Talk:Floriana Lines/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 11:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A nice article, please see my review below.

Lead

a line of fortification; fortifications?

Construction

Some members of the Order; what order? You never explicitly say.

Improvements

enceinte; what is this? It's used a lot in the article but not linked or explained. Can it be replaced with a layman term?

Recent

but some parts are in a rather dilapidated state and in need of restoration; I couldn't find this in the cited source?

Layout

Lots of bulleted-lists. Suggest that the list starting In addition, a crowned hornwork was built in the first sub-section could be converted into prose to make this section less imposing on the reader

General comments

One of the sources says The Floriana land front retains the best preserved example of an extensive system of outer works, with advanced ditch, lunettes, scarp musketry gallery covertway and countermined glacis that has survived to date. ; is this claim not worth treating in the article?

A nice article, if a little technical in some aspects. If I were looking at this with a FAC hat on I'd probably be expecting to see technical terms expanded on at least in their first use, with some additional layman descriptions to help different levels of readers to understand.

Please feel free to reply inline. I will add additional comments above as a re-read. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor changes (linked enceinte, specified Order of St. John etc). I couldn't find a source explicitly stating that the lines are rather dilapidated (although it's pretty evident - compare them with the recently restored fortifications of Valletta and the difference is obvious), but I found this tender published by MEPA which contains some info about the state of St. Francis Ravelin. I know it's not the best source, but it gives an idea of the state of part of the lines.
Regarding the claim that The Floriana land front retains the best preserved example of an extensive system of outer works ... that has survived to date, I did not include it because I personally do not agree with it. Although the outworks from San Salvatore to St. Philip Bastions are practically intact, some of the outworks of the rest of the lines have been damaged or destroyed (eg. Porte des Bombes lunette has been demolished and one of the lunettes of the crownwork has been partially demolished, and parts of the ditch, covertway and glacis can no longer be seen). Although overall the outworks are still mostly intact, the claim suggests that they are perfectly preserved in their original state, which is not the case. There must be other cases where a system of outworks has survived in better shape than the Floriana Lines?

Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

There are a lot of primary sources from NICPMI, however these are used for non-contentious factual information so all good
Is aboutmalta.com a reliable source? It cites sources, which is positive - but is there are reason to have used this web page rather than the original published sources?
Okay. I've been through the source material and I feel like there is a lot of content that isn't in the article, which falls short of covering the topic (per the GA guidelines). Things like:
- "The design and construction of the Floriana fortifications, one of the most extensive and complex works of military architecture carried out by the Hospitaller Knights in the Maltese islands" (source).
- The articles says that work was slow, but one source suggests why "coupled with a perennially inadequate allocation of resources"
- The same source highlights criticism of Floriana's original work/plans which is not touched on in the article
Malta by Juliet Rix (1841624527) seems to have some interesting additional context about both Floriana the man, and the lines development themselves
- In fact Spiteri has written an extensive and detailed article which had a significant amount more information, such as background and detailed history, as is related in the article.

The Good Article criteria requires the article address the main areas of the topic (3.a). Whilst it's not expected for the article to be comprehensive in coverage, the lacking additional detail, and some background, means I think this doesn't meet 3.a quite yet. Cheers --Errant ^(chat!) 15:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the aboutmalta.com source, I used it because I don't have access to the original sources. The two statements that are cited from that source are:

The city of Valletta was founded on 28 March 1566 by Jean de Valette, the Grand Master of the Order of St. John. The city was protected by tracce italiane fortifications, including a land front with four bastions, two cavaliers and a deep ditch.

Eventually it was decided that the lines be constructed, and they became known as the Floriana Lines after their architect.

Both of these are definitely true, and can be verified by other sources, such as the NICPMI listing for Valletta and the websites of the Valletta and Floriana Local Councils.

I'll have a look around to see if I can find more info from published sources. I'll also add some more information from Spiteri's article and from Rix's book. Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems okay for GA-level. Give me a ping when you get those bits done. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrantX: I added some more information regarding the construction of the Floriana Lines, particularly on the controversy surrounding their design and cost. Is the article OK now? Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, happy to sign it off! --Errant ^(chat!) 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]