Wikipedia:Peer review/Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria/archive1

Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have expanded the article but my style is rough and I am sure I have made some grammar and stylistic (and probably spelling :S) mistakes which need to be addressed. I would like to know whether the article can be submitted for a GA or (doubtfully) FA review. I would welcome and address (if possible) all suggestions for further improvement.

Thanks, Gligan (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start the peer review, although others are welcome to join. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It has been speculated that Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople was an illegitimate son of Ivan Shishman." -- It has been is generally considered a weasel term, and the speculation is unreferenced. Could you please either add more than one reference, or cite a specific source explicitly?

I will try to find a source. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a work of Plamen Pavlov on Joseph II. It is available in the Internet but is in Bulgarian. If "It has been" is inappropriate, change it. --Gligan (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The peer reviewer tool notes that you have mixed British and American English. You should decide on one and standardize it.

I use British English, if there is American English, then it should be corrected. Can you point out the words that need to be corrected? --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An example is "a few kilometers". This gives more specific examples. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it. I usually use -ize and meter instead of metre because since I started editing, my British terms were several times corrected to the American. That I can bear, but I cannot stand spelling neighbour or colour the American way... --Gligan (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images look fine, all PD. However, having ALT texts would be better in my opinion.

I have added alternative text to the images but since this is my first time, I don't know whether I have done it properly. Perhaps you should check that. --Gligan (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my starting review. I'll take a look at the prose momentarily. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are Shishman, Alexander, etc. family names? If so, they should be used instead of the full names. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian rulers, especially during the Second Empire are known by the two names. For example, there was a ruler Ivan Asen III but Ivan Shishman cannot be referred to as Ivan VII or Ivan VII Shishman (as his number should have been if the previous rulers were regarded only as "Ivan"). --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In text references would work better if you used the Harv template family, as if done properly they will create links to the correct source in your bibliography. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very skilful in doing things properly :D:D Probably you should make one or two references with that template, so that I can have an example to follow. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a couple for you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gligan (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them seem to be broken (i.e. not linking). If you have a transcription in the "last" field then it should be included in the harv template, or moved to the "first" field. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and what about the references "Божилов, Гюзелев"? I simply don't know what to do in that case, because both are equally important to be mentioned in the note but I don't know whether both names can be added in the "last" section. The same problem is with "Георгиева, Генчев 1999". What do you suggest? --Gligan (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed one. Harv is a headache to write, but very useful for readers. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is done now. --Gligan (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref number 11 (as of current revision) is only 1987 and thus broken. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

I've done a quick copyedit as well. You may want to double check that I didn't change the meaning. Your style relies heavily on simple sentences, so I'd suggest getting a copyedit and help with someone from the Copyeditor's Guild to take a look before you go ahead with a nomination.

The meaning is not changed, thank you for the copyedit; it seems that the article really needed it. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is one statement that is unsourced and possibly contentious. I've tagged it with a "Who" tag.

Yes, that is your first remark, I will try to find a source. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Culture and Religion" could probably be its own section, as he himself was not a major figure in it.

My logic for including it as a subsection is that it refers to the culture and religion duing his rule, it includes the progress done in that period; while the following sections deal with legends and mythology that have no historical ground. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems complete enough for a GA, but for FA I'd expect a bit more biographical information, if possible. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the main problem with the medieval Bulgarian rulers and history as a whole - there are simply not enough primary sources; the Bulgarian archives were destroyed and the sources (almost all of them foreign - mainly Byzantine) are incomplete and often inaccurate. Thank you for the work you have done so far :) --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And something else - you have used "Hmm" on enlightener. That is the closest English term about the people who perticipated in the National Revival Period during the Ottoman rule; called in Bulgarian будители (something like "those who awake"). Actually Paisius of Hilendar was considered to be the first enlightener. --Gligan (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to know. Is that the standard translation? Side note, you may want to check to see if all of your references have the publisher, ISBN, location etc. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the standard translation, I have never seen any other. I have added a note concerning the term. As for the references, I have added the whole information I could find. Some of the earlier books, especially the Bulgarian (but probably from the other socialist countries), simply have no ISBN. I found an url of the Delev book and I added it but the location is not mentioned, although I am 99,9% sure it is Sofia. --Gligan (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in WorldCat for that sort of information. See http://www.worldcat.org. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even there the location of Delev's book is not mentioned :) --Gligan (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]