Talk:Treaty of Gallipoli/GA1

RESULT

Promoted to GA

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 19:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that strikes me about this article is that it presents the full list of terms of the treaty. Now there is probably nothing in the GA guidelines that prohibity that, but it is definitely not summary style. Before I start a full review, I would just like to ask what is the rationale for this? SpinningSpark 19:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for taking this on. I chose this format to remain as close as possible to the structure of the agreement (while not repeating it verbatim). I could have grouped related terms together by topic (e.g. prisoners, trade, territories), or by nation (all Byzantine, Genoese, etc), but I was unable to really choose; since the only secondary work dealing with the treaty as a whole does not really embrace a thematic presentation, I felt it best not to innovate in that regard. In addition, each of these points represents a separate issue that was agreed upon, and shows the nature of negotiation, where the general (e.g. a lifting of tariffs on the Genoese) is mixed with the specific (w.g. 25 Chian prisoners). Again, I could comment on that, but this would (IMO) cross ever-so-slightly the line into WP:OR. Constantine ✍ 20:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree with that approach, but moving on... SpinningSpark 12:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more general comment; there are a lot of very long sentences with multiple subclauses. These are quite difficult to parse. I won't list them in detail (unless you want me to) as I don't see this as a GA issue, but you might want to address them anyway to make the article more readable. That would certainly need to be done if this ever goes to FA.

Detailed comments follow. You may insert comments after each point if you wish, but please do not use strikethrough or add tickmarks or other graphics.

Background

"The venetians...wanted... to settle her rivalry..." The gender is assigned to the country, not the people of the country. It is a somewhat archaic figure of speech anyway, I suggest replacing with "her" with "their".

Fixed.

Provisions

"Judging by the fact..." Does the source make that judgement, or is it Wikipedia's own synthesis?

It is referenced to Dennis, who makes this "judgement"; it is a typical terminus ante quem situation, linked accordingly.

"...of the weight of Constantinople..." Does this mean a bushel in Byzantine weights and measures? It reads like a bushel is actually the same weight as Constantinople!

Fixed.

SpinningSpark 12:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: are you going to respond to this? SpinningSpark 19:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely address it tomorrow :) Constantine ✍ 21:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing review. Article passed GA.

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.