Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Skanderbeg's Italian expedition

Skanderbeg's Italian expedition[edit]

This article passed a GA review last month, but I would like to have it achieve at least A-Class. My main concerns are article length (which may be too long) and the bibliography (which may be too short). Since I do not have any experience in preparing A-Class articles, I was hoping I could get some help. Any comment or concern is welcome.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kebeta[edit]

Hi, an interesting article. Just a couple of suggestions from me:

I wouldn't worry much about article length if the article is fully focused to the topic.
Make sure that lead covers most important aspects of the article (what I mean, don't worry about aricle lenght in this case).
Lead section don't introduce Skanderbeg properly (an average reader doesn't know who was Skanderbeg). Same goes for others. For example, René d'Anjou, who was he, what were his lands...The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.
Bibliography/References could use more variety of sources.
Having said that, more secondary sources are welcome. For example, Harry Hodgkinson is tertiary source in this case.
Names of the sections and subsections could use more work. Unfortunately, I don't have any better suggestions to offer.
You could add 'Infobox Military Conflict' in the right top of the article. This way, the readers could understand who is who, what is this article about, and the outcome of the story.
In some cases you use old names, and in other cases new names of places involved in the article. For example, Ragusa is used as an old name - (Dubrovnik isn't mentioned as a new one), and Taranto is used as new name (Tarentum or Tarantas isn't used as an old one)? There are several other cases also in the article (for example, is it Ujëbardha or Albulena - you have to decide per consistensy within the article). You should either use all old names, or all new names. My suggestion is that you use old names all-round, but when the place is first mentioned, you give a new name in brackets. For example, first Ragusa (Dubrovnik), and later only Ragusa.
I would expand 'Aftermath' section. You have finished with 1463, a year after the expedition. Maybe even the last paragraph of 'Skanderbeg in Italy' should be moved to 'Aftermath' section.
Try to fix linking. For example, in section 'Situation in Italy' you linked 'Aragon' two times, and in section 'Albanian arrival' you linked 'Apulia' two times (A word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section). And in some cases you don't have a link for a place or a person within the section. Try to be consistent even in linking.
An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence per GA criteria. For example, "A portrait of René of Anjou, the titular King of Naples." shouldn't have a full-stop.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise.
Adding 'See also' or/and 'External links' section could improve the article. Or in front of section or subsection you could add , or something similar which is related to appropriate section.
It is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. For example, try to remove 230px, 350px...where is not necessary for the article layout.
You should put some image of Skanderbeg in the article, after all, the article is about his expedition.
Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections. For example, see sections 'Background' and 'Preparations and Ragusan voyage'.
It would be good that all images have alt text.

These are some of mine comments. Overall, a very good work has been done. --Kebeta (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for reviewing the article. I implemented most of your suggestions. The ones that I didn't I either saw as problematic or I didn't know how to do (such as the last one). If you have any other suggestions, they are much welcome.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

You have a nice, dense writing style. I copyedited the first half of the article (as always, feel free to revert), but I was a bit confused by the subject matter, so there were places where I didn't really follow but left it alone. In the lead section, what does "but the news was" mean? - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it to avoid confusion. What else did you find confusing?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the problem isn't that the text is wrong, but that it raises questions faster than it answers them, so it requires the reader to work harder than they should to figure out what you mean. For example, this passage in the lead: "In order to repay Alfonso for the assistance given to him, Skanderbeg took up the pope's offer to help out Alfonso's son. Before leaving, Skanderbeg tried to negotiate a ceasefire with Sultan Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, to ensure his domain's safety. Mehmed had not openly declared a truce but he was still sending his armies against Bosnia and the Morea." What assistance? What offer from the pope? How would he help Alfonso's son? If there was no "open" truce, does that mean there was some sort of hidden truce? Shouldn't the "but" be an "and", since sending out armies is in synch with not declaring a truce? It's not unreadable, it's just that most readers will feel a little lost. But I've done what I want to do for now; copyediting is generally the last step, and I'd like to see what other reviewers think. I'm thinking that the A-class review will be the best time to finish up the copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I tried to answer those questions and will wait for future reviews. Thank you for your comments.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magicpiano[edit]

Umm, who is Skanderbeg? The article does not say early on -- we are thrust into the middle of his activities. There is a brief mention of him "going back to Albania" at the end of the lead, giving the merest hint of his nationality, but not his position. His religion is hinted at, since the Pope seems to like him. We don't find out until "Albanian situation" that he appears to be either the ruler or military leader of "Albania" (or both), but this is never explicitly stated.
We also don't know what the extent is of his territory at this time. You pretty much need a map with all of the relevant political boundaries on it to explain this.
The League of Lezhë is mentioned in the infobox, but nowhere else. He appears to be its leader -- what is it?
Have Skanderbeg and/or his people ever been to Italy for military reasons before?
When you mention Trebizond, you might briefly explain where it is (with reference to modern geopolitical boundaries, like "roughly present-day northeastern Turkey"). This will point out that the Ottomans are presumably moving resources away from the Balkans.
The second sentence of Aftermath is extremely awkward.

It's generally well written and informative, but the context can be improved. Magic♪piano 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I didn't state his religion since he is more or less dealt as a secular leader who united Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims. A proper map for the exact time is hard to find since Skanderbeg's borders fluctuated often. I changed League of Lezhë to Dominion of Albania since he was referred to as dominus Albaniae which I have included in the lead. For Trebizond: I implemented Kebeta's suggestion above and put the modern name in parantheses next to the old one. Yes, there was an expedition in 1448 by some of Skanderbeg's men. I will include that. I also reworded the second sentence of Aftermath. If there is anything else which needs improvements, let me know. :) --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better. However, linking the current name of Trebizond does not convey the geographic implications of the Ottoman move. (My approach to matters of geography: assume my reader is 12 years old, from the other side of the planet, and has a modern atlas. How much does your description help this reader?)

I sympathize that accurate maps are unlikely to be available -- maps 300 years later were still often inaccurate and/or out of date. However, even a map with approximate extents (this may require a schematic map, perhaps made by the map workshop if a reasonable source map can be supplied). I personally consider maps to be essential for military A-class articles. Although the map now in the article is adequate for the describing the expedition, it doesn't show even approximate geopolitical bounds of the Italian or Balkan territories. Magic♪piano 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I changed it as you suggested. I have always had plans to make a map of Skanderbeg's dominions with the locations of all of his fortresses and battles given, but it's hard to find someone willing to do it. I have even asked Albanians who would be interested in the task, but they are usually busy with other things or lack the programs. I will, however, make another request in the Map Workshop and see if I can get anything done. Thanks for the advice.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]