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

Nominator: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 15:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Image review

• File:Territori degli Scaligeri nel 1336.svg: a reliable source is needed to verify it at Commons.
  • The map seems to be accurate, but I couldn't find a source, or any other map depicting the specific topic. I have removed the image as a result, and replaced it with a pin-map of the main localities mentioned. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Are the pictures in line with the specific Italian copyright rules? Borsoka (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean the photos, the usual caveat applies; in theory, from what I understand of the relevant Italian law, commercial use of any pictures of any cultural artifacts is prohibited unless explicitly licensed by the Ministry of Culture. I am not a legal expert, but since Wikipedia is not making money from it, it should be fine. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Academic sources of high standard are cited. The article is primarily based on secondary sources although its bibliography lists several encyclopedic articles. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Modern historians acknowledge... Is this general statement verified?
  • Yes. Varanini discusses at some length the modern historiography on the conflict, beginning with Simeoni's works. The pro-Venetian view that derived from the primary sources of a Republic reluctantly dragged into war is no longer tenable. Kohl, although not referenced here, makes similar remarks. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• References 4, 10, 27 and 57 checked. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• ...the Scaligers entered into an alliance with the Holy Roman Empire... With the HRE, or with an emperor?
  • Good point, corrected. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...were named Imperial vicars of Verona and its territory... Some context?
  • Added a brief explanation.
• ...the Guelph faction An introduction? (anti-Imperialist/anti-Ghibellin/...)
  • Added for both Guelphs and Ghibbelines.
• ... German vicars appointed by the Habsburgs... Some context?
  • Hmmm, what exactly is missing? Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • How could the Habsburgs appoint vicars in an Italian city. See my remark below.

    • This had less to do with the Imperial dynastic rivalries and more to do with Padua seeking protection against Cangrande. 'Vicar' is here not meant in the Imperial vicar sense, just in the sense of governors titled thus. I've added a few words to the reason for the Habsburg presence. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... despite the opposition of John of Bohemia, in 1332... Some context? I would mention in two or three sentences, that Lombardy was in theory part of the Holy Roman Empire, and three families were competing for the imperial crown: the Wittelsbach of Bavaria, the Habsburgs of Austria, and the Luxembourgs of Bohemia.
  • Hmmm, I deliberately avoided going into too many details on the Imperial situation, as the Italian politics of the time is already convoluted enough. I have tried to clarify that John was Henry VII's son, and Henrey of Luxemburg in turn John's son. This should at least demonstrate to the reader where their involvement comes from. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ..., against suggestions for a centralizing project of this kind Is this necessary?
  • I think so, because it makes clear that Scaliger motives are debated even today, let alone how they were perceived at the time; have rephrased slightly. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The demand in 1332 that Venetian citizens and monasteries should pay taxes for their possessions in Scaliger territories, and the installation in 1335 of a chain across the Po River at Ostiglia that enforced taxes on river traffic caused concern in Venice, as Venice was dependent on free commerce through the Po valley, and reliant on the import of grain from the mainland territories under Scaliger control. I would split it into at least two sentences.
  • Split into three, with some minor rephrasing. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Influenced by the pro-Venetian point of view of the main source for the conflict, the chronicle of Jacopo Piacentino, traditional historiography expresses the view that these events represented Scaliger provocations, and that Venice was dragged into a land war unwillingly, this sort of conflict being foreign to the maritime-minded republic with its traditional reluctance to get involved in mainland Italian affairs. Detto.
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Venice decided send... Rephrase: "Venice sent"
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ... Venetian Senate decided to halt the export of salt.... Rephrase: "Venetian Senate halted..."
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...neighbouring potentates... Could you name one or two?
  • Clarified. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Attribute the quote two someone, or delete the quotation marks.
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ... (the 'Castello delle Saline')... Why are the brackets and quotation marks necessary?
  • Leftover from a different arrangement, fixed now. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...a board of 25 authorized to conduct... I am not sure that I understand it.
  • Hopefully clarified now. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...with the contracting and maintenance.. Could you rephrase it to avoid the determiner?
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...being raised by the allies... Delete.
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...had to withdraw towards Verona... Why not "withdrew towards Verona"?
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• {{xt|...and his cousin..." Whose?
  • Clarified. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...not least the public and repeated seduction of Marsilio da Carrara's wife... By whom? Is this a fact or a legend?
  • Clarified, and incredibly yes, it appears to be genuine, although I made a mistake, it was Ubertino's wife, not Marsilio's; Ubertino later even adopted a horned Moor in his arms as allusion to that. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ... by the latter By Florence, or by Venice and Florence? Why not "by his new allies"?
  • Good suggestion, done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...had been among the first strongholds to fall into Scaliger hands, back in 1317, and... Delete.
  • Disagree here, it is important as it was one of the first Paduan territories Cangrande seized. Have added this to clarify it. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Their deaths caused an outpouring of grief, as they were widely loved and respected. Delete.
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Introduce Charles of Luxembourg.
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...on unacceptable conditions... One or two examples?
  • Kohl doesn't say, unfortunately. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ..., but to no avail:... Delete, and began a new sentence: "Louis' ambassadors..."
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...requesting a one-month truce... Clarify: on Mastino's behalf or for Mastino?
  • Not sure what the difference is here... Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry, I was unclear. They did not requested a truce for Louis, but for Mastino (I assume).

    • Correct, on Mastino's behalf, clarified. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ...succeeded by his cousin Ubertino ... Delete "his cousin".
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The new Lord of Padua... Why not "He"?
  • Replaced with 'Ubertino'. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...was not idle, however: he... I would delete. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ...the Venetians famously referred to Padua... Delete "famously".
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would name the Terraferma in the article's last paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: when do you think you can address the above issues? Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: did most of the low-hanging fruit, will try to do the rest during the course of the week, real life permitting (need access to my books for this). Constantine ✍ 21:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I place the article onhold for about two weeks. Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Borsoka, I've dealt with the remaining issues as far as possible. Awaiting further feedback. Constantine ✍ 20:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me. My access to internet is very limited for about a week, so I complete the review early next week. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]