Talk:Relief of Genoa

Comments

Hi. This article looks quite good. I have made a few edits, mainly focusing on spelling, grammar, presentation (please check that you are happy with my changes). I am unable to assess the article due to the number of edits I have made, but believe that it would most likely be a B class article. I have the following suggestions which you might consider, if you are thinking about taking it to WP:GAN (which I think it would be a candidate for):

• there is a mixture of US and British English variation, for example "defense" (US) and "theatre" (British) - either variation is fine, but it should be consistent throughout the article;
• the Sources section is inconsistently formatted, for example Wilson as opposed to Thompson (the date appears in a different place) - this is due to the use of citation templates in some places but not all. The best policy is to use these consistently, either use them for all, or use them for none;
• in the Sources section, locations could be added for publishers;
• the Notes or citations could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (this is just a suggestion and is not mandatory);
• the date format in the infobox is different to the rest of the article - these should probably be consistent - for example "April 24, 1625" as opposed to "24 April 1625". Again, either format is fine, but consistency is the key;
• in the Background section, this paragraph probably needs a citation as it appears to be uncited: "In northern Italy, Philip IV of Spain had followed his father's efforts to defend Catholics in the valleys of Valtellina and the Protestants in Graubünden. In 1622 Richelieu had arranged an anti-Spanish league with Venice and Savoy. With his ascendancy, the French policy changed";
• I have given the article a copy edit, but I was mainly only looking for spelling errors, so I would suggest that you might ask someone from the Guild of Copyeditors, or someone else, to have a look through it before nominating for GAN.

Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mansfeld

Mansfeld is Ernst von Mansfeld, not a town. The general was besieging a town and the French helped him to pay his army besieging the town, IIRC. A little more context about him is necessary to complete the article, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Relief of Genoa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to see a 17th century article!

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

I'll work my way through it. The text needs a little bit of attention in places.

Lead:

• Second para: you refer to the "French troops of the Duke of Savoy" - do you mean French troops, commanded by the Duke of Savoy; or French troops from Savoy? (NB: the reader won't know the relationship between Savoy and France at this time)
• "However, the Spanish fleet..." - I'd avoid starting a paragraph with an "however"
• "Returning its sovereignty to the Republic of Genoa and forcing the French to raise the siege..." - I'm not sure that the beginning of this sentence is quite right - had the French formally declared their intention to remove the sovereignty of the republic at this time?
• "hit the bank of the King of Spain"" - the italics aren't necessary for the quote
• The block quote isn't mentioned elsewhere in the main text, so shouldn't be in the lead (you could either move it down, or refer to it below)
• "Richelieu's Invasion of Genoa and the Valtelline had resulted in his humiliation by the Spaniards." "invasion" needs a lower case "i". I think you'd be better off with "resulted" rather than "had resulted".

Background:

• "In 1622 Richelieu..." You'll need to explain who Richelieu is.
• "In northern Italy, Philip IV of Spain had followed his father's efforts to defend Catholics in the valleys of Valtellina and the Protestants in Graubünden." - defended against who?
• "They claimed that due to the alliance between them..." As you're starting a new paragraph, you should expand "They..."
• "...who were attacking Genoa, by attacking Valtelline and diverting the resources of the Spanish, who were supporters of Genoa" This is a long sentence. I'd add a full stop and start a new sentence on "Who were..." (e.g. "The Duchy of Savoy were attacking Genoa...")
• "Grey Leagues" - you'll need to explain/link
• "to protect them, Richelieu had established the Governors of the Duchy of Milan. " - You probably would want to start a new sentence before "to protect" (e.g. "To protect them, Richelieu..."); its also unclear how establishing the governors would protect them.
• "deciding to make a several action." - "several action?" doesn't make much sense; how about "combined attack?"
• "the pretext that papal forced" > "papal forces"?
• "The irony of a Cardinal attacking the troops of a Pope" > I lost the thread here. Which Pope's forces were being attacked? Are these the ones in the Valtelline? Also, I'm not sure this sentence fits well with the next one (about French action)
• "An attack on Genoa would cut the southern end of the Spanish Road and knock out Spain's banker." - I don't think the article's explained that Genoa was an important source of funds for the Spanish; you'll need to expand this bit.
• "and explains French participation in the London talks with Mansfeld." > You'll need to explain what these were.
• "France also sent financial help to the Dutch Republic, and subsidised the siege of Mansfeld." You'll need to explain a little bit more about Mansfeld - who was he besieging etc.
• "Rhetians" - are these from the Rhaetian Alps?
• "Richelieu's elaborate plan..." You haven't really explained why Richelieu's plan was elaborate.
• "dévots" - you'll need to explain who or what these are
• "Don Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, 3rd Duke of Feria sent 6,000 men and Tommaso Caracciolo as Maestro de Campo in order to reinforce the city of Genoa, which continued to resist the Franco-Savoyard siege." It would be worth clarifying that these were Spanish seniors.

I'll run through the other sections later.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Overall sources look good, and have the standard 17th century texts I'd expect to see.
• Second paragraph (beginning "Despite these dangers..." and then "Yet even this...") - there's no source listed beyond the one for the quote in the middle.
• The references have a "Hubert Granville Revell Reade – Sidelights on the Thirty Years War", but it's not included in the bibliography.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Images checked.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions): * The Relief of Genoa section is very heavy in terms of pictures - I'd advise removing one, as they're crowding the text.

• The formatting of the Aftermath section pictures seems odd - you probably need to move them in the text a bit.
• Most of the captions end in full-stops, against the policy on captions.

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comment

as the nominator has failed to respond and has not edited since 1 February, suggest that you fail this nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Source Fernandez Cesáreo Duro

The general reference given was:

• • (in Spanish) Duro, Fernandez Cesáreo. Historia de la Armada Española Vol 4.

As far as I can tell this is:

• (in Spanish)Duro, Fernandez Cesáreo (1898), Armada española desde la Unión de los Reinos de Castilla y de León, vol. 4, Madrid: Est. tipográfico "Sucesores de Rivadeneyra", p. 67

If not then it needs changing back. If it is then it would be nice to have a translation for the sentences that support this article. For example is the support for the sentence "Spanish infantry from Naples embarked, carrying a total of 4,000 soldiers among whom 2,000 were elite infantry tercios viejos from the Army of Flanders" on page 68 rather than page 67? -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

United Provinces in this battle

The infobox lists the United Provinces as having participated in this battle. However, this is not mentioned elswhere in the article. The only connections I see are:
In the 'Background' section there is this statement: "Richelieu hoped Britain and the Dutch would send a fleet to assist his own squadron in cutting the seaway between Spain and Genoa, while Venice attacked Milan."
Also in the Background section: "Venice abstained from the fighting, while British and Dutch support failed to materialize, enabling Spain to break through the relatively weak French fleet and relieve Genoa in August."
This means that either Britain and Venice should be added along with the Dutch, since they held the same role as the Dutch, or the United Provinces should be removed from the infobox, since they never actually sent military support. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

One quick note. If it is decided to remove the Dutch from the infobox, whoever does it please remember to remove 'Dutch' in the introduction statement "It was a major naval expedition launched by Spain against the French-occupied Republic of Genoa, of which the capital Genoa was being besieged by a joint Franco-Savoyard-Dutch army composed of 30,000 men and 3,000 cavalry." King Philip V of Spain (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the Dutch Republic from the infobox after finding no justification for its being there. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)