Talk:Šćepan Mali/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Dear @Ichthyovenator: I will be your reviewer for this, the 2nd GA nomination of the article Šćepan Mali. I see you nominated the article on 25 October. Two months seem a long wait, but I have seen far worse. I see that you are a very experienced wikipedian with almost 15000 edits, whereas I am almost a novice. It is an honour to help you and I will try my best. I see the article is rated Start-class at present. I applied the Rater script to your article, which calls ORES. It says your article "B or higher" with a confidence of 97.7%. That sounds very positive. I know nothing about the history of the Balkans and have the advantages and shortcomings of a fresh look. I start reading now.

@Johannes Schade: ~Many thanks for taking the time to go through the article. Knowledge of Balkan history isn't required here; Šćepan Mali is a quite self-contained story and hopefully the article is written in a way that everything should be clear without having to be acquinted with the subject (so feel free to point out anything that isn't clear). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

IPA for Šćepan ✔

I do not know how to pronounce Šćepan (assuming that Mali is unproblematic and would be pronounced as it would be in Italian). I think there should be an IPA for at least Šćepan. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea. I have added an IPA for his name (with the Šćepan taken from the article on Šćepan Polje, which has an IPA). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. Should there not be stress marks in the IPA? the Wikipedia article Serbo-Croation phonology gives such stress marks e.g. in /ˈpîːvo/ (beer). Correspondingly one would expect ['ʃt͡ɕɛ̂paːn 'mɑːli]. Do you agree? I do not speak any of the Slavic languages.

As I don't speak any of the Slavic languages either I don't know. As I said, I just took the IPA rendition of Šćepan from Šćepan Polje, where there are no stress marks. If you believe it to be correct, I can add stress marks here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I read some more and found that Serbo-Croatian has "pitch accent" instead of stress, which is indicated by a circumflex (â) or a caron (ě) on top of the accented vowel. The correct IPA for Šćepan Mali is /ʃt͡ɕɛ̂paːn mâːli/. I found the IPA for mali in Wiktionary.

Added this version. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. Thank you very much.

British English ✔

The article is marked "Use British English". I live in the UK, but I must admit that my English is 2nd language. Nevertheless, as I see it, there is still is some American English in the article it: savior -> saviour, favor -> favour, theater -> theatre, honors -> honours. User:No Great Shaker, the reviewer of the 1st GA nomination of the article suggested that the article should be copy-edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I have the impression that this has not been done.

No Great Shaker also said that they would have re-nominated when the specific issues they brought up had been dealt with, so that's what I did. The article was also copy-edited by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus, but yes I can see that some words in American English slipped through - I have fixed the ones you brought up. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Etching of Stefano Zannovich ✔

It is difficult to understand what this image is trying to show. According to the writing on the oval frame the person shown is "Le Prince Castriotto d'Albanie XI petit fils du grand Skanderbecg né 18 Fevrier 1751", a person nowhere mentioned in the article.

The image does depict Zannowich; going into detail on Zannowich is probably better done in his own article eventually, but the man lived a strange life and used many different names. Prince Castriotto d'Albanie was one of the made-up names he used from time to time (see for instance the British Museum's site). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. Thanks to your explanation, I now understand that Castriotto was one of the pseudonyms used by Zannowich, however, the reader can still not understand. I propose to change the caption of this image to the following: "Stefano Zannowich (under his pseudonym Castriotto of Albania) who wrote the first biography of Šćepan Mali", with the link on Zannowich as you did. Zannowich's biography is discussed in the text. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added that the image contains his pseudonym to the caption. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Zannovich's biography of Šćepan Mali ✔

The article mentions that Zannovich wrote a biography of Šćepan Mali, published in 1784 in "India". This book is not in the bibliography, nor is it mentioned in the article about Stefano Zannowich. I feel it would be essential to know the title and the language of this work. Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Considering how later researchers talk of Zannowich's book, I don't think it should be cited for details on Šćepan's life (and thus does not have to be included in the bibliography) but I agree that its title should be mentioned in the article. I've added the title in its original French and translated into English and I've added a link to an online and readable version of the book (can't add a publisher since none is noted in the book and its location of publication is fake). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. The title you give ("Stiepan-Mali, le pseudo Pierre III, empereur de Russie") is incorrect. According to the title page says "Stiepan-Mali c'est-à-dire Etienne Petit ou Stefano Piccolo le pseudo Pierre III, empereur de Russie". Admittedly, this is a bit too long to cite in the text. I would avoid the problem by relegating the title into a citation by modifying your sentence to read "The first work on Šćepan was his biography by Stefano Zannowich in 1784.{{sfn|Zannowich|1784|loc=[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Stiepan_Mali_c_est_a_dire_Etienne_Petit/jh8qToahZsAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA3 title page]}}" The "loc" parameter serves to show the title page; that this is french can be found in the bibliograpy and needs in my opinion not be ststed separately. Besides, would it not be better to cite Zannowich in Google Books than in the Budva Library, which greets the reader in Cyrillic Serbian. What do you think?

The title I give is correct. If you go to page 7 in the online version, the title I used is presented. If Zannowich himself used this shortened version in the actual book I think that's fine since the full title is a bit cumbersome. I think the shorter version is thus fine. For a similar example, we say that Charles Darwin was the author of On the Origin of Species, and typically don't use that book's full title (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life). I haven't seen the Google Books version of Zannowich's work, but the advantage of the French version here is that it is fully accessible, easily navigated and that it is the original version, published in France in 1784 (the title page specifies MDCCLXXXIV). The French title should be used since it was first published in French. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. I should not have called it incorrect. We agree that the French title must be used but I think the long title must be used in the bibliography. The long title is on the title page of the book (page 3, after the frontispiece), shown by the (Google Books) URL:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Stiepan_Mali_c_est_a_dire_Etienne_Petit/jh8qToahZsAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA3

It starts with "Stiepan-Mali c'est-à-dire ..."

You cite the short title that appears at the top of page 5 at the URL:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Stiepan_Mali_c_est_a_dire_Etienne_Petit/jh8qToahZsAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA5

It starts with "Stiepan-Mali le pseudo ..."

Many books present a long and a short title. In Darwin's case the short title is just cut short. The problem in our case is that they differ so much that the reader could think they are different books. With regard to Budva Library vs. Google Books as source, the book is the same, only the website differs. I think the readers are more used to Google Books and that is why I believe it should be preferred in the URL.

I've replaced the URL so that the google books version is linked. I've added the longer title (which is actually even longer, since it includes the little bit after "empereur de Russie" as well) in the bibliography but kept the shorter one in the text; I do not think there is much of a risk of readers confusing them for two different books, especially not since the author and year of publication are the same. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Herloßsohn ✔

Carl Herloßsohn's Der Montenegrinerhäuptling is available at Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_5-JMAAAAcAAJ/. This source might be cited (with its title page) where the text mentions this work instead of the reference to Filipović. Besides, you cite his name as "Trajković Filipović, Stefan", but is it not rather "Filipović, Stefan Trajković", Trajkovic being his patronymic (Trajko being his father's first name) and Filipović being his surname? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a citation to Herloßsohn in the article text; his book is fiction (not an academic work) and it being mentioned by Filipović is what makes it notable enough to mention in the article. I have however added it alongside Zannowich's work under "further reading". On Filipović's name; you are correct. I have fixed this throughout the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. Thanks for fixing the Filipović. The publisher of the Montenegrinerhäuptling is "Verlag J. L. Kober", not Rober. Kober is a German family name. You are probably not used to Fraktur typeface where the K resembles the R.

I am indeed not used to the typeface. I've corrected the name of the publisher. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. Thank you very much! I is a pleasure to work with you.

Image Banner of Montenegro ✔

You give an image of the "Banner of Montenegro adopted during the reign of Šćepan Mali" and link to the Wikipedia article Flag of Montenegro. I think you should repeat the citation given there. I think you would agree that the link by itself is not considered to provide verifiability.

The banner used here is not in the article on the Flag of Montenegro. The source of the image is given on its Wikimedia Commons page (albeit in Serbian), which seems to typically be sufficient for images in articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. I think you misunderstand me. I was not worried about the origin of the image but thought it would be necessary to add a citation that confirms that this flag was indeed used by Šćepan Mali. The article Flag of Montenegro does not show an image of the flag but mentions it in the text and has a citation, the fifth on the article, which is given by:

<ref>[http://www.me/english/podaci/symbols.htm Historical symbols, Official Montenegrin web presentation] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100628060457/http://www.me/english/podaci/symbols.htm |date=28 June 2010 }}</ref>

It refers to an official website of Montenegro, which is dead. Only the one backed up on the Wayback machine works but without the images. So it is not a very nice reference. The relevant piece of text is "The first written description of the Montenegrin flag dates from the time of Scepan Mali (the Imposter): white, with a red frame and a golden cross on top of the spear." It might, however, be difficult to find better. I consider the citation as a nice-to-have, not a must for the GA according to WP:GANOT. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added the citation used in that article and added a bit on Scepan's flag in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Land mine ✔

The lead says "Šćepan was injured in an accident involving a land mine." In section "Later rule and death" one can read that "He was demonstrating to one of his soldiers how to lay a land mine, when the charge exploded, leaving him a cripple and blind in one eye." Petrovich p. 192 is cited at the end of the paragraph. The corresponding passage in Petrovic reads "In the mid-1770 Stephen was nearly killed while building a military highway in the mountains. Supervising the work himself, Stephen was showing one of his men how to lay a mine when the charge exploded." Petrovich cites Ljubić. I found this source and the corresponding passage, p. 128, which is in Italian and reads "... rileva che, facendo il noto Steffano Picolo travagliare ivi un tratto di strada per agevolare il camino, abbia potuto egli nell accendere la mina resta monco d'una mano ed offeso l'occhio destro con pericolo di sua vita." I think the interpretation of the charge having been a land mine is anachronistic and is not supported by the sources. I think it was a charge to blast a rock to make way for the road that is mentioned. In the lead I would say "was injured in a road-making accident." In the main text I would say "to blast a rock" instead of "to lay a land mine". Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Italian also refers to a mine ("la mina"), no? I don't speak Italian so I can't say for sure what the passage you cite says. Per the land mine article, land mine-type devices are recorded in China centuries prior and in Germany about two hundred years before Scepan, so I don't see how this would be anachronistic. Maybe you could provide a full translation of the passage; I can't change it from a land mine to blasting a rock and still cite Petrovic since that is not what Petrovic says (and I would then need to cite Ljubić). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ichthyovenator. Yes, indeed it does, but the Italian mina like the French mine basically means an explosive charge. Zannowich is clear about the nature of Šćepan's accident and should perhaps be cited for this. Page 40 Zannowich writes "C'est à cette époque qu'on rapporte l'événement qui mit fin au rôle étonnant qu'il avoit rempli jusqu'alors. En faisant jouer une mine pour faire sauter des roches qui nuisoient à l'applanissement d'un chemin, les éclats de cette mine lui creverent les yeux ... ". One would say Zannowich knew Cicogna's report that is reproduced in Ljubić. Even if Zannowich is biased and has his own agenda, he is an important source and the ultimate origin of much of the information reworked in more recent sources. Petrowich probably got his information about the accident from either Zannowich or Cicogna. The context is road making for military logistics, not combat or preparation of a defensive position. Petrovich says "how to lay a mine", not "how to lay a land mine" and he cites Cicogna's report. The Wikipedia article Land mine makes it clear that land mines only became common in the 19th century. Pasquale Cicogna is not an unknown. He was the Venetian governor (provveditore) of the town of Càttaro (now Kotor in Montenegro) and his namesake Pasquale Cicogna was a doge of Venise in the 16th century.—You ask me to translate Cicogna's Italian report. I find it difficult. Even if the general sense is clear, the words and the grammatical construction are often not. Perhaps because it is 18th-century or Venetian. You can paste it into Google Translate and you will see. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

For reasons already explained, I would definitely prefer not citing Zannowich for anything; I don't think it is up to Wikipedia editors to determine what parts of his work are to be considered reliable (that is better left to historians, such as those cited in the article, many of whom probably used parts of Zannowich's work for what they write). Petrovich explicitly cites Venetian dispatches by Cigogna, but also by D. Condulmer and Gaetano Molin. All translations I can find of Italian mina and French mine give me "mine"; that the English-language sources that speak of the incident (Petrovich and Stevenson, which you linked below) also use the word "mine" seems to me to be good enough reasoning to use that word. In regards to "mine" vs "land mine"; "land mine" is a clarification; I don't see what the distinction would be in this context. The article already specifies that the incident happened during the construction of a road (for military purposes) in the mountains. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we agree to disagree. To me it was a blasting accident and that mine was not a land mine in the sense defined in Land mine.

Date of death and burial ✔

You give the date of Šćepan's death in the lead and in the infobox as 22 September 1773, but you never substantiate it in the text. This date can be found in another Venetian report in Ljubic, which gives the date as 22 September and the place as "Cernizza". Zannowich maintains Šćepan was buried "... enterré dans l'église de Zernizza, par les soin de l'éveque de Plamenez." It seems that Zernizza is the Crmnica area and the Bishop of Plamenez is Arsenije Plamenac of Crmnica, mentioned in the article Vasilije Petrović. The Wikipedia article Donji Brčeli Monastery claims that Šćepan Mali was buried in that monastery, which lies in the Crmnica area. The picture from this article might be a nice image to add the article under review. There is a book "History of Montenegro" by the British diplomat Francis Seymour Stevenson, written in 1914 according to Internet Archive. The URL is https://archive.org/details/historyofmonten00stev/. Stevenson claims that Šćepan was murdered at the Brčela monastery. He also repeats the story of the accident "in the springing of a mine" "while superintending the construction of a new road". Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The date 22 September 1773 is substantiated in the text (the last paragraph under "later rule and death"), where it is cited to Petrovich (p. 194), who gives this date. I don't want to cite Zannowich for information for reasons already given. The reference in the Donji Brčeli Monastery article (verifying that Scepan was buried there) is to a Serbian-language source that I can't read, so I have no way to verify whether that information is in that source, but I have added that Scepan was at least murdered there by citing Stevenson's book. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong. I somehow had not seen that you had substantiated his death date in the text.

Bibliographical description Filipović

The entry for Filipović in the bibliography has double quotes nested inside double quotes. You seem to repeat the title inside the chapter title. That looks odd to me. Surely a minor point and not required for GA.