Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

edit
Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A drawn-out conflict that involved Byzantium, Venice, the Ottomans, and was part of a wider regional struggle that saw the rise of the Ottomans to renewed power following the Battle of Ankara. The siege of Thessalonica revealed the limitations of Venice's maritime power when pitted against a strong land empire, and heralded the fall of Constantinople itself a generation later. The article was (re)written from scratch a few months ago, and recently passed GA. I have used most of the related sources available, a few others (which are either complementary, or already referenced by the sources I used) are listed as further reading. I am confident that the article is comprehensive, and would like to submit it for FA eventually. Constantine ✍ 11:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support auntieruth55

reviewed for grammar etc I've made some minor (very!) modifications in verb tense, etc. here. auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source review

  • sources checked via Earwig's copy vio detector. report is here. In addition, bibliography is good, modern sources, translations, etc. also addition of "additional reading" will help readers identify where to go and what to start with. auntieruth (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009: Support (disclaimer - I reviewed at GA). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Even a brief overview turned up a number of instances of run-on and oddly formed sentences. I think a throughout GR run-through is desirable. I have not had time to catalog these, although I may in the future.
  • The lede is too long. There's a significant amount of information that could be further reduced or even just left out. Is this something you'd be comfortable letting me take a shot at?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Go ahead, thank you very much for offering it. If there you inadvertently introduce some error or remove something vital, I can always fix that. Constantine ✍ 19:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok take a look and let me know what you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Maury Markowitz, sorry for the delay. Your edits look fine, I've only made some minor modifications, and re-introduced, in shortened form, the Venetians' attempts to seek allies. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "In March, Venice formally declared war on the Ottomans" It would be helpful to explain earlier that the Venetians did not declare war earlier, perhaps in the sentence about the aim to block the Dardanelles.
  • "laid waste to the remaining Byzantine territories. Chrysopolis was captured by storm and largely destroyed.[4] Thessalonica too submitted" But you said in the previous paragraph that Chrysopolis and Thessalonica had surrendered several years earlier. I know you said that they were allowed almost complete autonomy, but it is still puzzling to see them described as Byzantine territories.
  • "the disastrous Battle of Ankara against Tamerlane in 1402" It would be helpful to spell out that it was an Ottoman defeat.
  • "the former city's local aristocracy" Why "former city"? Had it lost its status?
  • Referring to Thessalonica, you say "the autonomous regime of Manuel II in 1382–1387" As above, I thought you said that it was the Ottomans who conquered the city but allowed it autonomy.
  • "While the Ottomans blockaded and attacked Thessalonica from land, trying to starve it into surrender" and "by October 1424 the situation in Thessalonica was so dire" Is no further detail available? My impression so far is that this seems to be a general account of the wars with passing mentions of the siege, rather than an article about the siege.
    • There is no account that deals with the siege proper on a year-by-year basis. These events are all part of the same conflict, of which the siege is the centrepiece. A title like "Ottoman–Venetian conflict over Thessalonica" might be more accurate, but in the end it is the same. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Venetians found Ierissos abandoned by its garrison" Presumably its Ottoman garrison?
  • "five other forts" other than what? You have not mentioned any other forts.
  • "In response, Michiel occupied both the fort of Kassandreia, which he refortified and strengthened by the construction of two smaller forts in the area." The grammar has gone wrong here. "both" requires x and y.
  • "At the same time, according to the Codex Morosini, a pretender claiming to be Mustafa Çelebid[›] arrived in Thessalonica, and gathered a growing following of Turks who considered him to be the true son of Sultan Bayezid. Pseudo-Mustafa launched raids against Murad's forces from the city" Presumably Michiel supported him, but this should be clarified. Also, which Turks supported the pretender - ones living in Thessalonica or ones who came to him from Ottoman territory?
  • More to follow, but as I said above, there seems to me too much background and not enough details of the siege. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dudley Miles, and thanks for taking the time to review! I have tried to answer/fix the points you have raised so far, and am awaiting the remainder. On your last comment, the background is necessary to show the motivations of the various parties in this conflict, and as I wrote above, the article is intended to portray the entire conflict over Thessalonica, which was to a large degree not carried out exclusively in or near the city itself. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to explain in the lead that there is no year by year account of the siege so that readers expect an account of the context rather than details of events in the city. (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, a discussion on sources is not really warranted for the lede. I have rephrased it however to clarify that the article describes a) the blockade and occasional attacks on Thessalonica, and b) the wider conflict that featured raids and counter-raids. Constantine ✍ 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - nice work. One thought, more to come (hopefully!).

Image review had a look through the image licensing and it all looks ok to me, mostly reproductions of PD-100 2D artwork or free. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Siege_of_Thessalonica_(1422–1430)&oldid=800871639"