewer is not too close to the topic because:
 * 1) the reviewer is very active member of the WikiProject Albania
 * 2) the reviewer is very close to the subject (hundreds of edits in the articles about Skanderbeg and related talkpages)
 * 3) the reviewer is active participant in numerous disputes connected with Skanderbeg and Albania.
 * 4) the reviewer's editing was reported many times on the ANI and AE because of his ethno-nationalist tendentious editing. In one of the AE archives administrator concluded that he has "deeply entrenched, tendency of evaluating each and every edit under the single perspective of emphasizing the historical role of one's own ethnic group and de-emphasizing that of the other, making the one side look historically good and the other bad." Based on the presented evidence administrators imposed interaction ban to the reviewer (to "put an end to the disruption") and other user and warned "in particular ZjarriRrethues" not to engage in further: "ethno-nationalist tendentious editing, misrepresenting sources and incivility or personal attacks".
 * Don't misquote the admins and don't harass the reviewer by making false claims about him (many reports?). Zjarri only received an interaction sanction 9 months ago with another (a mutual one) user and he's a very experienced and accomplished editor. Since that single event he has never been warned or blocked or sanctioned or involved in anything like that but has continued his usual work. Antid should be reported, because before I nominated this for GA, his edits were very few  and as soon as he saw that Zjarri would review it, his editing increased. The amoung of wikihounding by Antid against Zjarri (and me) before and after he nominated his Articles for deletion/Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion (deleted) is troubling and something must be done.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I presented four arguments for my opinion. You disputed only one. Don't you agree that even if I am wrong with fourth one (and I still believe I am right) the first three arguments are enough to support my opinion?
 * Regarding the fourth argument : Yes, there are many reports (search the archives if you don't believe me), and if you don't believe the administrator I quoted, let me quote another administrator:I have been prancing around with patriotic nonsense like ZjarriRrethues's for five years. Really, I've seen it all, and I'm not even interested in going through the motions. As far as I am concerned, ZjarriRrethues can either reform or get lost, we are trying to build an encyclopedia and they are clearly not here to help. Unfortunately there is only one thing you are right about. He indeed "has continued his usual work".
 * I based my opinion on the wikipedia guideline and provided arguments (links and diffs) for my opinion that this is exactly the occasion when it is preferable that the reviewer is not too close to the topic.
 * If you have some arguments that my opinion is wrong, please bring them here. Further (false or not) accusations, which are irrelevant for this discussion, are not arguments but only a way to break down the discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed other articles too and if any of the nominator(s) or editor(s) with the most edits disagreed with my review I would immediately resign. Since the nominator doesn't want me to resign, I'll continue the review. Antid. that last quote is from September 2010 i.e more than a year ago and it was my first interaction with Dbachmann. Since then we've had the chance to vastly improve our collaboration on various topics. Of course it's disruptive to join a discussion with the purpose of making such comments on the reviewer rather than the review, not to mention that you entered the GAN discussion only after I took up the task of reviewing this topic. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I gave a fairly clear explanation (and provided 4 arguments) that the reviewer of this nomination does not meet the request of the guideline Reviewing good articles which says "it is preferable that the reviewer is not too close to the topic". Instead to deal with the presented arguments, nominator and reviewer mostly dealt with accusations. I don't have intention to participate in dealing with accusations. This is my final comment about this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Previously, I had some skirmishes with User:Evlekis, yet Zjarri managed to reach some kind of compromise. Anti's continouos harasments are totally out of line. I think he's been previously warned regarding his elephantlike intrusions on Scanderbeg related subjects by other admins. He has an unhealthy interest on Zjarri's edits, causing him problems. Misquoting an admin abouth sth that happened almost a year ago? Not good. I think that someone should take measures.Majuru (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Review continuation
Rephrase Albanian resistance wherever possible with League of Lezhë. For example on the lead the belligerents should be stated concisely (Ottoman Empire vs. League of Lezhë not Ottoman Empire vs. Albanian resistance. Wherever needed include a summary of what the League of Lezhë was. There are also some grammar issues that I'll correct myself later.
 * Images: All should be aligned on the right side and each section should have one.
 * Rephrase After debating whether or not to annihilate the Ottoman force, Skanderbeg's staff fell upon the Ottomans and inflicted devastating casualties with only some men being able to escape. The victory sparked enthusiasm among both the Albanians and the Italians. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rephrase:


 * 1) Turkish --> Ottoman
 * 2) Complete the rest of the rephrasings and illustrate the Siege section.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes. What do you mean by the "rest of the rephrasings"?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean The victory sparked enthusiasm among both the Albanians and the Italians.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * .--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort the inline references in numerical order(but this came to no effect.[27][29][14] to but this came to no effect.[14][27][29]) and split the siege section into two paragraphs.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * .--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rephrase the lead as it should have chronological consistency. The first paragraph of the lead should be a summary of the summary(when/where it happened, who/how many fought, who won and how many died, what happened next). The second paragraph of the lead should focus on what happened in the meantime/during the siege? i.e use it to mention the Elbasan castle, Skanderbeg's activities in Italy etc., first parts of the siege. The third and final paragraph of the lead should focus on the final battles and a more detailed version of the aftermath.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some changes.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(unintend) Before I pass this there are two more points which should be addressed. As common medieval Latin/Albanian/Italian forms of locations are used throughout the article, the original name of Mt.Sarisalltëk should be used as Sarisalltëk was introduced after the Ottoman conquest (Sari Saltik). Secondly, please add some info about Roe Paul ordered Ferdinand to award to Skanderbeg what tribute would have been given to Roe. .-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Roe" was just a typo for "Rome." As for Sarisalltek, I'm not sure what it was called before the Ottoman conquest. Is this edit okay?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll pass it then as it meets GACR.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the review.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)