Talk:Venetian rule in the Ionian Islands/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 05:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I plan to complete the review of this article within the next week, but it may take awhile, with the holiday season and all.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

DCI's comments

• Pending concerns, I have removed the checklist and have placed this review on hold until Sunday, December 4. Please see the peer review for suggestions. In the meantime, I have raised the article up to "B" status, as it does meet B criteria. I am still optimistic about the review; however, I am reluctant to promote an article when there are unresolved issues on its peer review. DCItalk 21:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Here is my commentary on the article, which I hope is of use to you when revising or editing. While I like the article and hope that it can reach GA, there are several issues that must be fixed before I can promote the article.
  • The lead needs to be revised. Two paragraphs should suffice, I think, and the first sentence should be a clearer summary of the article.
  • Grammar and spelling. Despite my cursory check and positive markings earlier (which I deleted, with the rest of my checklist), I don't think that the article as it stands meets GA grammar criteria. The errors are mostly minor (where instead of were), but can be distractions to the reader. Also, I noticed that you capitalized "the Islands" throughout the article. Do you want to use the word Islands, when describing the Venetian-controlled Ionians, or does the islands work?
  • Latin treaties. When discussing events like the signing of the Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae, describe what the treaty was meant to be. This treaty established the Frankish and Venetian rule over the partitions of the Byzantine Empire. The Venetian takeover of Corfu was a result of this treaty, but was not the sole cause of its existence. This is no big deal in my eyes, and I think most readers would feel the same way, but an A-class or FA reviewer might feel differently. Also, as for the Partitio terrarum, you should probably translate it.
  • The Italian titles in "Administration" were a little difficult for me to keep track of. While I see no reason for you to change this section, I would not expect a casual reader to know, for example, what a "provveditore generale da Mar" is.

These are some comments from Llywrch, a user who participated in your article's peer reviews and had several concerns about your article.

Forwarded from Llywrch's message

• The history section on how Venice came to control/conquer these islands is confusing. And I say that after spending an hour & a piece of paper trying to trace who controlled which island between 1204 & 1797. I'll readily admit that organizing this material in a simple & understandable manner is not an easy task -- it deals with 7 or more islands whose common bond was often the fact Venice controlled them at some point between 1204 & 1797 -- but I believe it needs to be done better than this to be considered for a GA. (And once its done right, that work will help it to FA status.)

• Since I mentioned the history of these islands, there is nothing about Paxos -- when Venice conquered it, whom did they take it from, when did the Byzantines have it taken from them. I suspect something got lost between revisions.

Other items from the "History" section: Frankokratia is mentioned, but never explained. (I assume it is a transliteration of the Greek label for a period in the 13th & 14th centuries.) Another is that the island Anticythera appears without any prior notice, nor even a link. Was that considered part & parcel with Cythera at the time, so it doesn't need its own discussion? (If so, then somewhere this relationship needs to be stated.)

• The "Demographics" section has some problems. One is that it states "The population gradually increased" -- is this the total population, or some subset of it? (I wasn't clear.) And while I like the table, information is clearly missing from it: when a square is blank, should one assume that no information exists, or that the island was uninhabited? This is no nitpicking: elsewhere in the section, it does state that some of the islands were uninhabited when the Venetians took ownership.

• More to my original criticism is that buried deep in the article, in the form of a link to another article, is what I believe IMHO should be the driving thesis of this article: how these possessions or colonies fit into the "Venetian maritime trade route". IIRC, the rationale of the Venetian Stato da Mar was to provide ports & other points of support for its trading fleet. Its changing ownership of these islands over five centuries should be presented in against this need. Otherwise, the article is nothing more than an accumulation of datapoints, some more interesting than others.

• Lastly, this article could stand receiving a good copy-editing. I corrected a few minor items of infelicitous use of prepositions, & changed some sentences from the passive to the active voice, but much remains to be done. This roughness reinforces my impression that the article is carelessly written, & even if it is promoted, I don't think it will survive long as a GA.

Afterword

Llywrch raises good points, and I hope you take these into consideration. Hopefully you don't take any of this the wrong way: I'll insert another excerpt from what Llywrch sent me:

And despite the tone of my comments, I'm not concerned that each one be responded to how I want it; I feel Peer Review's role should be simply to provide feedback from intelligent & adequately educated readers. The submitter is well within her/his rights to consider the reviewer's comments as wrong, to ignore them, or respond to them in her/his own way. But the important thing is for the submitter to carefully think about how she/he responds to criticism, & be mindful of both her/his own intents in writing & how the audience responds, otherwise that person is likely not to improve as an author.

Again, good work, and good luck! If you need any help, click here and post a new message, and I'll respond as quick as I can. DCI2026 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC) My username is DCI, but it used to be DCI2026. I accidentally logged on as DCI2026, as evidenced by my signature

Final review checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article has been passed for GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The writing style is appropriate for such an article. Very few, but slightly noticeable, typos, which I shall fix shortly.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The link for "Minorities in Greece" takes me to the Christensen raisin production manual that is also used as a source. "Neoclassical Architecure..." does not link to a book with that name. It goes straight to the main Google Books page. Not a big deal, just something I'd clear up if you move forward to FA with this.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The main background section (Roman Empire and such) coexists with the two more detailed background sections (the islands' connection to Roman and Frankish governments), in a way that seems fine. However, I would personally prefer more of a "combination" background: descriptive information on how the islands fared during previous rule could be moved into the main background section. Please ask me on my talk page if this seems unclear.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are no issues whatsoever in this respect.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   If this article is flagged for reassessment, which might occur if someone doesn't think it's up to Good Article standards, I am willing to help revise anything of concern. However, I am satisfied with the article as it is and will approve it as a Good Article. One last thing - if there is no reassessment within the next month, would you be interested in taking this to an A-Class review? This is half a step below a featured article review, and is conducted by a WikiProject. This, if you're unfamiliar, is a group of editors interested in a specific topic that work to improve articles on that topic. The Military History project has the best A-Class program, and I'll see if they will take the article. Good work, and good luck editing in the future!