Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Settepozzi/archive1

Battle of Settepozzi

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

An article on a naval battle between the Venetians and the Genoese in 1263, in the context of the War of Saint Sabas and the restoration of the Byzantine Empire by Michael VIII Palaiologos. Few details are known about the battle itself, but its diplomatic repercussions were great, leading the Byzantines to a rapprochement with Venice soon after. Consequently much of the article deals with the political setting and impact. I began the article back in 2010, but over the last year of so have expanded it considerably, as I have gained access to more sources, and as some questions of detail have emerged. The article recently passed a very productive MILHIST A-class review (thanks to all who helped) and is, in my view, ready for FA. Constantine  ✍  16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild
I assessed this at GAN and ACR and was happy with it.


 * "In 1263, a Genoese fleet of 48 ships was sent to the Byzantine stronghold of Monemvasia when on its way it encountered a Venetian fleet of 32 ships" Suggest 'In 1263, a Genoese fleet of 48 ships which had been sent to the Byzantine stronghold of Monemvasia encountered a Venetian fleet of 32 ships'
 * "which was already embroiled since 1256" "was already" → 'had been'.

That's all I have. A fine, detailed article. worthy of FA status. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your help throughout the article's evolution, Gog the Mild. Best, Constantine  ✍  20:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * De nada. Thanks for your help with my evolution as a Wikipedian. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by caeciliusinhorto
A few comments on first read-through:


 * It is a little strange that the background we are given in the lead begins with the treaty of Nymphaeum in 1261 and only then mentions that the war of Saint Sabas had been ongoing since 1256; I would rewrite this sentence so it's in chronological order.
 * There is a good reason for this, though: the prime driver for the Nicaean–Genoese alliance was the politics of Michael VIII. Palaiologos inserted himself in the conflict, and the Nicaean/Byzantine-Genoese relationship resulting from it is the chief context of this article. Settepozzi has far more to do with that than with the ongoing War of Saint Sabas, which up to that point had been fought mostly in 'colonial' fashion in the Levant, and not in the Aegean.
 * Background: it might be worth briefly explaining to non-Byzantinists what the empire of Nicaea and the Latin Empire are, and why there was an "old Nicaean ambition to recover Constantinople".
 * Done
 * In the section on "Questions of chronology", the first paragraph gives several different dates for the battle, but I am left wondering 1) why should I believe one over any of the others? 2) why does it matter?
 * The date of a historical event, particularly if it has been itself the subject of analysis and speculation, is IMO an important fact. It also has implications on events associated with it, e.g. if it occurred in January or February, then the sailing of another fleet on 28 May should be interpreted as a reaction to the defeat. As stated above, initially I had these facts in footnotes, but as they grew and became more intermeshed, I decided to create a dedicated section
 * "his anger boiled over" strikes me as a little informal in tone.
 * Rephrased
 * "according to Canale": "Canal"?
 * Fixed

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Caeciliusinhorto, thanks for the suggestions. I've tried to address them. Any other trouble spot or suggestion? Constantine  ✍  10:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm happy with the prose, and though I'm not particularly familiar with this period (it's dangerously recent for my taste!) I haven't found any obvious recent literature which you are missing. Happy to support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * Seems like a nice, obscure topic, some preliminary comments below before I read. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder why the image caption of the map is so small, seems to be the template itself that does it? Not so helpful, I think.
 * The image captions could have words linked.
 * Done
 * Link Republic of Venice and Republic of Genoa at first mention in article body, as well as other such terms that are not linked there.
 * Done
 * "overthrow of the Boccanegra" Earlier you refer to this name as a person, but here it seems like a group, or family?
 * Fixed
 * "Georg Caro placed it in March at the latest,[23] whereas Camillo Manfroni" Who are they? You present other writers as historians etc.
 * Done
 * You are inconsistent in when you use Michael VIII or just Michael. If both, would perhaps be best to only use the former once, at first mention. Otherwise it is probably best to be consistent and use Michael VIII throughout.
 * Very good point. Done.
 * I think the intro could be split into two paragraphs, a bit of a wall of text now.
 * Done
 * You mention "the restoration of the Byzantine Empire", but shouldn't something about this be mentioned under repercussions then?
 * This had occurred before the battle, in 1261.
 * "This did not prevent another, even more lopsided and complete defeat at the Battle of Trapani in 1266." Much more strongly worded in the intro (where it is not sourced) than in the article body.
 * Not sure that this is the case: a defeat does not get more lopsided and complete than losing your entire fleet by having it captured by your enemy.
 * Hi FunkMonk, please have a look on my edits and replies above. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  11:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - looking fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I reviewed this article at Milhist A-Class, and have little else to add: That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * on re-reading, the sentence beginning "The resulting Treaty of Nymphaeum..." seems contradictory. If Nicaea was allied with Genoa, how did the treaty mean that the Venetians were supplanted by the Genoans in the Latin Empire? Do you mean "effectively mirroring", in that the Genoans now had a similar arrangement in the Nicaean Empire as the Venetians had in the Latin Empire?
 * I scaled up the maps


 * Regarding your question, the latter. I rephrased to make it clear. Constantine  ✍  15:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * links to sources are all working, per the ext. links checker tool
 * Formats
 * Ref 40 requires pp.
 * Wiel 1910: according to WorldCat the OCLC for this edition is 4198755 (see )

Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources appear to meet the requisite criteria.
 * All fixed/added. Constantine  ✍  15:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by CPA-5
The only comment I have is that Byzantine Empire is overlinked. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot find the duplink, and neither can the tool. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In these sentences between a Genoese–Byzantine fleet and a smaller Venetian fleet. and the former capital of the Byzantine Empire, which since the Fourth Crusade. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is no overlinking: the one is in the lede, the other in the main body. Per WP:OVERLINK: " if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead". Constantine  ✍  19:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
Status of addressing the various comments posted here? -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Laser brain, Cplakidas is a little bit busy with RL events (probably holiday or so). I pinged him a week ago with the question or he supports the ARC Third Silesian War nomination or not. He responed by saying he'd be back in September. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Checking in again—I see you are actively editing but we'd like to see some responses and progress evident on the comments left here. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was under the impression I had answered the points above as well. Done now, and pinged the editors. Constantine  ✍  15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)