Talk:Alexios V of Trebizond/GA1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ichthyovenator in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 08:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- The article uses what sources are available, these are uniformly relevant and scholarly, apart from the canonization source, which is however still WP:RS for this topic.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- @Ichthyovenator: I've looked at the sources and couldn't find anything of major importance missing. The only things that should be added IMO are a mention that the name 'Skantarios' was a Turkish form of 'Alexander', and the inclusion of Sergei Karpov's article from 2012 on the possible capture of Trebizond by Uzun Hasan, which likely was the actual reason for the execution of the Trapezuntian imperial family. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: I've added some notes about Skantarios to the note for his name and the information concerning Uzun Hasan. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks good. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: I've added some notes about Skantarios to the note for his name and the information concerning Uzun Hasan. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator: I've looked at the sources and couldn't find anything of major importance missing. The only things that should be added IMO are a mention that the name 'Skantarios' was a Turkish form of 'Alexander', and the inclusion of Sergei Karpov's article from 2012 on the possible capture of Trebizond by Uzun Hasan, which likely was the actual reason for the execution of the Trapezuntian imperial family. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Not really applicable, difficult to come by images for the topic. There is an infobox, however.
- Yeah, I tried to find images but the only portrait that has ever been made of this poor guy appears to be the Ecumenical Patriarchate's "official" icon for David, David's sons and Alexios, made in 2013 and that's 1) not exactly contemporary and 2) not free to use I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator: Yeah, you could include this as a non-free image, with reduced resolution under a WP:FAIRUSE claim, but this is not obligatory. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: If it was free to use under some public domain or creative commons rationale I'd include it straight away but I'm not sure the rationale works out in this case because in my mind the image can't be based on any contemporary depiction (unless those exist somewhere?) of any of the figures depicted so it's really just a modern fantasy depiction. If you think it's okay I could add it in though (maybe both here and for David?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator: well, since Alexios and David were canonized, it is an acceptable representation. Icons are by definition highly stylized, so it being a non-contemporary depiction doesn't matter so much. I would be in favour of including it, but this does not prejudice the outcome of the GAN. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: If it was free to use under some public domain or creative commons rationale I'd include it straight away but I'm not sure the rationale works out in this case because in my mind the image can't be based on any contemporary depiction (unless those exist somewhere?) of any of the figures depicted so it's really just a modern fantasy depiction. If you think it's okay I could add it in though (maybe both here and for David?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator: Yeah, you could include this as a non-free image, with reduced resolution under a WP:FAIRUSE claim, but this is not obligatory. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I tried to find images but the only portrait that has ever been made of this poor guy appears to be the Ecumenical Patriarchate's "official" icon for David, David's sons and Alexios, made in 2013 and that's 1) not exactly contemporary and 2) not free to use I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not really applicable, difficult to come by images for the topic. There is an infobox, however.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Nice piece of work on an otherwise ignored figure. Well done! Constantine ✍ 20:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thank you for reviewing! As a sidenote I've gone ahead and added Alexios' portrait from the icon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)