Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Trapani/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 4 May 2022 [1].

---

Battle of Trapani

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a naval battle between Venice and Genoa, which resulted in one of the most lopsided and humiliating defeats in naval history, as almost the entire Genoese fleet was captured. Part of an on-again, off-again effort of mine dedicated to medieval, and especially Venetian, naval history, this article was promoted to GA in 2018 and A-class in 2021. I am looking forward to the comments and suggestions on how to improve it further and make it worthy of FA status. Constantine ✍ 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup. Also, I'm not a military history buff and probably won't notice if something is missing here content-wise.
• "Captain-General of the Sea" → Our article on that doesn't use the hyphen, any reason here?
• That's the only nitpick I could find, so I have no hesitation supporting on the basis of prose. Really nice article. AryKun (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hello AryKun and thanks for your time and your kind words. Re the hyphen, no particular reason, it is just a variant spelling in some English sources. Removed now. --Constantine ✍ 09:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

This looks familiar. Recusing to review.

• Any reason why you don't give the date of the battle in the first sentence of the lead?
  • No reason, added now.
• Infobox: "1,200 crewmen drowned ... many killed". Perhaps "many killed, including 1,200 crewmen drowned"?
  • Good point, changed.
• OCLC for Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani? (1154456556)
  • Added the work's ISBN to the template.
• "the Venetian navy had demonstrated its superiority over its Genoese counterpart." Delete "had".
  • Done.
• "there were several reasons why". You give two. Perhaps replace "several" with 'two'?
  • Done.
• "they joined the rest of the fleet at Bonifacio later in May". Do you mean 'in late May'? (You can't say "later in May" as this is the first mention of May.)
  • Removed the 'later' as it is indeed redundant and confusing.
• "four from Crete, three from Zara". I assume that the numbers refer to ships; is it known of what type?
  • Yes, 'full' galleys. Made clear now.
• Foreign words should use an appropriate lang template, not just be in italics.
  • Implemented.
• "24 of the captured galleys were towed away". The MoS suggests not starting a sentence with a number.
  • Rephrased.
• "Some 1,200 Genoese drowned, many were killed". How about 'Many Genoese were killed, including 1,200 drowned ...'?
  • Rephrased.

That's all I have. Lovely work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild for your time and suggestions. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "During this conflict, the Venetians had held the upper hand in naval confrontations," Remove had, as unnecessary?
  • Removed.
• "In the meantime, however, news had reached Venice of the large Genoese fleet," I don't think however is needed in this sentence, and can be removed.
  • Removed.
• "Finally, in early June, Borbonino led his fleet out of Bonifacio to confront the Venetians." I don't think finally is necessary in this sentence, and can be removed.
  • Removed.
• I checked the infobox and lede, and everything is included and cited in the article's body. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720. As a non-expert, may I ask whether it was easy to follow the article? Do you see the need for clarifications anywhere? Constantine ✍ 19:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the article was easy to follow. If I thought there was unexplained jargon, I would have made a bullet point about it. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Support. My concerns were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

• Consequently, the Genoese avoided direct confrontations with the Venetian battle fleet and engaged in commerce raiding against the Venetian merchant convoys, a type of warfare exemplified by the Battle of Saseno in August 1264, when the annual Venetian trade convoy (muda) to the Levant was captured by the Genoese. Consider rewording. Perhaps: "Consequently, the Genoese avoided direct confrontations with the Venetian battle fleet. Instead, they engaged in commerce raiding against the muda, or annual Venetian merchant convoys to the Levant, a type of warfare exemplified by the Battle of Saseno in August 1264, when the Genoese captured the muda of the year."
  • Rephrased, but a bit differently, principally because the muda was not just the Levant convoy.
• ...although it was not finally ratified until three years later... Is the adverb "finally" necessary?
  • Removed.
• Introduce Giovanni Delfino and Simone Guerci, or delete the references to them (because they are not otherwise mentioned in the text).
  • Done.
• Consider introducing Charles I of Anjou as "the ambitious French prince".
  • Done.
• Consequency: compare "eighteen galleys", "15 galleys", "27 Genoese galleys", "24 of the captured galleys", and "25 ships".
  • Fixed, I think, following MOS:NUMERAL.
• Consider italicizing the title Annali Genovesi in sections "Opening moves" and "Aftermat", and in note "c".
  • Was meant to be in italics, I didn't check that the combination with the lang template cancelled them. Now fixed.
• Dondulo was or had been appointed as the fleet's commander?
  • Not sure what exactly you refer to.
    • Neither me by now. :) Sorry for it.
• The galleys were to be equipped in Venice or were equipped in Venice?
  • In Venice.
    • I modified the sentence as I thought. Please feel free to revert it.
      • Looks good.
• Was Porto Venere a Genoese port? Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarified.
• ...sentenced to confiscation of their properties, banishment, and heavy fines... Confiscation and heavy fines together? The next sentence suggest that banishment could be redeemed through fines.
  • The phrasing was indeed unclear: their goods were confiscated (in disipatione et publicatione omnium bonorum), without further elaboration, and they were banished against the payment of a fine (et in banno positus, de quo exire non posset nisi solueret comuni Ianue libras .x. milia ianuinorum). I've rephrased this part.
• Introduce Oberto D'Oria.
  • Done.
• During this conflict, the Venetians held the upper hand... Perhaps "During the war, the Venetians had held the upper hand...". I assume the meaning of "conflict" is ambiguous in the context about a battle and a war.
  • Good point, done.
• The lead states that the War of St Sabbas ended in 1270. The last sentence in section "Aftermath" mention the year 1269.
  • Good catch. King Louis applied pressure on them in 1269, effectively ending hostilities, but the treaty was concluded in 1270. Rephrased.

A nice, interesting small article about a naval battle about which I have never read. Thank you for completing it. I enjoyed reviewing the article. I only raised minor issues. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, and thanks for taking the time. With one exception, I think I've addressed your points. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all but one of my concerns were addressed. I still do not understand what was the punishment: those whose property was confiscated cannot pay a fine, and the context suggests that the payment of a fine was an alternative for banishment. Perhaps the conjunction "and" should be changed to "or" in the quoted part of the sentence? Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, addressed the last outstanding remark, hopefully it is clear now. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 08:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, I think this is an excellent FA. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Everything looks good for formatting and links. I see that Imperiale di Sant'Angelo is a primary source, but you're backing it up with other sources in each case, so that's fine. There are several older sources cited here -- can you comment on why you're using these instead of more recent scholarship? I'm referring to Manfroni (1902), Caro (1895), and Weil (1910). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: The primary sources for the historical narrative of the period haven't changed much since the 19th century. Caro is still a standard work in this regard, and continues to be cited by modern works as he did an excellent job of gathering the primary material together. It was even translated into Italian in the 1970s and is being cited by Italian historians in that edition. Similarly, Manfroni remains the standard, comprehensive treatment of medieval Italian naval history. E.g. Dotson 1999 cites both Manfroni and Caro. Wiel is probably the least 'necessary' source in the article, although it is still an adequate account, which also uses, inter alia, Caro and Manfroni. The main reason I use it is because it is one of the very few freely accessible English works on the topic, so it is easy to verify and for interested readers to get information on the topic. Constantine ✍ 19:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm aware some older sources are still well respected in some fields, and just wanted to check. That makes this a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• The map is great -- I wish all maps in article were as useful as this one. However, I see there's a spelling mismatch between it and the article; we have Jacopo Dondulo in the article, but it's Dandolo on the map. The article says the map spelling is an error; can it be corrected?
  • Good catch. Corrected. And glad you liked the map :).
• "The next day, a small merchant vessel from Savona was likewise captured, while on the way back to Messina, the Venetians encountered and defeated a pirate squadron of two galleys and a saetta from the Genoese port of Porto Venere, capturing one of the galleys with most of its crew." This is a run-on sentence; I'd put a period in, but I can't tell if it should be after "captured" or "Messina". If both events were on the way back to Messina I'd rephrase.
  • Fixed.
• "Many Genoese were killed, of whom some 1,200 drowned, and 600 were taken captive": if I understand the intended meaning, I suggest "Many Genoese were killed, including 1,200 who drowned, and 600 were taken captive" or "Genoese deaths included 1,200 drowned; 600 were taken captive". As it stands the last clause is syntactically connected to the first, which is not what we want.
  • Rephrased.
• "As Manfroni comments": suggest "Manfroni comments that", to avoid agreeing with him in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Good point, rephrased.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie, thanks for taking the time. I have addressed your suggestions. Constantine ✍ 07:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Support; the few issues I found have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.