Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2018.

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

An article on a long and complex blockade of Thessalonica, involving Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottomans, which finally ended with the Ottoman capture of the city. As an event, it was rather seminal, heralding the fall of Constantinople, and showing the limitations of Venice's mercantile maritime empire when faced with a large land power. The article has passed MILHIST's ACR and has had a GOCE review recently, so that I feel it is ready for nomination here. Any suggestions for further improvement are welcome. Constantine  ✍  12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review
 * Since Greece has limited freedom of panorama, images of 3D things should include explicit copyright tags for the original works
 * File:II._Murat.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
 * File:Symeon_of_Thessaloniki.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikkimaria! By "explicit copyright tags for the original works" I guess you mean THES-Heptapyrgion inscription.jpg? How is this to be done? Constantine  ✍  13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See for example this image - you split out the copyright of the photo and the object, adding an appropriate tag for the latter. (Given the presumed age the copyright is almost certainly expired). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review
You could add OCLC 220583971 to the Apostolos E Vakalopoulos book entry. Otherwise the sources are in immaculate order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done and thanks! Constantine  ✍  13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber
Looking now and copyediting as I go...


 * I tweaked the lead thus, are you ok with it?


 * a tendency of independence from the imperial capital had been evident - sounds awkward, why not "a degree of independence from the imperial capital had been evident" or even just "(relative) independence from the imperial capital had been evident" or somesuch


 * Once the Ottoman civil war ended, the Turkish pressure on the city began to increase again - can just say "Once the Ottoman civil war ended, the Turkish pressure on the city increased/built up again"


 * and rioted in favour of an accommodation with the Ottomans, when the news spread that they had offered a peaceful settlement, provided that the Despot Andronikos left the city - I am having trouble following this sentence.


 * with the Despot of Serbia, Stefan Lazarević (r. 1389–1427) in 1420–1423 - should be "between 1420 and 1423" or from 1420 to 1423"


 *  which the Venetians loaded onto their ships. - unnecessary and repetitive, can be " which they loaded onto their ships"

Otherwise reads well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges

 * Thessalonica remained in Ottoman hands suggest change fromhands to possession.
 * capture of the city (In the infobox) suggest change to city captured.
 * Sultan Murad II to the Venetian envoys, Doukas, Historia Turco-Byzantina XXIX.5[21] suggest linking Historia Turco-Byzantina.
 * Venice did not wish for a war, suggest changing did not wish for to did not desire
 * broad anti-Ottoman alliance including the Karamanids of central Anatolia, suggest changing including to which included since only one example is given, and/or adding the names of other members.
 * to bring Serbia and Bosnia back into vassalage suggest adding a state between back into and vassalage.
 * Article is in good shape, support promotion to FA. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gog the Mild
I did some copy editing on this and have been having another look at it. I missed a few things: I didn't want to just copy edit in the middle of the review, but am happy to do so if it is not going to confuse things.. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * its former self—from c. 25,000–40,000 inhabitants to c. 2,000—and More than two dashes in a sentence can be difficult to figure out. I think I'd replace what's inside the em-dashes with "from as many as 40,000 inhabitants to around 2,000". It's a bit longer but it looks clearer to me.
 * Efforts at a Crusade - use of the indefinite article suggests that this is a generic use of crusade and should be lower case.
 * There are 8 instances of "as well as" and 14 of "also" which could probably be pruned (in a couple cases there's three in one paragraph).
 * four-hour long battle perhaps an additional hyphen between hour and long.
 * Even now, however, Venice would not commit Maybe a "then" instead of the "now", and possibly cut the "however."

Coordinator comment: Can I just check that is still actively working on this? I don't see replies to some old comments here. Sarastro (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarastro, I am still active on this, but am very busy in RL so that I could not devote to it the time it needed. I will do so this weekend, though. Apologies for any inconvenience. Constantine  ✍  12:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If time is still an issue, would it be easier to close this for now? The queue is quite long at the moment. I would be quite happy to archive it and dispense with the usual two-week waiting period to allow an immediate renomination if you become more available before that time. In any case, I think we need to see something happening in the next few days. Sarastro (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: As the nominator has not returned, and this FAC has been open for nearly two months without achieving a consensus to promote, I'm afraid I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.