Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles I of Anjou/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Charles I of Anjou

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and prose should be checked before its FAC. The article is about a talented medieval ruler who was close to establish a Mediterranean empire in the 1270s, but his tyrannical methods cost him the island of Sicily after the Sicilian Vespers.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24

  • I don't know if I'm going to do an extensive review but I'll try and leave some random comments later. For the moment you may want to list your review at Template:FAC peer review sidebar if FAC is the plan for this one. Aza24 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your action. I do not understand the template, so I prefer not to list articles at it. Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned in section "Legacy". Now title also added ([1]).
  • Comital is a rather specialized word, perhaps link to the Wikitionary article, I'm not sure how but I know there's a non external link way to do this
  • Alternative solution ([2]).
  • The second paragraph begins 3 out of the 5 sentences with "He" – more variation would be nice
  • Should probably link Hainaut and Provençal to something...
  • perhaps link Crusade to Seventh Crusade? – would link Byzantine Empire as well
  • Byzantine Empire is linked ([5]). Sorry, I do not understand your proposal about the Seventh Crusade - it is linked.
  • A really enjoyable lead
  • Perhaps gloss Matthew Paris with some kind of identifier: "chronicler Matthew Paris" – probably same with Jean de Joinville later
  • Alternative solutions ([6], [7]).
  • may want to link "took the cross" to wikitionary as well
  • I preferred not to link. The context may explain its meaning.
  • definitely link bezants, and I see that the second time you mention this word its italicized, but not the first?
  • Got to Wider ambitions, more soon – looking good Aza24 (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: do you think you will have a chance to continue this review? I would be grateful for it. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes uh, I will try to finish it up later today. Always happy to read your stuff Borsoka. Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would think that Burghers should be linked to
    Burgher (title)
  • Thank you. Done.
  • I'm not sure what cereal trade is, is this Grain trade?
  • I have some irl work that I have just realized needs to get done so I should get back to this in another day or so. Sorry about that. Aza24 (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map in "Attempts to expand" seems less than ideal, it's in french and the boarders are rather unclear (not to mention it's hard to tell which place is Charles's empire
  • I approached the map's creator asking him to make a new map with English text. (By the way, the text in the present map is Spanish. :) ) Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I do not like interwiki links. I always prefer red links, because they urge editors to create a new article. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The glossing/occupational identifier in the Legacy section is inconsistent; imo it would be helpful to the reader to know who these people are making these assessments: "the chronicler Giovanni Villani..." for example.
  • I've now read through it all (apologies again for the delay) though rather awkwardly I have little else to say, the prose reads very well, and the research sure seems to be there. If/when you bring this to FAC I'll try and do a source review. Best - Aza24 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your time and also for your readiness to do a source review. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

  • There are a couple of duplinks.
  • There is a heavy reliance on Runciman. Are you confident that a work published 62 years ago represents the consensus of modern scholarship?
  • Thank you for review. I am confident that his work can hardly represent the consensus of modern scholarship. However, his work is mainly cited to verify specific details of Charles' life. Section "Legacy" is the only exception, but in this section concurring scholarly PoVs are presented, clearly showing the differences between scholarly approaches.
  • Several books in "Sources" are not cited to.
  • Yes, the Ahnentafel was deleted at some point and the editor who deleted it, did not delete references to the sources only used to verify that section. Sources not cited are deleted now.
  • Fischer needs an ISSN. (0440-8888)
  • Images.
  • The statues in Rome and Naples: as Italy does not have freedom of panorama for cultural works, why is this image PD or free use? (Note that "File:Viterbo, palazzo e loggia dei papi, 05.jpg" is OK as the image has a specific free use permit.)
  • Both deleted.
  • Both coats of arms: what are the sources for these?
  • Both deleted.
  • The map of southern Italy: what is the source of the information in the map?
  • Deleted (not highly relevant).
  • "File:KorunovaceKarlazAnjou.jpg" needs a US PD tag.
  • Added.
  • "File:Villani Benevento.jpg" has the same tag twice, but no US PD tag.
  • Added.
  • "File:ShepherdByzempire1265.jpg": page number?
  • Deleted (old map, presenting an old, now marginal, PoV on the northern frontiers of Bulgaria)
  • "File:Enthauptung Konradins.jpg" needs a US PD tag.
  • Added.
  • "File:CharlesdeAnjouempire.JPG": source?
  • The coin needs a separate PD tag.
  • I assume you refer to Charles's Sicilian seal. PD tags added. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Santo Spirito, Palermo.jpg": freedom of panorama issues.
  • Deleted.
  • "File:Beatrix karlove.jpg": has the same tag twice, but no US PD tag.
  • Added.
  • "File:Karel Anjou.jpg" has the same tag twice, but no US PD tag.
  • Added.
  • Entries in infoboxes should be in sentence case, ie, start with a capital letter.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check.

  • Link Provence (at first mention) and Forcalquier in the lead.
  • Both counties are linked to specific articles in the second sentence.
  • Alternative solution (the link to old French units of measurement may help to understand what the term means, because the article about the currency does not explain the French system of poids de marc)
  • "among the popes' Italian partisans". If "popes' " refers to a single pope, there should be an upper case P; if to several, it may be clearer to say 'the papacy's'.
  • Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and Wider ambitions
  • "The date of his birth was not recorded". Was not recorded, or has not survived?
  • Done.
  • I would suggest introducing Fredrick II with more than just his title at first mention.
  • Done (?).
  • Perhaps briefly mention Robert's death during your coverage of the Seventh Crusade, rather than incidentally and later.
  • Done (?).
  • Link Holy Land.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "Charles spent the next years expanding his power along the borders of Provence." It would be more encyclopedic if you could give the actual period; "the next years" is vague.
  • Done (?).
  • "Charles renounced Ventimiglia in favour of Genoa to secure the neutrality of the republic." This presupposes that readers are aware that Genoa was a republic at the time, which may be expecting a bit much.
  • Done (?).
  • "Taking advantage of Charles' absence, Castellane stirred up a new revolt in Provence." Most people are referred to in this article by their christian names; why is Boniface referred to by his title?
  • Done (?). I think I make a distinction between sovereign/half-sovereign rulers and aristocrats (maybe British books developed this: Edward, Henry and Richard, but Warwick, Buckingham, York, etc.)
I take your point, but in this case it was confusing. Partly because you also refer to places as if they were anthropomorphic - which I do not have a problem with. So at first I thought that you meant that the place Castellane had "stirred up a new revolt in Provence". It was only later when I read that he "forced Castellane into exile" that I thought "That's odd". I then reread the paragraph, did an a cntl-F search on Castellane and it made sense. But it seems a lot to put a reader through.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank you for your copyedits. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph commencing "The Pope wanted to change the direction of Charles' ambitions." I think it could do with a little background as to the situation in that part of the world. As it stands it only really makes sense if a reader already knows what it is saying!
General
  • From the MoS: "proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized". I am inclined to consider "Regno" a proper name and so not needing italics.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Explain, possibly in a footnote, what a "Latin emperor" was.
Mediterranean empire
  • "His influence was declining in Lombardy, because the Lombard towns no longer feared an invasion from Germany.". Optional: explain the link between the two halves of this sentence.
  • Done. (?)
  • Done.
  • Link Dante'
  • Done.
  • "Although Charles was staying in the nearby Vetralla, he could not directly influence the election." Why not?
Collapse, Death and Legacy
  • Link Viterbo.
  • It is linked in section "Conradin" and also under the picture "The popes' palace at Viterbo".
  • Now linked in section "Papal elections".
  • Done.
  • "which denied the Emperors' monopoly on law-making and emphasised Charles' full competence to issue decrees." I am struggling with this. Not having a monopoly on law making, but being free to issue decrees sounds contradictory to me - and the first bit seems liable to be viewed as treason by Charles.
  • Done (?).

And that is it from me. I hope that the contributions have been useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I highly appreciate your hard work. Thank you for your comprehensive and thorough review. I hope I could address all issues. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I look forward to reading through it again at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Charles_I_of_Anjou/archive1&oldid=1069937329"