Wikipedia:Peer review/Romania in the Middle Ages/archive1

Romania in the Middle Ages edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, upon the suggestion of User:Tim riley, I would like to try to bring it to FAC status. Reviews from other editors who are interested in the history of this part of the world would be very helpful. Moreover, I am not a native English speaker. Therefore I am sure that the article needs some improvement in this regard, too. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley I reviewed and promoted this article at GA stage. I shall be happy to join in this peer review, but in the circumstances I think I should give other reviewers first shot at it. Tim riley (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article summarizes a huge amount of data of a certain sort and must have involved a great deal of work. I know little about the history of Romania (except a little from the 20th century), and it would be good if a content expert also commented. However, I can make suggestions about prose and style issues and give my general impressions.

As huge as this article is, it struck me as narrow, and I wonder if it needs a different title, something like "Military and Political History of Romania in the Middle Ages". It is limited mainly to major political and military events and does not seem to me to be a comprehensive account of Romania in the Middle Ages. It may be that sources for details about other kinds of things are scarce or non-existent, but I couldn't help wondering as I read this how people lived in these times and places. Missing from this account is data about ordinary life, food, work, domestic arrangements, entertainment, customs, dress, child-rearing, shelter, transportation, and so on. What I really do not get from this article is any sense of what life was like for anybody who lived in Romania in the Middle Ages. Did it make any difference to most people who the rulers were?

First of all, thank you for your comments. Your hard work clearly contributes to the further improvement of the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although a consensus seems to exist within WP community, that the "History of..." articles describe mainly the major political and military events of a cerain territory (e.g., History of Lithuania (1219–1295), History of Poland (1945–1989)), I agree that some more emphasize should be made on the features of social and economic development. Therefore, I will try to add some further information to the existing ones. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to make the heads and subheads more telegraphic. For example, "From Mongol invasion to emergence of the Ottoman Empire (1242–1396)" could become "Mongols to Ottomans (1242–1396)", and "Confines Tartarorum: the westernmost borderlands of the Golden Horde" could become "Golden Horde".

Done - alternative solution (the westernmost position of the territory within the Golden Horde is significant, Mongols to Ottomans would be misleading, taking into account the next head in the article). Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"At the end of the 8th century... ". - Addition of a no-break code prevents numbers and units from being awkwardly separated by line-break on computer screens. I added one to 8th century, but many others need to be added throughout the article. WP:NBSP has details.

Done

Wikipedia uses double quotation marks of the straight kind rather than single marks of the curly kind; i.e., "counties" and "seats". Ditto for other instances of single quotes in the article. Wherever they occur, the double curly quotes should also be changed to straight quotation marks. WP:MOS#Quotation marks has details.

Done Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dab tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds three links in the main text that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

Done (the Medieval Greek expression or link which is still marked as an existing link going to disambiguation pages is not included in the article, that is I have not been able to find it.) Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The counts in Transylvania were subordinated to a special royal official called voivode... " - I'm not sure what "count" refers to in this context. The link goes to Župa#"Ispán" in Kingdom of Hungary, but that doesn't help much. By "counts" do you mean counties or subdivisions of counties or something else? Are "counts" another kind of official, for example?

Done (I hope) Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The first independent Romanian state, Wallachia, was created when Basarab I (c. 1310–1352) terminated the suzerainty... " - Link suzerainty on first use? I think many readers will not know what it means.

Done Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I think it might be useful to insert a map of the region at this point in the narrative. This might not include political boundaries but would need to show the rivers and mountains named in this section. That would give the reader a grasp on the size of the region and the natural boundaries that come into play in migrations and the formation of territories.

Done - two physical maps and a map of the historical regions of Romania have been added. Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A specially appointed royal official, called voivode, who were to become the principal of Transylvanian counts, was first attested in 1176." - Here again I am not sure what is meant by "counts".

Done (see above, in the Lead) Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The number of casualties has been disputed, but even the most prudent estimates do not go below 15 or 20 percent." - Should "of the total population" be added to the end of this sentence?

Done Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than adding a "See also" link to the bottom of this section, I'd suggest linking "their invasion" in the last sentence of the section to Mongol invasion of Europe.

Undone - the "see also" items are necessery in order to emphasize the importance of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banat, Crişana, Maramureş and Transylvania

I would suggesting working the "see also" items at the end of this section into the main text as wikilinks.

Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of Wallachia

Same comment as above about the "see also" items.

Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of Moldavia

"who crossed the Carpathians while hunting an aurochs" - Link aurochs?

Done Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The territorial unification of Moldavia had been completed by the reign of Roman I Muşat (1391–1394)." - I would alter this to straight past tense, "was" instead of "had been" and merge this sentence (an orphan one-sentence paragraph) with the paragraph above it.

Done Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment as above about the "see also" items.

Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banat, Crişana, Maramureş and Transylvania

"thus a vast number of the dwarf-holders" - I don't think "dwarf-holders" is the actual term. Do you mean small land-holders, perhaps?

Done Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1514 ten thousands of peasants" - It's not clear whether this means 10,000 or "tens of thousands".

Done Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment about the "see also" items.

Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wallachia

Same comment about the "see also" items.

Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop at this point with my line-by-line comments and small proofing changes. However, it would be a good idea to have a copyeditor go through the article one more time to look for small errors in grammar and syntax in the lower sections. I did not find a lot of these in the upper sections, but some were scattered here and there, and I assume there are more. I fixed the ones I noticed, including replacing many hyphens with en dashes in page ranges and date ranges.

References

The bibliographical data should include the place of publication as well as the publisher. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.

Undone The bibliographical data always include all the relevant data that are necessery to identify the referred sources and to decide whether they are reliable (author, year of issue, title, publisher, ISBN). The place or places of publication are not necessary for these purposes, therefore including this piece of information would not add any further value. Borsoka (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Siège de Nicopolis.jpg should be moved up a bit to prevent it from overlapping two sections. MOS:IMAGES has details.

If you decide to take this to FAC at some point, all of the image licenses will be examined closely. It's wise to check all of these ahead of time to make sure the image-description pages are as complete and accurate as possible. Spot-checking, I see that File:Tara Moldovei map.png does not say where the base map came from or what reliable source supports the information on the map. File:StefancelMare.jpg is tagged with a "lacks author information" note. File:Pilatusdracula.jpg looks fine, but File:Siège de Nicopolis.jpg has a "lacks author information" tag. All of the image-description pages need to be checked to make sure they are OK.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note Finetooth's comment about copy editing. I shall be happy to do this if nobody else wishes to take it on. By all means remind me in a day or two if nobody does. Tim riley (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]