Talk:Battle of the Gates of Trajan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

I am sorry for the delay in getting to this point. I started the review at the beginning of November but other tasks got in the way of progress.

Firstly, you have some good information in the article, so from that view point the article is GA-class.

There are two problem areas that need to be addressed before GA can be considered:

• The text is quite difficult to understand in places, I am happy to work with you on this one, so I will go through each section in turn, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.
• You have footnotes, which is a requirement for GA. The problem for me is that they are written in (I think) Bulgarian script. They seem to refer to References that are in English script. I should be able to take a footnote such as Острогорски, История на византийската държава, с. 394 or Острогорски, История на византийската държава, с. 391-393 and relate that back to a reference. I cannot do it (I do not read Bulgarian, for a start). If you were to give the titles in the References in both English (done) and Bulgarian, I could close this "problem".

Yes, that can be fixed. What manner would you prefer: Ostrogorski, History of the Byzantine State (Istoriya na Vizantiiyskata darzhava, История на византийската държава), p. 394 or Ostrogorski, History of the Byzantine State, p 394?

Seeing the English and the Bulgarian side by side makes it much easier for me. Would it be too much work if the in-line citations stated. e.g. "Ostrogorski, History of the Byzantine State, p 394" and the source (was reference before I changed it) "Ostrogorsky, George (1998) (in Bulgarian). History of the Byzantine state. Sofia: Academic Press Marin Drinov. ISBN 954-8079-92-5." (Острогорски, George (1998). Istoriya na Vizantiiyskata darzhava, История на византийската държава) ", that way you would keep some Bulgarian text?

I think I have done that. I will address the other issues in the evening :) --Gligan (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Historical sources -

 Done Pyrotec (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• What is a Bitola inscription?

  I am not sure that "Except" is the right word at the start. I believe that replaceing "Except for the" with "In addition to the". Is that what is ment?

Yes, "in addition to the" would be the correct phrase. The Bitola inscription is a stone inscription of Ivan Vladislav, the last ruler of the First Empire. In fact it has an article and it seems I have forgotten to put the link. If you think it would be better, I might put a note marked with a letter to explain it in short.

Thanks, I'll tick off these two. You can add more if you like. Pyrotec (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) - Origins of the conflict -

• The four brothers Samuil and Aron (the two eldest brothers David and Moses) are mentioned by name without any explanation of who they are. You need to give some details about them.

Well, the four brothers ruled in a tetrachy and generally I can explain who they are if we think of a proper way to link that with the article. We can probably make a few sentences about how Bulgaria was ruled after the fall of Preslav in 971.

That sounds a good way forward. Pyrotec (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I put one more paragraph which I hope clarifies that issue. --Gligan (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• This section is confusing. In the first paragraph Bulgaria seems to be attacking Byzantium and that also seems to be the case in the first half of the second paragraph. Preslav is in Bulgaria so there is a switch to Byzantium doing the attacking. That change is not made clear.

Probably the reason for the confusion is my stupid English :) The Bulgarians took the initiative of the war in 976 when John Tzimisces died. During the Bulgarian campaign of 976 Preslav was reconquered by the Bulgarian army and between that year and 986 the Byzantines were unable to make any offensive moves because of the uncertainty of Basil II's position to the throne. And the Byzantine attack followed only in 986. Perhaps to make it clear we should add one more paragraph about the fall of Preslav to the Byzantines in 971 and the forceful abdication of Boris II, the legitimate emperor, in Constantinople later that year.

That sounds a good way forward. Pyrotec (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars#Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria has some useful information, could you make use of some of it? The only problem is the lack of references in that section. Pyrotec (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I am a little busy today and will not be able to do anything but tomorrow is a free day to me and will fix the footnotes. --Gligan (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) - Siege of Sredets -

• In: "According to Leo Diaconus the objective of their Emperor was to cope with the Bulgarians with one strike.[15][13]" could be change "cope" to be stronger word such as "subdue", "defeat", "attack"?

I changed "cope with" with "subdue". It is better like that ;-) --Gligan (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Aftermath -

• I wikilinked monocracy to Monarchy is that the correct interpretation, Autocracy is another possibility?

Well, by monocracy it should be understood "ruling alone" because it was not unusual in the Byzantine (and even Bulgarian) history the emperor to have co-emperors or other persons who highly influence the emperor's actions and decisions. In the lead section it is said that Basil II's namesake Basil heavily influenced his first years of the reign and then he hardly coped with Bardas Skleros and then after the battle his monocracy that was achieved after he crushed Skleros was shaken with another rebellion.--Gligan (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• Appears to be generally compliant.

At this point, I have finished my initial review. I will await to see the results of any corrective actions, before making any decisions. Pyrotec (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A short, but interesting well-referenced and well-illustrated, article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Yes, but in Bulgarian.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, but in Bulgarian.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well-illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well-illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article and thanks for readily fixing the "problems". I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)