Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galley/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2023 [1].

Galley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about one of the most long-lived and important ship types in history. It's not that well-known today but it dominated much of Mediterranean (and European) maritime history for over 2000 years.

I've been working on the article on and off for over a decade, been through a recent peer review and I believe it's actually ready to get a barnstar. Regarding the length of the article, I just want to acknowledge that it's been discussed to some degree. I recognize that there are differing views among Wikipedians on ideal length, but my view is that the article is within the confines of WP:SIZE, especially since it's a somewhat unique ship type viewed by historians as having a continuous and unbroken history that goes back to around 700 BC. Peter Isotalo 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid sandwiching text between images. You probably have a few too many images for the amount of text, particularly as the captions are generally quite long.
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • File:Galley-knightshospitaller.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Kylix_Dionysus_on_a_ship_between_dolphins_530_BC,_Staatliche_Antikensammlungen_Munich_120637.jpg, File:Swedish_galley_(1715)-rambade.jpg, File:Dauphine-IMG_6926.jpg, File:Dauphine-IMG_6921.jpg, File:Venice_galley_rowing_alla_sensile1.jpg
  • File:The_Charles_Galley-Willem_van_de_Velde_the_Younger-2.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Valcour_canadianarchive_c013202k.jpg, File:Monuments_of_Niniveh_-_Plate_71_-_Heidelberg.jpg, File:Peregrinatio_in_terram_sanctam_MET_MM6974_crop_1.jpg, File:Vroom_Hendrick_Cornelisz_Battle_of_Haarlemmermeer.jpg, File:Peregrinatio_in_terram_sanctam_MET_MM4640_crop_1.jpg, File:Battle_of_Lepanto_1571.jpg, File:A_French_Ship_and_Barbary_Pirates_(c_1615)_by_Aert_Anthoniszoon.jpg, File:Vroom_Hendrick_Cornelisz_Dutch_Ships_Ramming_Spanish_Galleys_off_the_Flemish_Coast_in_October_1602.jpg, File:Vittore_Carpaccio_-_Sant'Orsola_polyptich_-_Ritorno_Degli_ambasciatori-detail.jpeg, File:Morisot-Nova_Triremis_quam_dicimus,_Galere-detail.jpeg, File:Byzantines_repel_the_Russian_attack_of_941.jpg, File:Gouache_of_17th_century_French_royal_galley-side.jpg
  • File:058_Conrad_Cichorius,_Die_Reliefs_der_Traianssäule,_Tafel_LVIII.jpg needs a tag for the photo
  • File:Sloane_3584_f.78v_Turkish_galleys_in_battle,_c.1636.PNG: source link is dead, needs a US tag
  • File:Science_and_literature_in_the_Middle_Ages_and_the_Renaissance_-_figure_207.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
  • File:Fernando_Bertelli,_Die_Seeschlacht_von_Lepanto,_Venedig_1572,_Museo_Storico_Navale_(550x500).jpg: source link is dead
  • File:AnthonyRoll-30_Galley_Subtle.jpg needs a US tag and has a malformed deletion request?

Oppose simply due to the volume of image issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Everything seems reasonably straightforward to fix, but I have some questions:
  • I don't know what the practice is regarding image sandwiching. What's accepted and what's not? Can you point out examples of what's accepted and what's not accepted?
  • What does "tag for original work" mean?
  • Which US tag is required exactly? I'm just not up to date about which of the dozens of Commons templates that's expected.
Peter Isotalo 10:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The theory is explained at MOS:SANDWICH. In practice, Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House has quite a few images but largely avoids any issues, whereas Venice is of greater concern. (The tag at the top of Venice will help find more articles that someone has raised this concern about - unfortunately examples of articles with many images but done well are harder to find).
  • There is currently a tag reflecting the copyright of the photographer, but the thing being photographed itself potentially warrants copyright protection - a tag should be added indicating its status (eg it's public domain due to its age).
  • It's going to vary depending on the situation, and in particular the earliest date of publication. If you can demonstrate a publication (not just creation, see Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication for definition) before 1928, {{PD-US}} will generally be most appropriate; if not there are many other possibilities. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Been trying to look at images that need US, original work and photo tags and I'm honestly at a loss as to which ones to use. I sense a pretty massive gap between what's accepted at Commons and what's required for an FA. Could you link examples recently approved FA images where I could simply swipe the formatting instead of trying to apply everything from scratch? Peter Isotalo 16:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: images hosted on Commons are technically required to have tagging reflecting their status in both their country of origin and the US (when they are not originally US images). So US tags should be in addition to not instead of existing tags (eg File:Science_and_literature_in_the_Middle_Ages_and_the_Renaissance_-_figure_207.jpg will need fixing).
Here's an example of a properly tagged image from a recent FA. It is a photo of a 3D object (coin), so we need to be concerned with the copyright of the object itself as well as the photograph. So we have the PD-UKGov tag which covers the copyright of the coin. Then we have the CC tag covering the copyright of the photo. By comparison, File:Swedish_galley_(1715)-rambade.jpg has the CC tagging covering the copyright of the photo, but lacks tagging covering the copyright of the model itself.
Here's another example. This image is from the UK and uses a combined tag, PD-old-70-expired. This encompasses a life+70 claim covering UK status, supported by an author death date provided in the author field, and also a pre-1928 publication claim for US status, supported by a source indicating the image's inclusion in an 1836 book. By comparison, File:Byzantines_repel_the_Russian_attack_of_941.jpg has the life+70 component for country of origin but is missing the US component.
I'd suggest starting by identifying the earliest known publication for each of these works, and then using the Hirtle chart to match that to appropriate US tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still confused about one thing here. Why is it okay for File:1820 two pounds obverse.jpg to not have a US tag? Peter Isotalo 09:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the tags (PD-UKGov and CC) are indicated to apply worldwide, and therefore cover both UK and US status. In contrast, the life+70 tag explicitly indicates that an additional US tag is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks for all the helpful clarifications. I believe I've addressed all the specified issues. I couldn't find any info on the model in the lead pic photo. I'm quite sure the model is old enough to be out of copyright, but I just can't verify it.
I've only added alt text to a few images because I'm not sure if I've gotten them quite right. Please have a look and see if you have any concerns. If not, I'll just run through the rest. Peter Isotalo 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not generally necessary to include "image of", "photo of", etc, unless there is some significance to the specific medium. Otherwise good start on alts. Still some sandwiching going on. On licensing (outdent):
  • File:Dauphine-IMG_6921.jpg and File:Dauphine-IMG_6926.jpg list a date of "early century", which doesn't make sense
  • File:Battle_of_Lepanto,_1571_(by_Ignazio_Danti)_-_Vatican_Museums,_Gallery_of_Maps.jpg: source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, take a look now. Just note that I'm editing in the dark regarding the sandwiching. The extreme smooshing WP:SANDWICH exemplifies does not exist in the article and there's no other guidance to go by. If you think there are still issues, please edit at least one of them directly so I get a sense of the results you're aiming for.
    I fixed the link to Archivio Scala in the Lepanto fresco. Just note that it's more of a sort of "further reading" type link, not where the image was lifted from. At least that's how the "reference" parameter is defined on Commons for the artwork template. Peter Isotalo 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harrias

[edit]

At this point I'm going to oppose based on the quality of the prose. There are lots of little language issues that should have been resolved before a FA nomination. I take it the nominator isn't a native English speaker, and I would recommend withdrawing the nomination, getting GOCE to give it a once over, and then renominating. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for highlighting the language snafus. I've tweaked them according to your pointers. I'm not sure what to clarify regarding oar systems, though. Can you expand on that?
    If I'm not mistaken, "there has been a wide variety of terms" is perfectly correct. The agreement is arguably with "variety", not "terms", but it looks like one of those examples where both would work fine.
    Yes, I think you're right on this, I blame the missing "a" for throwing me off. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any complaint serious enough to merit an objection or withdrawal. I see that you've done far more extensive comments in other FACs so I'd appreciate if you could provide more actionable pointers. Peter Isotalo 16:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the density of minor language issues mean the article falls well short of the "professional standard" required by Criterion 1a, and I'm unwilling to essentially copy-edit this article; that is not the purpose of FAC. If another reviewer is willing to do that, I'm more than happy to come back and review the article content once it is in a good enough state, but at the moment, I stand by my oppose. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been through a few FACs. I've never had someone imply I can't be trusted to fix minor language errors without a copyediting chaperone. I'm kindly asking you to provide more than a handful of examples and to explain what you mean regarding the row/line/bank comment. Peter Isotalo 21:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:FIXLOOP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Sources appear to be high quality and reliable.
    • Glete, Guilmartin, and Pryor, are all go-to experts on this subject (fwiw I studied under Guilmartin years ago).
    • The only question I have is Higgins - we generally don't cite master's theses - per WP:THESIS, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
  • I've always applied title case to books, even if the publisher didn't (for example, I look over at my bookshelf and see Pryor's book uncapitalized, but I'd still cite it as "Geography, Technology, and War" - there are cases where we apply house style regardless of what the author and/or publisher chose to do).
  • There are those who will request that all ISBNs use a standardized format (i.e., either all 10 or 13 digits) - not a hill I'd die on, myself, but something worth considering
  • Liddel & Scott and Mooney both need an identifier - typically for pre-ISBN books, an OCLC number will do
  • Footnotes all appear to be formatted uniformly. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Higgins only supports the image itself and the caption describing it. Do you still consider it a problem to keep it?
    • Do we have a guideline on how to render source titles?
    Peter Isotalo 15:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cplakidas

[edit]

Reserving a spot here, this topic is of interest to me. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Early 16th century galleys 'Early-16th-century galleys'?
  • Occasionally, much larger polyremes I would strike the occasionally here, the quinquereme was the main warship from the 3rd century BC until after Actium, for example.
  • The rowing setup was also simplified and eventually developed into a system called alla sensile add a date here (century would suffice)
  • This was suitable for skilled, professional rowers. This does not apply to the alla sensile only, but generally to systems where one man was placed per oar. I recommend moving this up, adding here that this was the reason why historically, most galley rowers were freeborn men and even citizens, contrary to the common perception of galleys using slaves (it is mentioned further down).
  • This was further simplified to the a scaloccio method... as before, add a date
  • Optional: mention that we have almost no remains of ancient galleys, whence a lot of our knowledge is speculative.
Terminology
Early history
  • the two-level galley as above, for consistency, 'two-banked'
  • Link ancient Egypt, Old Kingdom, Red Sea, Hatshepsut, naval ram, Carthaginian, Sicily
  • in a distinct split in the design of warships not entirely sure what is meant here
    • (See below).
  • and set trade vessels apart clarify that this was because trade vessels did not have rams
  • The Phoenicians used galleys for transports that were less elongated The 'that' appears to refer to the transports here
  • Carthaginian galley wrecks found off Sicily that date to the 3rd or 2nd century BC had a length to breadth ratio of 6:1, proportions that fell between the 4:1 of sailing merchant ships and the 8:1 or 10:1 of war galleys. This implies that these wrecks were not war galleys? I would make it explicit: 'Carthaginian trade galley wrecks'
  • The first true Mediterranean galleys when did these appear?
  • Not long after they appeared but the triaconters and penteconters were monoremes, so the appearance of the bireme is sprung over here. I would move the Shipbuilders, probably Phoenician, ... diērēs, or bireme here (as it is not directly followed up), and add a date.
    • Sources seem pretty clear that they could be both, at least the ones I've used. I've tried to rewrite the final paragraph of the section quite a bit to clarify development in a reasonably condensed way. I removed the mention of "trieres", though, since it was originally about later terminology which then got lost in further edits and moved "dieres" into a commentary note. And you're right about "Shipbuilders, probably..." This sentence probably caused most of the confusion since it was a thematic statement in an otherwise mostly chronological narrative. Peter Isotalo 09:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • penteconters disappeared altogether this is incorrect: penteconters fought at Salamis, and the smaller vessels of the Hellenistic era like the liburnians are arguably their successors.
  • In general, this section is a bit confusing: it appears to follow a division by civilization, but is not strict in doing so (e.g. Egypt, Phoenicians, then Minoans, back to Egypt, then Carthaginians and Greeks). I would argue that a chronological sequence makes more sense.
Trade and travel

Will pause here, will do the rest later. Constantine ✍ 10:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Isotalo: sorry for the delay, real life is a bit unpredictable currently. I've stricken through the addressed comments above. Here is my review until 'Design and construction', which I hope to get done later during the week Constantine ✍ 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient and medieval warfare
  • until the middle of the 2nd millennium BC had no real distinction from merchant freighters. perhaps 'until the middle of the 2nd millennium BC there was no real distinction between warships and merchant freighters.' or similar?
  • The later Athenian historian Thucydides replace 'later' with '5th-century BC'
  • while making them strong enough the relationship between shortening the length of the ship and its 'strength' (which should be closer specified) is unclear
  • more advanced states 'advanced' is an unclear and possibly loaded term when referring to polities; I think what you mean something like 'more organized states'? I'd go a step further and expand on it, something like 'more organized states capable of dedicating considerable resources to naval construction and a more systematic pursuit of naval warfare'...
  • including the Battle of Aegospotami in 405 BC, which sealed the defeat of Athens by Sparta and its allies. Salamis as the most important trireme battle should be mentioned here as well. Personally I would leave Aegospotami out, but if it is included, some context is necessary, as the average reader probably won't know the combatants of the Peloponnesian War.
  • sizable states with an advanced economy to build and maintain see my comment above about 'advanced' states, perhaps move this there? I would certainly recommend moving the entire The trireme was an advanced ship that was expensive to build and to maintain due its large crew.... years of experience at the oar to before Triremes fought several important engagements, which might also provide a suitable intro, after oarsmen were mostly free citizens who had years of experience at the oar to go a bit into Athenian naval power and its impact on Athenian democracy as context for the conflicts after.
Hellenistic era and rise of the Republic
  • Hellenistic era and rise of the Republic add 'Roman' before Republic ;)
  • The successor states of Alexander the Great's empire link the Diadochi somewhere here, and introduce the term 'Hellenistic era' that is on the section title
  • Ptolemy II add that he was ruler of Egypt
  • are considered by modern scholars
  • which included massive naval battles with hundreds of vessels and tens of thousands of soldiers, seamen, and rowers add Ecnomus here as the example par excellence?
  • Nothing about piracy? The two-three centuries before Actium were a golden age of piracy. Would also give a nice way to bring in lighter craft into the narrative, like the hemioliai or the liburnians
Roman Imperial era
  • fleet arm is a bit modern? would simply strike 'arm'
  • After Augustus' victory at Actium, most of the Roman fleet was dismantled and burned would add the reason why: the Mediterranean was a Roman lake, and no other power had access to its shores.
  • Add also that Actium marked the transition from the Republic to the Roman Empire under Augustus
  • galley crewmen themselves called themselves duplicate and something is missing
  • 'liburnian' is English, so no italics necessary.
  • included a trireme as the Roman flagship I think it bears emphasizing the point that a trireme is a flagship, i.e. the heaviest ship of the fleet, whereas a century ago it would have been considered as a light craft at Actium.
Early and High Middle Ages
  • A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages (c. 11th century). For reasons of chronological consistency, I'd recommend putting this at the end of the section, after the early Middle Ages are covered.
  • Link Early Muslim conquests, Arab-Byzantine wars, Emirate of Crete, Siege of Chandax, Constantinople (and add that it was the Byzantine capital)
  • a buildup of fleet, 'a buildup of fleets'?
  • The genitive for someone from al-Andalus is 'Andalusi'
  • base for (galley) attacks is the parenthesis necessary?
  • on Christian shipping add 'in the Aegean Sea'
  • raiding...by newly arrived Muslim invaders if they were raids they were not invasions, nor 'newly arrived'. If e.g. the Aghlabid and Fatimid raids are meant, I would mention and link them (as well as possibly the pirate emirates like Bari)
  • A mention of the Crusades is missing, where naval fleets played an auxiliary, but nevertheless important role. Even beyond the Levant, the permanent debilitation of Byzantium through the Fourth Crusade for example is important in explaining Venetian and Genoese dominance in war and trade during the 13th-15th centuries, as well as the emergence of the Ottomans later.
  • The decline of Byzantine naval power from the 11th century on should be mentioned in the context of the rise of the Italian maritime republics.
  • Do we know anything about Carolingian warships?
  • A mention of Horse transports in the Middle Ages should be made as well.
Late Middle Ages
Transition to sailing ships
  • required to replenish food stuffs far from food, it was water that was the crucial supply (and another reason why they stayed close to coasts).
Early modern war galleys
  • Relink Constantinople to Ottoman Constantinople or Istanbul as the former covers the Byzantine period mostly
  • Outside European and Middle Eastern waters, Spain built galleys to deal with pirates and privateers in both the Caribbean and the Philippines is repeated later at The Spanish used galleys to more success in their colonial possessions in the Caribbean and the Philippines to hunt pirates
  • Together they formed the largest galley navy in the Mediterranean in the early 17th century. Can we have some numbers for reference?
  • Recommend briefly explaining what a galleass was
Introduction of guns
  • it was the galley that was favored by the introduction of heavy naval guns. would add an 'initially' before favored here, since a section above has already made clear that the galley would lose out in the end.
  • generalizing of bronze cannons perhaps 'generalization of the use of bronze cannons'?
  • those dependent on them 'the militaries dependent on them'?
Zenith in the Mediterranean
Decline
  • Analogous to 'Zenith in the Mediterranean', suggest naming the section 'Decline in the Mediterranean'
  • virtually no naval battles between other nations either. dubious; at the very least the Venetians and Ottomans would disagree, at least until 1717. If the during this period means the 18th century, then this needs to be clarified.
  • I would hesitate in calling either the Papal or the Hospitaller navies 'major sea powers'. They fielded a squadron at best, when Venice and the Ottomans had dozens of ships.
  • the galley corps 'the French galley corps' for clarity
  • Few large-scale naval battles were fought in the Mediterranean...Venice, the Papal States, and the Knights of Malta were the only state fleets that maintained galleys some of this is already mentioned previously, suggest consolidating this information here.
Northern Europe
  • In the Italian Wars and Under King Henry VIII add dates
  • Link Dano-Swedish War
  • The section is titled so as to cover Northern Europe generally and provides a general operational context; the '18th-century Baltic revival' section should probably be a subsection of it? There is considerable overlap between the two sections, and most of '18th-century Baltic revival' covers things that do not pertain to the 18th century, so a consolidation and striking of the second header might be in order.
18th-century Baltic revival
  • Galleys were introduced to the Baltic Sea in the 16th century but the details of their designs are lacking due to the absence of records. Is already covered in the previous section
  • Mediterranean style vessel 'Mediterranean-style vessel'

Requesting withdrawal

[edit]

Thank you for your comments and reviewing, @Nikkimaria: @Harrias: @Parsecboy: @Cplakidas:. Unfortunately, I need to request a withdrawal of this FAC unless someone wants to step in and take it over. I feel I won't be able to any real improvements to the article for at least a month, perhaps two.

There's been an unexpected and somewhat rare pile-up of off-wiki stuff that is driving my stress levels up way too high. It's not an issue with the feedback as such, and nothing serious in my life. Just suddenly got a whole bunch of stuff on my plate right now. To my great chagrin, they're more important than an FAC, even one involving galleys. 😏

I'd be more than happy to re-nominate at a later date and after comments are addressed. Peter Isotalo 13:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that Peter but I understand and fully sympathize. If you need any input while preparing the next FAC, don't hesitate to ping me. Constantine ✍ 19:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Galley/archive1&oldid=1180808952"