Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fortress of Klis

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result was no consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerenetalk 08:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klis Fortress edit

Nominator(s): Kebeta (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I belive that it meets all of the requirements. The architecture section was expanded shortly after the article passed GA, so there might be some problems regarding prose & grammar in that section. Kebeta (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean to cite a name of a section, or? Kebeta (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, section name. This is somewhat unusual, but e.g. {{cite book}} supports it (parameters chapter and trans_chapter). Of course, {{cite book}} is not meant to be used for abbreviated refs, which is the case here. GregorB (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote to AustralianRupert, I replaced "cite book" with "cite web", deleted book from Bibliography, and inserted that book into Further reading. Is this o.k. to you? Kebeta (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It is still a bit inconvenient, since the text is really large, but AFAIK there are no requirements on identifying part of a source (such as section/page number) when this source is a web page and not a book. GregorB (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • There are no dab links, and ext links all work (no action required);  Done
    • Some images have alt text, but others don't (for instance the 3D display of Klis Fortress). It is not a requirement for A class at the moment, but it may become so later, so can I suggest adding it in? WP:ALT might help to show what is needed. Also follow this link to see which images have alt text and which don't: [1];
      • All images within a body of the article (not in the Infobox Military Structure) have alt text.  Done
    • I agree with Yellowmonkey's comment about the Listes source cited in Footnote # 4. That is a very large page range and I feel you need to be more specific about what page is used as the reference for these points;
      • See above (comment of user YellowMonkey).  Done
        • Unfortunately, in my opinion, I think that this is an issue that might stand in the way of this article being promoted. You really need to be able to cite the exact page numbers of where you got the information from, otherwise how do you know that the book actually states what the citations have been provided for? My only suggestion as to how this can be solved is to find other sources for those citations. Or, failing that, is there some way you can get a hold of a hard copy version of the book through your local library or via an online book service (perhaps this link might help: [2]). Sorry, this isn't much help. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can we cite a web page instead of a book? On the bottom of the web page there is a note which says that the source is "Klis: Prošlost, Toponimi, Govor" by Srećko Listeš.
            • I think that would be acceptable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • O.K. I replaced "cite book" with "cite web", deleted book from Bibliography, and inserted that book into Further reading. Kebeta (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't: they should be consistent (either all with or all without, I don't believe there is a preferred style, just a need for consistency);
      • 3 out of 20 books don't have hyphens within ISBNs, and I can't find thear ISBNs with hyphens. What should I do? Kebeta (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • is it necessary to separate the Bibliography like that? Use of terms like "foreign" and "domestic" I think should be avoided as what classifies as foreign and what classifies as Domestic? If you want to break them up, perhaps do so by language rather than origin or point of view;  Done
    • The titles of the sources are capitalised inconsistently. For example compare Collection with Bousfield. They should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;  Done
    • Can you provide a citation for Note # 1? — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been dealt with. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AustralianRupert for your review, any new remarks on improving the article are appreciated. Kebeta (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "...many Croatia's rulers." Check typo.
      • I don't see typo error. Can you point it?
    • "The reign of his successor, Duke Trpimir I, from the House of Trpimirović, is significant for spreading Christianity, as he built a fortress, a church and the first Benedictine monastery in Croatia in Rižinice under Klis." This is a bit klunky, with too many phrases: consider splitting it into two sentences. "Under Klis" is also a bit confusing. Below the fortress in the valley? Actually under the fortress dug into the mountain? Please clarify. Done
    • " During the reign of the first Croatian king Tomislav, the castle of Klis along with Biograd, was his chief residence." This doesn't scan well, maybe "...Klis and Biograd were his chief residences"? Done
    • "In March, 1242, at Klis Fortress, Tatars under the leadership of Kadan suffered a major defeat, while in pursuit of a Hungarian army led by King Béla IV of Hungary." One comma is necessary in "...at Klis Fortress, Tatars...". The rest are unnecessary. Done
    • "After failing against Croatian forces, the Mongols retreated and Béla IV rewarded Croatian towns and nobility with a substantial amount of riches." Grammar is a bit off again. Should be something like "After their defeat by Croatian forces, the Mongols retreated, and Béla IV rewarded many Croatian towns and nobles with substantial riches." This is also too vague - what are 'substantial riches'? How does this relate to Klis, was it one of those towns? Done
    • Regarding the previous excerpt, it is not clear to a novice reader that Tartars are Mongols in this context. Done
    • "Klis Fortress is probably best known for its defense against the Ottoman Empire in the early 16th century." Perhaps "Ottoman invasion of Europe in the early 16th century"? Needs a link to the invasion. Done
    • "...two-and-half..." should be "two and a half". Done
    • "...as the elite Croatian militant sect" -> "...as an elite Croatian militant sect". the implies singular. Done
    • "...thus moving the border of Christian and Muslim Europe further east..." -> "...thus moving the border between Christian and Muslim Europe further east..." Done
    • "The Venetians restored and additionally enlarged the fortress, which was soon after conquered by the Austrians." -> "The Venetians restored and enlarged the fortress but it was the conquered by the Austrians shortly thereafter." Conquered in what year? Is there a link to the siege, battle or campaign in which it was conquered? Done
    • "Today, Klis Fortress is a tourist attraction in Croatia, where the visitors to this historic military structure can see an array of arms, armor, and traditional uniforms in a museum inside the fortress." is klunky. Perhaps "Today, Klis Fortress contains a museum where visitors to this historic military structure can see an array of arms, armor, and traditional uniforms." Done
    • This is not a comprehensive list of problems as it only covers the introduction. A review is not meant to be a copyedit: I am trying to point out examples of areas needing improvement.
    • If it seems I am being too harsh, please note that I check article text against one standard: Featured article criteria. The content of this article is fascinating, but it needs thorough copyediting. I eagerly look forward to seeing it with some more polish. Doug (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug for your thorough review. I am actually glad for you being too harsh, because I want to improve this article the best I can, and any remark is appreciated. Please try to understand that I can't compete with professional English required for Featured article criteria. I will try to implement all your remarks, but you can also edit the article by your self. I don't own the article. I am glad that you find the content of this article fascinating, and I hope that the wiki community will bring it one day to a Featured article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid I don't have the time any more to comprehensively copyedit articles and that is why I dedicate my time to reviews and provide some pointers for improvement. Bear in mind that editing the article is generally taken to invalidate a vote in the review process. Perhaps you can enlist a copyeditor to review and act on the comments you receive here. Doug (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Doug for your review and for your advice. A couple of editors from the "Guild of Copy Editors", have already helped within the copyediting by now. I guess this was the best we could do. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Your lead could do with a little trimming; it reads a little like a tourist pamphlet on the fortress. For example, why do we need to know that the person x's reign spread Christianity into the kingdom, or who controlled territory in the area and when, or that "A byword regarding the resistance of Klis and its people's strength survives: It is difficult for Klis because it is on the rock and it is difficult for the rock because Klis is on it."? If it doesn't briefly outline the fortress's history I say it should be trimmed out and explained in detail in the body. If you have a good reason for having it in the article lead, then I will reconsider.
      • The main point of this fortress is its position, not arhitecture or something else. We are not talking only about geographic position (perched on an isolated rocky eminence, inaccessible on three sides), but also about a political position. The fortress was always a kind of border between medieval states. For example, during Littoral Croatian Duchy, Klis was in the hands of Croatians and the near by city of Split and others dalmatians town were controlled by the Byzantine Empire. Although just a few km from the sea, Klis was mainly in continental part (controlled by....), as opposed to a littoral part (controlled by....). As such it greatly contributed to a developement of a Croatian society, religion and state it self. In order to be NPOV the best I can, I avoided such statements in the article if I didn't found a good realible english source written by a foreign writer. "The person x's reign spread Christianity into the kingdom from the Klis Fortress" is sourced and relevant not only to the fortress's history, but to wider area also. And the centre of that area (later kingdom) was the Klis it self. BTW, I deleted the last sentance from the lead.
    • For that matter, the article could stand a good copyedit, I see bits and pieces of info that could be streamlined for clarity and for a reduction in wordage.
      • As I wrote above to Doug......A couple of editors from the "Guild of Copy Editors", have already helped within the copyediting by now. I guess this was the best we could do. What I plan to do is this: after the article pass A-Class review (which I hope, since A-Class doesn't require more than GA in this matter), I will made a request for FA copyedit, before submitting the article for FA review. I am not in hurry, but if anybody want's to do it before, he/she is more than welcomed.
    • Your infobox seems...long, to say the least. I would put worth a position that the maps included in the infobox may do better in section dedicated to the particular time period being addressed. In this manner we can reduce the size of the infobox, which should make it easier to interpret. Also, a friendly reminder: when images are given a specific size (ie 200px, 200px, etc) the computer that said images are being viewed on can not resize the images to create a better match for the monitor size. For those with small monitors the images may be reducing the text in the article and causing things to bunch up. Just something to consider.
      • See point four below.
    • Your history sections seem a little thin, mostly like a brief overview of the time line; could more be said in these two-three paragraph sections? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your points three and four caused me a same problems while I was writing the article. I was most afraid not to go of the subject, so I tryed to be as brief as I could. As for "Your history sections seem a little thin, mostly like a brief overview of the time line", I wrote everything that I could find in a good realible english source written by a foreign writer. I used Croatian sources only to confirm and to clarify foreign sources. And I wrote the article in this way to avoid any POV (that's way there are none edit wars in this large article). Croatian sources are used on a large-scale in arhitecture section, as there were none other sources to use, and the arhitecture is not controversial. So, I don't think that sections are only a brief overview of the time line. But, there is a period from 1348 to 1437 that could have its own section. That is a kind of an answer to your statement (Your infobox seems...long, to say the least). In the infobox I tryed to put all rulers (and thear overlords) which were in some way related within the fortress, and in the body of the article I explained the main events throughout fortress's more than two thousand year-long history. Did I succeed in doing so, I guess that is up to a community to decide. As for "I would put worth a position that the maps included in the infobox may do better in section dedicated to the particular time period being addressed", I decided to put some images in the infobox rather than into the body, because I didn't want to make a "sandwich" out of text.

Hi TomStar81! You raised some good questions here, and I will try to explain them the best I can. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Fortress_of_Klis&oldid=1088198244"