Wikipedia:Peer review/Venetian Ionian Islands/archive1

Venetian Ionian Islands
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to it to reach a featured article status.

Thanks, Marcofran (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

 * Lead
 * I would recommend completely rewriting the lead. As it stands, the lead hold a large number of sources which aren't found elsewhere in the body. Per WP:LEAD, it should summarise the rest of the article, it shouldn't contain any new information. It's a good idea to try and incorporate information from every section in the lead somehow. I'd start the first paragraph with a description of the territory, then go into its creation and its governance, then its fall. Do this last though, after working on the rest of the article.


 * Relations between Venice and Byzantium
 * Is there a reason you call what wikipedia calls _ the "Barbaric invasions"?
 * Clarify Fall of the West means the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, which Venice was a part of.
 * Replace "kept being considered" with "remained considered"
 * I'd suggest removing "Still and all, its independence would be proved inevitable;" it doesn't add anything to the article.
 * I'd replace "Emperor's suzerainty had faded away over the years" with "the influence of the Eastern Roman Emperor slowly faded away."
 * Replace "could be considered" with "functioned as"
 * Remove the word "being" in the next sentence
 * Do the sources provide a list of treaties? If so include that instead of giving a seemingly random example.
 * Remove "against" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
 * "dissolution of the first" what? "Sack of the second" what?
 * "Its" should not have an apostrophe here.
 * What outcome is meant by "this outcome"?
 * Who was "Charles" and how was Venice relevant to him?
 * This whole section seems quite irrelevant to the rest of the article. Explain somewhere what relations have to do with the Venetian Ionian Islands. Perhaps it should go under background in History?


 * Appellation
 * Remove "There are different names and spellings for each island, too", it's quite obvious and doesn't add anything.
 * Did the Ottoman Empire call them anything specific?


 * History
 * Remove the word "Nevertheless", doesn't seem to make sense in this context.
 * Would the Frankokratia section be better kept as part of Background?
 * By "Turks" in the Frankokratia section do you mean Ottomans?
 * How did Venice take back Corfu?
 * "With the Treaty of Passarowitz Cythera and Anticythera passed to the Venetian Republic and remained under its control until its fall." Clarify the what the "its" in this sentence are.
 * Give more information about the Despotate of Epirus.
 * Some of the information is not in chronological order, which is slightly strange. In addition, is something missing from the end?
 * Include a section about what happened just after Venice


 * Administration
 * Can this section incorporate more information about domestic leaders?
 * Were the islands ever governed as a group?


 * Economy
 * Join the first two paragraphs here together
 * Was all trade limited to just Venice? Were the islands part of any trade routes? Any information about imports?


 * Demographics
 * Are the population figures presented from a census?
 * The language and education subsections seem a bit forced to me. It may be best to simply mix that information into the main section. It is interesting to me that the educated (higher-class) would know Venetian. Was Greek the language of the settlers or the people who lived there when it was conquered by Venice?
 * How does stopping education help Venetian colonial policy?
 * Did Jews live in a grotto here? Is that why they were transferred?


 * Legacy
 * Are you sure the current population of the Islands recalls Venice with nostalgia? If so, why? Make sure those words are used in the source.
 * Is there a current legal special status for Italian in the Ionian Islands?

From the looks of it, this article is very well sourced. The main problem I can see would be the writing, so when the content it done I suggest asking for help at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Sorry this took so long, and good luck with the article! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Appellation
 * I found nothing on administrative division; but logically all the islands would form part of the Rumelia Eyalet (Pashalik of Yanina) and Morea Eyalet, located entirely on the Balkan Peninsula, and opposite the islands. Right?


 * History
 * Which information is not in chronological order?
 * I know, I have to add something on the a) aftermath and b) on how Venice took back Corfu.


 * Administration
 * Nothing else on domestic authorities.
 * Yes, they were, by the Provveditore generale da Mar. I've included this.


 * Economy
 * Yes, that's what the source says and I found they were part of one trade route. I found nothing on imports, though.


 * Demographics
 * I am not sure about all of them; why?
 * What do you mean a bit forced? Which main section you mean? As the islands were part of the Byzantine Empire, Greek language would be the language of the indigenous people, the people before the conquest. But as it is mentioned there were some Greek-speaking settlers, too.
 * I don't know. It does not mention in the source. What should I do?
 * Wrong expression.


 * Legacy
 * This word is exatly what the writer of the source uses.
 * I did not find anything on Italian language for today. Why?

I'll try to include more about the aftermath and the Venetian conquest of Corfu in History and I will rewrite the Lead. --Marcofran (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Appellation
 * That makes sense to me, perhaps a source on one of those will mention the Ionian islands.


 * History
 * Dates within the Frankokratia and the Venetian conquest sections jump around a bit between dates. I can see that it seems to be arranged on an island basis, but it still seems slightly off. Perhaps the Frankokratia information can be integrated into the Venetian conquest section? Slightly not on the topic of venetian topic perhaps, but the shift from 1479 back to 1386 and then 1286 is a bit disconcerting. There are a few options here, with the two most obvious ones to me being having all actions in complete chronological order or rework everything except the very beginning and end on an island basis. There could be much better options here though, any thoughts?
 * Section as a whole is looking much more complete now. Perhaps combine dissolution and aftermath into one section, it detracts slightly from the main point of the article which is their Venetian rule. However, from my knowledge of history, what you've written is quite a good concise summary.


 * Administration
 * Ah, excellent. Question on Corfu then; Paragraph two states "The head of the reggimento, had the title of Provveditore in all the islands except for Corfu, where he was called Bailo." Paragraph three states "In Corfu the Venetian officials included a Bailo, a Provveditore and a Capitano, two Consiglieri, a Capitano della cittadella and a Castellano della fortezza." To me, these seem to conflict, one saying there wasn't a Provveditore and one saying there was.


 * Demographics
 * I find it useful to include information about how statistics were obtained, especially historical figures, this helps to differentiate between guesses by historians and actual figures obtained in some way by the rulers of the time.
 * When I say forced, I mean it seems like you went out of your way to create whole sections on language and education whereas the text seems to indicate they are not that special or unique. I also feel they would feel more connected if they were included after the information on immigration, which would make connections such as the one you pointed out with Greek settlers easier to make. As both sections are just short paragraphs I thought that they may as well be combined.
 * In the sentence "It actually became the "official" language of the Government and the laws", the word "actually" should be removed if there's no reason to keep it. The quotation marks around "official" should be removed too, and I'd suggest removed "and the laws" as redundant.
 * Rewrite "Thus, the Venetian language was to become" as "The Venetian language became".
 * If reasons are not mentioned in the source, perhaps add the exact quote from the source to the reference, which shows the context the author mentions it in.


 * Legacy
 * The wording just seemed a bit WP:PEACOCKy to me. If it's in the source, it's fine in my opinion. Perhaps add the quote to the reference.
 * I was wondering if there was any legal legacy about the language as well as social. Any firmer statements, such as figures on current numbers of Italian speakers would help firm this section up a little.


 * Sorry for this late response, couple of real life interruptions, but looking better. Remember to alternate the images down the page, per WP:MOSIMAGES. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Appellation
 * I didn't find anything in these sources. The only thing I found is travel books of 1813 and 1823 where Cythera is included as part of the Morea. But I thing this has nothing to do with this period. Right? So, nothing on administration?


 * History
 * I can't think of something else... But the whole section of Francokratia is part of the Background. Should I change the order only in the Venetian Conquest section?


 * Administration
 * This means that the head of the reggimento was called Bailo and in other places Provveditore, not that there was no official in Corfu with the title of Provveditore.


 * Demographics
 * Unfortunately, nothing on which were guesses by historians and which were actual figures.
 * Done!
 * Done!


 * Legacy
 * Done
 * I found nothing because modern Greek cencus does not include data about language.


 * Can you think of any other improvements? --Marcofran (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * History
 * It's up to you. Perhaps the copyeditor will be able to do something, just give it some thought.


 * Administration
 * So the Bailo was the superior on Corfu?


 * You're obviously the one with all of the sources, so I suppose if you feel that the article is comprehensive based on information out there, that will be what is needed. A note on the lead; it shouldn't really have any sources by itself or information that needs to be sourced. When I write the leads, what I sometimes do is take a copy of the whole article and trim that down till I have something lead sized. Timeconsuming, but makes sure all the information is in the article, and ensures you've examined what there is in the article. You can then remove references from the lead. Sorry for the slow response again, my main computer wasn't working, and I was very busy in life, so all I had time to do was watchlist upkeep. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)