Talk:Glarentza

Glarentza has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 14, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages: Crusades Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Crusades task force. Military history: Fortifications / Balkan / European / Medieval / Crusades This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Crusades task force

A fact from Glarentza appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 May 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Glarentza was the most important town and main port of the Principality of Achaea in Frankish Greece? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glarentza.

... I took out the phrase "although an Englishman would tell you that it is more likely ...". The unfootnoted Englishman probably isn't neutral. His opinion, whoever he is, has some support but no certainty: see footnote at Duke of Clarence. Andrew Dalby 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cplakidas, I hereby announce that I would be privilege to review this article thoroughly within the next few days. Please let me know in the meantime if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for committing so much effort to craft this superb article! -- Caponer (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Cplakidas, I've completed my review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. Before passing this article, however, I do have a few comments and questions that I have shared below. Once these have been addressed sufficiently, we will begin the process of passing this article to Good Article status. Thank you for your thorough research of this topic, and for writing such a comprehensive article on this mostly forgotten populated place. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns for me in the meantime! -- Caponer (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The lead reads well, but it should probably incorporate more information from the "Location and archaeological remains" section, especially information regarding Glarentza being situated on a small plateau at the extreme northwestern end of the peninsula known as Chelonatas. Perhaps more information about the remains should be added to the lead section as well.
• Other than the aforementioned comment, I have no other suggested edits or questions regarding the lead's prose.

History

• When introducing A. Bon, his profession as a historian should be included so that the reader knows why his assessment is reputable.
• In the sentence: "It featured a hospital as well as banks, lodgings for the mariners, a Franciscan monastery." I suggest adding an "and" before "a Franciscan monastery."
• In the following sentence, there should probably be a comma placed between "in" and "1353."
• In the sentence introducing Ferdinand of Majorca, is there any supporting information as to what grounds Ferdinand used to claim the princely title of Achaea for himself? Was there an ancestral claim?
• In addition, do we/can we know why several barons defected? This may give us an idea of internal issues/conflicts pre-existing in Glarentza prior to the Aragonese /Majorcan takeover.
• A comma should probably be added after 1427 in the sentence: "In 1427 the Byzantines, led by emperor John VIII in person, attacked the Tocco lands in the Peloponnese."
• Catalan should be wiki-linked to Catalonia.
• "Photographs" should probably be used rather than "photos."
• Is there any additional information as to why the German Army demolished the remains of Glarentza?
• As is stated on the article's talk page, the claimed connection between Glarentza and the British "Duke of Clarence" title is a bit dubious and perhaps controversial. If this is to be mentioned in the article, I suggest adding a footnote that explains that other sources state the name originates from Clare, Suffolk and the de Clare family. Is it possible to elaborate on who "Some believe" refers to? Are there specific historians or groups that believe Glarentza lends its name to the "Duke of Clarence" title? A source for the footnote is available at Duke of Clarence.
• Other than the aforementioned comments, I have no other suggested edits or questions regarding this section's prose.

Location and archaeological remains

• For the measurements listed in the prose, I suggest using the convert template so that measurements in feet are also included.
• Other than the aforementioned comments, I have no other suggested edits or questions regarding this section's prose.

Overall

• While I found the four sources cited reputable and verifiable to pull data and facts from, I would recommend finding at least one or two more sources, if they exist out there. While I'm sure Bon would suffice as the lone source for the bulk of the article, it's always a good rule of thumb to have a few more sources to further substantiate the article's content.

Hello and thanks for taking the time for this thorough review! I've fixed most of the points you raised, and made a few minor tweaks of my own. The only issues remaining are the reason of the Germans' destroying the ruins, and the issue of more sources. On the first, I have been unable to discover any concrete details, but it may have been used as a storage facility by the Germans, and when the Germans withdrew in 1944 they blew up pretty much everything they could in terms of facilities or infrastructure. Given that until recently medieval monuments were not very high in the Greek authorities' sensitivity list (them being deemed "foreign"), in this case probably no-one even protested. As to the second, I agree, but Bon is and will likely remain the standard work for this period of Greek history, including the monuments. The very Greek Culture Ministry website cites him as the main source. Traquair doesn't say much about Glarentza, and most authors who have written about medieval sites in Greece focus on the far better-preserved castles and not on Glarentza. There is a small article in a Greek historical/archaeological journal that I don't have access to at the moment, but I feel confident that nothing of importance has been left out (at least by GA-level criteria of comprehensiveness). I'll be happy to respond to any further questions/suggestions. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cplakidas, thank you tremendously for addressing all my above comments and suggestions! I feel that gone above and beyond to the duties of an editor to beautifully illustrate the history and significance of Glarentza. After re-reviewing the article, I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status, and I hereby pass it! Congratulations on a job very well done! -- Caponer (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, and for your thoroughness. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glarentza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301132537/http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/3/gh351.jsp?obj_id=14525 to http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/3/gh351.jsp?obj_id=14525
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305200801/http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/3/gh355.jsp?obj_id=14525 to http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/3/gh355.jsp?obj_id=14525

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]