Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Cretan War (1645–1669)

Cretan War (1645–1669)

Hello! I have just completed a significant expansion of this article, on a topic that is quite unknown today, although at the time the "defence of Candia" sparked a great deal of crusading fervour among Western European nations. The war also featured an intense naval struggle, and one of the longest sieges in history, which in many aspects resembled the trenches of World War I. I'd like to nominate this article for GA and possibly FA eventually, but first I would like to see comments by other users on its content & quality. Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

An excellent article, overall; just a few minor points to work on:

Given the number of commanders listed in the infobox, it may actually be helpful to extend the flag icons into those fields to indicate their individual allegiances.
I'm not sure it's necessary to place footnotes inside sentences, given that the material is not particularly controversial; I'd suggest pulling them all to the end of each sentence.
"Morosini, now again Captain General..." - it should be clarified that this is Francesco, not Giorgio.
The "See also" section should ideally be eliminated; the link there shouldn't be difficult to work into the text.

Keep up the great work! Kirill ^(prof) 17:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Points 1 & 3 dealt with. Point 2 will require some extra attention, so I'll do it tomorrow. On point 4, the links are too general to be really integrated into the article. I had added them as a general reference, but since "See also" sections are frowned upon, I simply removed them. Thanks for the quick response, and the thumbs up, Kirill. Cheers and best regards, Constantine ✍ 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point 2 done, at least where it would not change the sense of the citation. Constantine ✍ 13:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

Per the MOS, ndashes need to be inserted instead of hyphens when you are dealing with numerical ranges, especially the page ranges in teh footnotes
The lead is rather short given the length of hte article.

Good work, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, dashes fixed. As for the lead, the MOS gives two to four paragraphs as a guideline. However, the way I understand it, the essential thing is to provide a summary of the article, without going into too much detail. I am aware that the lead is a bit short, but I think it is a good summary. Although I'll try to expand it further, since my view is subjective, it would be a great help if you could tell me whether you, having read the article, think that something is missing, or that some aspect has been neglected in the lead. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expanded, awaiting feedback. Constantine ✍ 11:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jackyd101

A very nice article. A few small pointers below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to related wars mentioned in Persia and the Mediterranean in the early sections. Also try to fill in some of the redlinks to provide a bit more context.
Don't link dates, the MOS is now against this.
The section on the siege of Candia should be revised to provide a slightly better summary of the article. The writing there is poorer than most of the rest of the article, (which is, on the whole, very good).
Your one weblink needs full publisher and access date information. In addition, what is it? Does it comply with WP:RS?

On point 1), I've created the article on the Persian war. There seems to be almost nothing in WP on the Ottoman-Safavid conflicts, but I'll try to add what I can find. As for the conflicts in the Mediterranean, which are you referring to? As for the other redlinks, I'll try to add what little info there is (they are mostly articles on admirals and viziers, and not much is available on them). Point 2) noted & done. On point 4), I added the cite web template. The site is a virtual exhibition of Venice and its role in the Levant in the 16th-17th centuries, with sources from the Marciana Library, the Austrian National Archives and the Venetian National Archive. There's also more info on the publishing VENIVA consortium webpage. On the whole, I think it's pretty reliable, and I intend to include some more details from its pages. On point 3), what exactly are your concerns? Which of the two sections on the siege (early or final stages) do you mean? Constantine ✍ 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article on DYK, its a good start, well done. The conflict in the Mediterranean I was referring to was the 1638 Veenetian-Barbary Pirates campaign in Valona. I recognise that information on these mat be hard to come by but it would certainly provide better context for the article. I still see a few of point 2 lurking in the article, but good job so far. I wasn't suggesting that the website was definately unreliable, but I was looking for a demonstration of RS, which you provided. I will go through the section on the siege in detail soon. Hope these answers helped. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for the appreciative comments, and for your taking time to review the article. The 1638 campaign is comprised of just that, a brief pursuit of the Barbary fleet, which was then followed by its destruction at Valona & the political ramifications. AFAIK there is no accepted name for this episode, like say "Battle of Valona". I'll put in a link to "Action of 7 August 1638" but I can't promise that I can flesh it out soon. As for the other point 2) occurrences, they are not linked dates per se, but links to articles on the naval battles fought on these days (unless of course I have indeed missed some date). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, here are my notes on the Siege of Candia paragraph:

"The siege began in May 1648, and the Turks spent three months investing the city, which included cutting off the water supply. [the "and" doesn't work here, isnce the thoughts being joined don't follow. It should be a full stop after 1648] Eventually, it would last until 1669 [it lasted instead of it would last], the second longest siege in history after the siege of Ceuta by the Moors under Moulay Ismail (1694–1727). The Ottoman besiegers were adversely affected by the bad supply situation which the activity of the Christian fleets in the Aegean had caused (see below) [explain this completely here, not below]. In addition, the overall Ottoman war effort was severely hampered by increased domestic instability caused by Sultan Ibrahim's erratic policies and his summary execution of leading state officials, which ultimately led to his deposition in favor of his son Mehmed IV, ushering in a further period of confusion.[A complicated sentance, better broken into two]

The lack of supplies had forced the Ottoman commander Hüseyin Pasha to lift the siege in early 1949, but it was renewed for a short period of two months after the arrival of the Ottoman fleet in June. The Ottomans assailed the fortifications, exploding over 70 mines, but the defenders held firm. The Turks lost over 1,000 men, and the subsequent withdrawal of 1,500 Janissaries and the lack of any further reinforcements over the course of 1650 left Hüseyin Pasha with little option but to continue maintaining as tight a blockade as possible.[More detail on specific attacks required] The Ottomans strengthened their positions with the construction of three forts in the Canea area, and the arrival of reinforcements in late 1650 allowed them to keep up their tight blockade.[35] Despite the Venetian blockade of the Dardanelles and the political turmoil at the Ottoman court, the Ottoman forces were kept supplied enough to sustain themselves, although too weak to engage in offensive actions against Candia itself. In 1653, the island fortress of Selino in Suda Bay was captured, and San Todero, lost a few years previously, recovered [By whom?]. [The following paragraph is very short and would be better added to the one above it] Following the Venetian naval successes over the next few years, the siege continued, without much prospect on either side [prospect? Try to find a better word], until the arrival of a new Ottoman expeditionary force in 1666.

See suggestions in the text above. Some of these can apply across the whole article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, which have mostly been addressed, except for the detail on the attacks in 1650 (what exactly do you mean? Detail on the attacks of 1650 or of the ensuing blockade?). I have not added too much detail on the individual sallies of the siege, since an article on it already exists and (in theory), that's where these should go. I have not described the actions of the war in the level of detail that Setton does in his book, and I don't think that is necessary. The most significant actions, decisions and other events are included, and their effects. Either way, in the first stage of the siege, the Ottomans were too weak to mount many major attacks.The short-lived summer offensive of 1650 was not repeated until 1666 and after. I'll try to look over the whole article too. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]