Talk:Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 18:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * just a friendly reminder :). Constantine  ✍  13:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll complete this review. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, should be about done. Clearly a very carefully researched article - some minor points below. Nice work! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It definitely now meets the GA standards, just about to pass. If it goes up to A class or FA reviews, my advice might be to look at further copyediting for flow; some of the sentences and paragraphs will work better on a hard-copy document than on the screen - delivering slightly shorter, simpler sentence and paragraph construction might help the typical reader. Very nicely researched, I can't imagine it having trouble at higher-level reviews on that score. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * "was an ultimately successful attempt" - felt clunky to me in the first line. "The siege of Thessalonica between 1422 and 1430 saw the Ottoman Empire under Sultan Murad II capture the Byzantine city of Thessalonica." ?
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Venetians sent several embassies to the Sultan..." - this is a very long paragraph. Any chance it could be broken in two part way?
 * I've broken it up thematically in three. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Republic also made efforts to find allies against the Ottomans among the autonomous Turkish rulers of Anatolia as well as among the Christian princes of Europe, but with limited success: Junayd of Aydın was defeated in 1425, efforts to bring the Karamanids into an alliance were ultimately fruitless, and attempts to form a Crusade were scuppered by the hostility between Venice and the King of Hungary, Sigismund, who pursued his own independent campaigns along the Danube until concluding a truce with Murad in 1428." - a bit of a monster; worth breaking in two?
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "semi-independnet" - spelling
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Nevertheless, relations between Thessalonica and Constantinople remained troubled, with the former city's local aristocracy jealously guarding their extensive privileges, which apparently amounted to virtual autonomy; this was part of a wider phenomenon during the last century of Byzantine history, as central authority weakened, but in Thessalonica's case, a tendency of independence from the imperial capital had been evident at least since the Zealot movement of the mid-14th century, and had been reinforced by the autonomous regime of Manuel II in 1382–1387." - worth breaking into two for ease of reading. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Both Venice and Hungary exploited the momentary Ottoman weakness and the resulting turmoil in the Balkans to expand their territories—Venice in Dalmatia and Albania, Sigismund in Bosnia, Serbia, and Wallachia; Venice seized Zara, Split, and other Dalmatian cities from Hungary between 1412 and 1420, and found itself at war with the Despot of Serbia, Stefan Lazarević (r. 1389–1427 in 1420–1423, forcing the latter to seek the aid of the Ottomans. " - again, quite a long sentence to follow.
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * " proposing to restore the salt flats[disambiguation needed]" - disambig notice...
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Likewise he was instructed to make contact with the Sultan and pledge considerable sums to the Grand Vizier, Çandarlı Ibrahim Pasha, and other members of the Ottoman court, proposing to restore the salt flats that the Sultan had previously controlled, as well as the tribute of 100,000 aspers that the Despot Andronikos had paid; the Venetians refused, however, to allow the Turks in the city to be tried by their own kadi, as had been the case under the Despot Andronikos, and insisted on the reinstatement of customs posts in the city gates."- I'd recommend breaking in two
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Rather than result in a military alliance" - "Rather than resulting"? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Sultan appeared before the city on Sunday, 26 March, shortly after noon..." This is a very long paragraph for screen based reading. I'd strongly advise breaking at "At dawn on 29 March..."
 * Good point. Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Minor, and definitely not a GA requirement, but "Politico-historical Works of Symeon Archbishop of Thessalonica" in further reading is missing an ISBN number. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Appears neutral so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * All checked out fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Hchc2009, thanks for taking over the review. I've addressed the points you have raised above. Any further comments/suggestions, even beyond GA requirements? E.g. readability or comprehensibility for the uninitiated reader? Constantine  ✍  15:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)