# Talk:Tiepolo conspiracy

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiepolo conspiracy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 17:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 03:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 

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: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Comments

...nobles and magnates... What is the difference? A link to Venetian nobility?
Merchant magnates are meant, added that. The link in 'patrician class' already goes to Venetian nobility. Constantine   ✍  20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
...which generally controlled politics Why generally?
Have rephrased to 'dominated politics', as the political role of the commoners was negligible. Constantine   ✍  20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I would shortly (in a sentence) introduce the office of doge and the procedure of election before Tiepolo's election is mentioned.
Good point, I added a section summarizing the Republic's political structure. Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
...to limit the Doge's power through the six ducal councillors... An explanation with two or three words? ("...through strengthening the authority of the six ducal councillors/through granting a veto right to the six ducal councillors/...)
Added a clarification. Constantine   ✍  20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
...over the salt monopoly... Whose?
Clarified. Constantine   ✍  13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...with Charles, Count of Valois to launch a crusade for the reconquest of Constantinople and the re-establishment of the Latin Empire... I would rephrase to be more informative: "...with Charles of Valois, the claimant to the defunct Latin Empire of Constantinople, to launch a crusade against the Byzantines who had reconquered Constantinople, previously an important center of Venetian commerce...", or something similar.
Good point, added some clarifications in that direction. Constantine   ✍  20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
At the same time, Venice was embroiled in conflict....At the same time, Gradenigo presided over a major reform... Rephrase.
Done. Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The settlement of the Serrata... Delete "settlement of the".
Removed. Constantine   ✍  13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete "or Bocho".
Done.  Constantine   ✍  13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
At least one later source however claims that the Boccono's followers were unhappy at the election of Gradenigo as Doge rather than Giacomo Tiepolo, the commoners' preferred candidate. Is this necessary?
It is in the context of commoner loyalism towards the Tiepolos as putative 'champions of the common folk'. Since this is mentioned earlier, however, I've shortened it. Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Link Dujam II Frankopan to Count Doimo of Veglia.
Done. Constantine   ✍  13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...prohibited the Dalmatian nobles from holding seats... We are not informed that Doimo of Veglia is a Dalmatian noble.
Added. Constantine   ✍  13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...the younger Tiepolo... Is the adjective necessary?
Removed. Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Introduce the Scuola Grande della Carità when it is first mentioned, and delete the introduction at it second mention.
Done. Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
...what befell the Querini column... Why not past perfect?
Fixed. Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Section "Attempted coup" refers to incidents indicating that commoners supported the government against Tiepolo whereas previous section presents him as a politicians supported by the commoners. Could you solve this contradiction?
See the 'Historiography' section; the commoners support for the loyalists has certainly been exaggerated in the historiography for political purposes. Conversely, it is clear that Tiepolo's popularity was not enough to lead to a major rebellion (or rather the conspirators, not really being on the people's side but seeking power for themselves, did not bother to foment one). Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
That the painters' guild fought against Tiepolo is only mentioned in section "Aftermath".
Added earlier in the text as well. Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The title of Gullino's book (listed in section "Further reading") indicates that there are historians who regard the conspiracy as an attempt by aristocrats from the Terraferma to conquer Venice. I miss this interpretation from the article.  Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a deliberate exaggeration: what is alluded here are the links of the leading families to the (not yet existent) Terraferma, and the participation of foreigners in the coup attempt (Badoer's column). Constantine   ✍  13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. My stupidity. Borsoka (talk)
References 1, 16, 17, 42 checked. Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Image review

File:Vecia del Morter.jpg: I am not sure that its publication is fully in line with the special Italian copyright laws, but I am not an expert of the issue. Could you clarify it? Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, it is an anonymous sculpture dating to 1841, so the work itself is definitely in the public domain. The only obstacle I can think of is freedom of panorama, which in theory doesn't exist in Italy and is supposed to be very restrictive for cultural monuments. However, a literal application of the relevant law would make any and all photos of anything of 'cultural importance' illegal in Italy. We have plenty of featured articles in WP, including the current main article, that feature photos of old monuments, so I suppose it is a stipulation more honoured in the breach than the observance. Based on  this, to the best of my knowledge, the image is correctly licensed, provided (AGF) that the uploader also took it. Constantine   ✍  15:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Source review

Why is Hazlitt (1915) still regarded a reliable source?
Hazlitt's work is actually older than that, dating to the 1860s in its first editions. It is only used for narrative parts of the history, and is itself based on Samuele Romanin's history of Venice, which is the starting point for all modern histories of the Republic. I hesitated before using it, but it is often the case that modern works will not be as detailed in their descriptions of events, as they tend to summarize the very detailed narrative histories that were largely written in the 19th century and focus mostly on new interpretations or bringing in new sources (e.g. non-Venetian ones) or new techniques (archaeology, forensics, etc) to supplement and illuminate the narrative. I have seen a lot of modern sources (including Romano 2024, for example) that reference Romanin's work directly, so I don't think the age of the source is really an issue, if used with awareness of its limitations. Constantine   ✍  15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Romano (2024): location is missing. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Added location. Constantine   ✍  15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I have addressed the comments above, and await further feedback. In the meantime, have a happy new year and a good time with your loved ones! Constantine   ✍  16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I was checking the English language sources to confirm that "Tiepolo conspiracy" is indeed the common name in English since "conspiracy" is usually a word to avoid on Wikipedia. Looks like the sources hold out. Adding them here in case anyone is curious:

Lane: "Tiepolo-Querini conspiracy"
Hazlitt: "Quirini-Tiepolo Conspiracy"
Nicol: "Tiepolo ... conspiracy"
Romano: uses revolt/rebellion too but most commonly "conspiracy"
czar 16:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)