Talk:Battle of Durazzo (1376)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Durazzo (1376)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Arberian2444 (talk · contribs) 22:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 17:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Arberian2444, I'll be taking this review and should have it completed by the end of the day! Fritzmann (message me) 17:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much! Arberian2444 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! When first making this article I wasn't sure if it should be labeled a battle, campaign or siege so do you think that it would be more appropriate to call it campaign or siege of Durazzo?Arberian2444 (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What is it called in the secondary sources you use? Fritzmann (message me) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

They mostly discuss how Louis is trying to gain back the territory and pressing his claims like here- "These Navarrese were mercenaries who had been in the service of Charles of Navarre and had been sent to Greece to press the claims of his brother, Louis of Evreux, to the Kingdom of Albania" Arberian2444 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In another it discusses it as a expedition in some- "Louis was preparing an expedition to conquer the Kingdom of Albania" and "Extensive preparations were made for the expedition, and almost a score of names of military contractors have come down to us in the enrolment lists of 1375-1376. Of the details of Louis's Albanian expedition little is known." Arberian2444 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

General Prose

• "and the Navarrese Company"?
• The second sentence of the lead is an incomplete sentence.
• The first sentence of Background is difficult to parse, and would be well-served if it were rewritten.
• Is Durrës equivalent to Durazzo? It is used interchangeably in the article, but without that explanation. Whichever usage is most common in English should be used consistently.
• The sentence beginning "Durrës held the last of the Angevins..." needs to be copyedited.
• "...but these documents have been lost to obscurity" which documents? I'm rather confused by the introduction of this clause at the end of the paragraph.
• "....and reestablish it began" this sentence cuts off abruptly. Should it say "began in x"?
• "In 1372 he planned to expel" Did he plan to expel or did he actually attempt to expel?
• The "at once" at the end of the second sentence is not necessary.
• Sentences should not begin with but like the one "but little..."
• Sometimes it is called the Navarre Company instead of the Navarrese Company, this should be standardized.
• The piece beginning "the four leaders..." is a grammatical mess.
• The final sentence of this paragraph is not a sentence.
• The first sentence of Aftermath is not a sentence.
• The final sentence of Aftermath is not a sentence.
• The Aftermath section could use general copyediting for brevity and flow.

Content

• The lead of the article does not adequately summarize all parts of the article.
• What is the difference between the Kingdom of Albania and the Principality of Albania?
• "The great final effort by Louis of Évreux to regain his right to rule" This does not pass Neutrality. I take the most umbrage with "great", but also the "right to rule" part does not seem historically impartial.
• "In 1372 he planned to expel" Did he plan to expel or did he actually attempt to expel?
• The sentence beginning "More soldiers were recruited..." is very obtuse and vague. From where were they recruited? What are the beginning and ending numbers of the Company? What does it mean that the "chief contingents" were "engaged"?
• Is there an explanation for the time gap between planning in 1372 (which was apparently for an expulsion "at once") and the battle in 1376?
• What kind of assistance was offered by the kings of Navarre and France? Were the Navarrese Companies the assistance, or was it monetary, or something else?
• What and when is the midsummer?
• For an article about a battle, I am surprised to find that there is no content about the battle itself.

Referencing

• I have extreme close paraphrasing and plagiarism concerns. These are present throughout the article. I have listed several below, but combined with prose and content concerns these mean the article will probably have to be entirely rewritten to comply with originality standards.

• Compare: "chief contingents and most important leaders were engaged in 1375 and 1376" from Ref 11 to the text "chief contingents and the most important leaders were engaged by 1375–1376"
• Also: "hired four companies of knights from Navarre, who are usually referred to as the Navarrese Company" from Ref 10 to the text "hired four companies of knights from Navarre who are referred to as the Navarrese Company"
• Also: "Louis received much assistance from his brother" from Ref 12 to the text "Louis received much assistance from his brother"
• Also: "lost in obscurity" from Ref 9 to the text "lost to obscurity"

• I have removed the See Also section, as every link therein was present in the article.
• There are several instances of egregious over-referencing with upwards of five citations for a brief statement.
• I have not performed source-integrity spot checks.

Summary This article requires major work to achieve Good Article status. It needs to be comprehensively rewritten to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing, as well as meet the quality of writing that is required for GA. I am also dubious of the broadness of the article, as there is no mention of the Battle of Durazzo in an article on the Battle of Durazzo. I will place the review on hold to allow the author time to respond, and am happy to help if they desire assistance in rewriting anything or in moving this article towards a GA pass. Fritzmann (message me) 18:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)