Talk:1453

Untitled

It came to my attention that the date the Fall of Constantinople happened, was May 29 according to Julian and not Gregorian calendar. It was a Tuesday. Should the date change to June 7 or note the different calendar? --geraki 20:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1453 as a number is a prime number SkippyUK 11:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ConstantinoXI.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 19:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1453, a "mystery eruption" cooled the northern hemisphere?

• Source: Abbott, Peter M.; Plunkett, Gill; Corona, Christophe; Chellman, Nathan J.; McConnell, Joseph R.; Pilcher, John R.; Stoffel, Markus; Sigl, Michael (March 4, 2021). "Cryptotephra from the Icelandic Veiðivötn 1477 CE Eruption in a Greenland Ice Core: Confirming the Dating of Volcanic Events in the 1450s CE and Assessing the Eruption's Climatic Impact". Climate of the Past. 17 (2): 565–585. Bibcode:2021CliPa..17..565A. doi:10.5194/cp-17-565-2021. ISSN 1814-9324. S2CID 233267071.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Macrobdella decora

5x expanded by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 101 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is a particularly intriguing hook. Assuming good faith on the book sources for an article that has been expanded 5x in the week before nomination. EchetusXe 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Good job

I do not think I have ever seen a year article this developed and worth reading. Brava! Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I hope this inspires more people to try their hand at improving year articles. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1453/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 09:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Spartathenian (talk · contribs) 01:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be happy to do this review. The year marks a crossroads in world history. Spartathenian (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

General comments

I think the three lists—chronological events, births and deaths—should be converted to prose. Some of the events are already discussed in later sections. As far as the births are concerned, only one had real significance in 1453. That was Edward of Westminster, whose alleged illegitimacy was, from his birth, a major factor in the forthcoming Wars of the Roses. I think there were two significant deaths: Constantine XI Palaiologos, the last de facto Byzantine emperor, was killed in the final stages of the siege; and Shrewsbury was killed at Castillon.

The second paragraph of the lead is very disjointed with a whole range of topics mentioned one after the other. The second sentence is confusing as the papal bull was against the Ottomans, and had nothing to do with the situation in Italy.

The use of "holdout" is not in keeping with its normal context of contract negotiation. Where the English forces held out in Gascony, for example, you could say that their remaining garrisons were overcome.

There is a separate section on Italy, but the rest of Western Europe is combined. I would have separate sections for each of Burgundy, England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire.

There is very little in the article about England, although it was a time of considerable historical importance with the Wars of the Roses imminent. Neither Margaret of Anjou nor Duke Richard of York are mentioned. A summary of the main events concerning England that year would be:

• The Battle of Castillon, about 25 miles east of Bordeaux, was fought on 17 July. An English force from Bordeaux tried to raise the siege but was annihilated by superior French artillery. Their commander, Shrewsbury, was killed. In August, news of Constantinople finally reached London. It was in August that Henry VI became insane, losing all contact with reality. It has been suggested that he was badly affected by the news of Castillon and, possibly, of Constantinople. Unrest escalated in England. Pitched battles were fought in the north between the Percy and Neville factions.

• On 13 October, Edward of Westminster was born. The Yorkists, led by Duke Richard, refused to accept him as the King's son, and denounced him as a bastard. Queen Margaret chose the Duke of Somerset, who was probably the real father, as Edward's godfather.

• On 19 October, the French captured Bordeaux and the English were expelled from Guyenne, leaving Calais (until 1558) and the Channel Islands as their only French possessions. This marked the end of the Hundred Years War.

• In November, the Duke of Norfolk called for the impeachment of Somerset for corruption and for his incompetence in France. Somerset was confined in the Tower.

I mentioned above that news of Constantinople didn't reach London until August. Venice received the news on 29 June, over a month after the Ottoman victory, and Rome on 8 July. It would be worth saying something about communications.

GA criteria

1a. Prose

The prose passages are generally satisfactory, although it might benefit from thorough copyediting to iron out phrases like A recent series of annual floods worsened in central China, with the Yellow River devastating Henan which might confuse readers. I would reword this example along the lines of "The Yellow River's annual floods had worsened in recent years, and had devastated parts of central China including Henan".

1b. MoS

As described above, the second paragraph of the lead needs attention.

2. Verification with no OR

The list of references is fine, and I've no reason to think there is any OR or COPYVIO. There are sufficient citations but the vast majority are from books that I can't access at present. I'm supposed to check a sample of citations but, instead, I've looked up reviews of several books and I'm satisfied that these are all reputable sources, not merely reliable. To tick this particular box, however, could you please check FN 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45 to ensure they all verify the statements they support. If you can't access some of them yourself, please substitute others for them. Thank you.

3. Broad in its coverage

As mentioned above, I think there is a shortage of English history, and it be worth double-checking other countries like Spain, Portugal, Sweden, etc. In terms of scope, that is fine because it's all about this one year. Summary style is okay except for my reservations about the three chronological lists.

4. NPOV

As with prose, I think copyediting will help here in certain areas. For example, desperate to avoid being overthrown for his youth and the somewhat unstable political legitimacy of the Jingtai Emperor both look a bit POV-ish, and could do with a mention of whose opinions they represent. On the whole, NPOV is okay, but there are sentences or phrase like these where we could use a little more sourcing.

5. Stability

No problems.

6. Images

The four images displayed are all relevant, and I've checked their details to make sure they are legit. They all seem fine to me. I think, for a historical article of this type, that more images should be used throughout the article. Far and away the major figure of 1453 was Mehmed II, so I'd place his image at the top, above the Years box, with a suitable caption. Elsewhere, images of other important people like Henry VI, Sforza, Philip the Good would help.

Summary

It could be argued that this article should be classified as a list, despite the prose sections. If you think the chronological lists should be retained, then I will need to seek a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer, in case there is some policy or guideline that I'm unaware of. I will place it on hold for now, though, to give you time to consider the points raised. I don't do deadlines, so please take your time. I've got everything on watch, but please contact me if you need to ask me anything. Good luck and best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)