Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Fall of Constantinople

Fall of Constantinople
This was a major event in world history and this needs to become a featured article. But it needs help getting there. So can you contribute whatever you can to get it there. Mercenary2k 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Yeah, this definitely needs help. Off the top of my head, some of the more major issues: Kirill Lokshin 15:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The level of citation is utterly inadequate.
 * The content needs to be expanded throughout. I don't have the sources for this underhand at the moment, but (working from memory) the article omits such diverse points as:
 * The preliminary diplomatic maneuvering, the various interactions between the Pope, Genoa, Venice, etc.
 * The finer details of the siege itself, the various preliminary assaults, the Byzantine expedition to find a relief fleet, the naval battles, Guistiniani's role, the events in the city preceding the final assault, etc.
 * The effect of the siege and its aftermath on the rest of Europe.
 * Aside from that, the usual formatting and layout issues apply:
 * The lead needs to be longer.
 * The "See also" section should be eliminated.
 * The template at the bottom takes up a lot more space than it should; working on shrinking it down would be helpful.

UberCryxic
Per Kirill, this article just generally needs to be bigger and more heavily cited. Some more minor points:

-The title of the article is "Fall of Constantinople" but the name at the top of the infobox reads "Siege of Constantiople." These two need to be the same. I personally suggest the latter, but you should probably call it whatever the English historical literature most often refers to it as.

-Make sure citations are uniform and standardized. I'm looking at the infobox under 'Strength' and for the Ottomans you've given a website next to the number. This needs to be a citation, however, with the relevant information contained in the Notes section.

-Prose prose prose! You'll never get a featured article without "compelling" prose as they call it. That's a fancy term that basically means don't get bogged down with punctuation and syntax. The following sentences are highly awkward and need to be rephrased:

In the approximately 1,000 years of the existence of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople had been besieged many times; it had been captured only twice, during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and when the Byzantines retook it decades later: the crusaders had not originally set out to conquer the Empire, and the Byzantines re-established themselves in the city in 1261. Very disjointed and swamped in grammatical structures. Simplify a little.

An especially relevant aspect of this fortress was its ability to prevent help from Genoese colonies on the Black Sea coast from reaching the city. Too drawn out. Just say "The fortress was important because it could prevent the Genoese colonies on the Black Sea coast from reaching the city."

After the initial assault, the Ottoman army fanned out along the main throughfare of the city, the Mese, past the great forums, and past the mammoth church of the Holy Apostles, which Mehmet wanted spared to provide a seat for his newly appointed patriach which would help him better control his Christian subjects. Two 'whiches'??? Ta frick. That makes for very awkward sentences. This is a good linguistic guideline: rarely use the word "which" more than once in a sentence, not because it's grammatically incorrect, but because it's freaking annoying to read.

Problems like the ones above can be found throughout. If you want, drop a word on my talk page before you nominate this for FA so I can give it a thorough copyedit.UberCryxic 05:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou
Nice start! But needs work:
 * You have little information about the background of the siege. Kirill got most of the problems. I want to add that emphasis on the way Constantine XI became imperor just before these crucial moments is necessary.
 * Needs more inline citations.
 * "Some historians suggest that the Kerkoporta gate in the Blachernae section had been left unlocked, and the Ottomans soon discovered this mistake". Weasel words! Which historians?
 * "In the following years, a massive propaganda initiative was undertaken by anti-unionist forces in Constantinople and the population was in fact bitterly divided." Be careful with religious references! The article is also read by Orthodox Christians like me. The "massive propaganda initiative" was undertaken by both sides, both the pro- and the anti-unionist. As it is now, I regard this reference as POV.
 * You only mention secondary sources. Have you searched any primary sources of this period? I am not an expert in this field, but there must be something.
 * About the legends: There is also the legend of the "Marble King", according to which Constantine XI is not dead but "marble" and will return to life, when Christian(-Greek) rule returns to Constantinople. I think you could also refer that; it is a legend going back so many centuries.--Yannismarou 08:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear

 * First, I agree with Kirill that this article lacks virtually any citations - and you could cite the entire article from Norwich alone! Secondly, the prose is almost matter of fact.  Norwich called the fall of the Mother of Cities an "almost unspeakable tragedy."  The final days of the city were exactly that, the end of the last of the Greek/Roman civilization, fraught with terror, tears and tragedy.  As the article reads, it talks about the fall as though it were the opening of a new Safeway.  A few specific issues:


 * 1) the effect of the fall on the remainder of Europe - for a millinium the Mother of Cities had blocked efforts to attack Europe from the East, and now it was gone - we need to explore the result, the Ottoman Wars, et al;
 * 2) The utter failure of the West to come to the aid of Constandinople, and why, the various desperate diplomatic efforts, and why they failed;
 * 3) The heavily documented aura of terror in the city during the siege;
 * 4) The role that religious conflict had in the abandonment of the City by the West, without reopening old wounds between Orthodox and Roman Catholics;
 * 5) The true role of Guistiniani during the siege and fall;
 * 6) The role of Mehmed the Conquerer in the recalling of Greek citizens to the City after the sack;
 * This was one of the major events of world history, and the article as is is utterly insufficient. It needs a major expansion and rewrite, with major emphasis on the events that led to the siege, the terror and tragedy during the siege, the almost unbearably tragic fall, and the aftermath, as Europe realized in horror what was going to be the result. old windy bear 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)