Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Settepozzi

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Settepozzi
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

A small article on a naval battle between the Venetians and the Genoese in 1263 off Greece, with the Byzantines as onlookers; a fairly typical example of the power dynamics between the three states at the time. Few details are known about the battle itself, but its diplomatic repercussions were great, leading the Byzantines to a rapprochement with Venice soon after. The article is quite old, but was revamped last year and passed GA in October. I think it is as comprehensive as it can get, and ready for A-class. Any comments or suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine  ✍  12:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * No links for all the commanders in the infobox?
 * As far as I can tell, these commanders are historical hapaxes, so unlikely to ever have an article


 * I reckon we can just link everything once in both the lead and the body. Why? because it's really small. Like.
 * Republic of Venice/Venitian, Monemvasia,  Republic of Genoa/Genoese, War of Saint Sabas and Genoese navy.
 * Good point, done.


 * passive in the Aegean Link Aegean here.
 * Done.


 * or 39 galleys and 10 saette Is there a link for saette?
 * Not that I know of. Generally the topic of medieval ships is not one that is well covered in Wikipedia. Hence the footnote.
 * Also should be saette not be saettes? Or is this the plural form of a noun? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * saette is the Italian plural, as this is an Italian word. What you mean would be saettas, but where possible I prefer to use the native-language plurals.


 * and commanded by three Genoese and one Byzantine admiral Do we know who they were?
 * While researching this, I dug deeper and deeper and found a series of issues, including chronology, that are unclear. Initially I tried to include these in footnotes, but since the issues were interrelated, I made a new section. I've added the relevant part of the Annales Ianuenses, but my understanding of Latin comes via Spanish and French, so if anyone can double-check at pp. 49–53, and see if I've missed something, I'd be grateful.


 * No original URL in The Navy of Venice source?
 * What do you mean by 'original URL'?
 * I mean the original URL, the URL you are using is part of the archive. However, I'm not sure or it must be there or it is an optional one? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiel's work was published in 1910. There is no original URL as there was no internet at the time. If you mean a Google Books link, that is not original either, as no book is published in Google Books rather than scanned/uploaded/hosted there. There is likely to be a Google Books version of this work, but I prefer archive.org since its content is by default more accessible than Google Books content, and either way the two are equivalent.


 * The Genoese Annales Ianuenses claim that when you mean claims?
 * Indeed, fixed.


 * may have been due to the fact that the Venetians claimed In my ears it sounds better if it should be "may have been since the Venetians claimed" probably wrong?
 * No, that definitely doesn't sound better to me.


 * capture four Venetian taride cargo Is there a link for taride?
 * Amazingly, there is. Added


 * I see British and American words like councillors (Br), southeastern (US)
 * Generally I favour British English, but some things may slip through, thanks.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi CPA-5, I've answered the last remaining points above. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  08:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Source review
 * Translate Balar's, Caro's, Failler's and Manfroni's books.
 * Translate Cesare's book and add an "(in Italian)" in the source.
 * The sources are appeared to be of high quality and reliable. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, but is the title translation mandatory? I think not, though indeed I usually do it. Constantine  ✍  11:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I would. Because let's say you want to read that book or source in English, but you don't know what the translated version is. Then it'd be hard to find it. Plus with translating the titles the readers (and we) can understand what the book is about. Yes, I do not think MOS says we must translate it but it could be handy if we do. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild
I looked at this for GAN and was happy with it then.


 * "Genoa and the Byzantines had been allied against Venice since the Treaty of Nymphaeum in 1261, while Genoa had been engaged in the War of Saint Sabas against Venice since 1256." "since" twice. Possibly make the second one 'from'?
 * Done.


 * Lead gives "48 or 49" Genoese vessals; infobox 38 plus 10.
 * Removed the alternate number (39/49) throughout. The primary sources are explicit in that there were 38 galleys.


 * "was necessary for the Nicaeans and their aim of successfully recovering Constantinople" The "and" suggests that there was a necessary reason for the Nicaeans other than recovering Constantinople. If so, could you give it? If not, perhaps 'was considered by the Nicaeans to be necessary for their aim of successfully recovering Constantinople'?
 * Good point, fixed.


 * "In May–July 1263" That should be a spaced en dash.
 * Done.


 * "failed to effectively confront its Venetian counterpart throughout the war, often" Optional: replace the comma with a semi colon.
 * Done.


 * Possibly a footnote brisfly explaining what a taride is? Or just delete it?
 * Linked now.


 * "for their excesses...and malfeasance in the areas of" Tgere should be a space either side of the ellipsis.
 * Done.


 * While I am not doing a source review, Dotson should be in title case.
 * Done.

Reads just as well as it did at GAN. If you were to nominate it for FAC, I would not, personally, consider its brevity a disqualifying factor; or even one to be considered at all. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks a lot for taking the time. Trying to answer some of your questions, I've been forced to re-review my sources, find some new ones, and rewrite quite a few parts of this article, so please have another look. Apologies for this, I really didn't expect to find so much when I started digging. Constantine  ✍  18:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Been there myself, and felt suitably embarrassed. It reads well now. A couple of queries:


 * "the Genoese were able to increase their naval armament considerably" I'm not sure that a reader would know just what this means. Increase their number of ships; or increase the armament of existing ships; or something else?
 * Fixed.


 * "to 1,000 men (400 captured and 600 killed or wounded)" "to" → 'at'.
 * Fixed.


 * "The 14th-century Venetian historian Andrea Dandolo placed it at the end of" "it" → 'the battle'.
 * Leftover from when it was a footnote. Fixed.


 * "Modern historians generally tend to" Either generally or tend is redundant.
 * Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding Gog the Mild, it is indeed embarrassing. Any other comments or suggestions? Constantine  ✍  16:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not that I can spot. Get it into FAC. Although I reserve the right to pick up new issues then. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Avec plaisir :) Constantine  ✍  17:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:
 * I'm finding the alliance arrangements in the Background section hard to follow on first read, perhaps due to assumed knowledge. Maybe I'm being thick, but it isn't clear to me from what is written on face value that the Nicaean Empire is different from the Latin Empire. I had to look at the linked articles to understand that they are in fact, opposing empires both with claims on Constantinople. I think a bit more explication of the various opposing factions is needed at this point to set the scene properly
 * Yes, I was not too happy about it either. Rephrased the entire section, please have a look.
 * that's great, all I would suggest is inserting "rival" in front of Latin Empire when first mentioned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * suggest "had dispatched in to the area"
 * Fixed


 * obsturct→obstruct
 * Fixed


 * link blockade
 * Done


 * suggest "A piratical foray, however, "
 * Fixed


 * perhaps mention that Morea is the Peloponnese peninsula, which readers may be more familiar with
 * Done


 * I don't agree with the idea that linking in the lead is sufficient, I found myself wanting a link to hover over on several occasions
 * Generally I agree. Other than Venice/Genoa, which are mentioned right after the lede, are there any other links 'missing'?
 * Monemvasia is the one that jumped out to me Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "at1,000 men " needs a space
 * Fixed


 * suggest listing the killed and wounded then the captured, in order of severity as per the infobox and general usage
 * Done


 * who was Frederic Lane?
 * Fixed


 * strongly suggest moving Georg Caro (Genua und die Mächte am Mittelmeer 1257-1311 Vol. I, 1895, p. 131) and Camillo Manfroni (Storia della marina italiana dal Trattato di Ninfeo alla caduta di Costantipoli (1261-1453), 1902, p. 9) to normal citations as they really break up the narrative flow
 * Done


 * who are Albert Failler and Michel Balar?
 * Done


 * "we know of during this time" is a strange use of Wikipedia's voice. I suggest "According to Failler, the only Byzantine fleet commander..."
 * Changed, though not as suggested.


 * "Commune"? Some explanation of this term in square brackets is needed.
 * Replaced "Commune" by the explanation itself


 * "In 1266, however, the Genoese fleet"
 * Fixed


 * "The Emperor had already shown signs of impatience with his allies before" either "already" or "before" needs trimming, as they both denote past events
 * Fixed


 * suggest "to surrender the city Constantinople"
 * Fixed


 * for "it was not ratified by the Doge" suggest linking Doge of Venice if that is right, or Zenio if it was him
 * Done
 * this mention should just be Zeno, per MOS:SURNAME Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the thorough review, Peacemaker67. Please have a look at the changes made. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, a couple of minor things, but supporting regardless. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day, would you mind taking a look at the image licensing please? This one is progressing well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Venetian_galley_at_Curzola-engraving.jpg: source link is dead, needs more information on provenance - if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikkimaria. After a brief search, I've found the origin of this work: it is a woodcut by the Italian military artist Quinto Cenni, who died in 1917. The original was included in Yule's edition of Marco Polo (at least as early as the second edition of 1875: see index under page 47 and page 47), which is where it was taken up by Britannica and others. Added the information to the image. Constantine  ✍  09:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)