Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria

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.

Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria edit

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

One of the most important and interesting conflicts of the 10th century, involving three of eastern Europe's greatest powers. The article passed GAN some time ago, and after various tweaks and copyedits after suggestions the GA review, I feel that it is ready for A-class... Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 11:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Why not use one of the images from the body for the lead? The best choice would probably the very last, since it's most related to the general topic and a bit more interesting than the one from the Manasses Chronicle.
You have two wikilinks that lead to disambiguation pages. See them here.
The prose is somewhat rough. I would suggest a copyedit. I went through the lead and made very minor adjustments, but I think it could use some re-writes in specific instances. To clarify, the prose is not bad, but neither is FA-quality. Not nearly enough to oppose, but I rather wait until someone gives a second opinion. Done I have done a top-to-bottom copy edit and made some improvements. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A big thanks to Diannaa for an excellent copyedit! Constantine ✍ 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to review this. I added a new image in the infobox, as for the disambiguation pages, they both refer to Rus'–Byzantine War, which is topic page for the series of wars. It can;t be helped. I'll ask for a copyedit, but in the meantime, if you could suggest anything that might be improved/corrected, please do so. What do you think of it content-wise and in terms of accessibility? Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, for the purpose of archiving this review, my comment was never an oppose (specifically, because I didn't mean to hold up the process; I was making a passing comment). However, with the copyedit, I am happy to support. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I liked the narration, and I generally felt that the article is comprehensive. Of course, I also believe that a copy-editing by a native speaker would further upgrade the quality of the prose. A remark concerning a picture: File:Lebedev Svyatoslavs meeting with Emperor John.jpg. No copyright problem, because it is an old painting, but I see no source. I would also prefer a more modern map than the one of 1903. Besides that, I did not manage to find any problem.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, but I was rather busy in RL... On the 1903 map, it is IMO quite good in presenting the overall situation in the wider region, as well as the major sites mentioned in the text. Given that it was a work supervised by the great J.B. Bury, it's also quite accurate. I'll try to make a more up-to-date map on the Balkan situation ca. 960, however. On Lebedev's image, I have asked the original uploader (User:Ghirlandajo) to provide the source. Constantine ✍ 15:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image source for Lebedev found. Constantine ✍ 09:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments:

Some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't (they should be consistent - either all with or all without)
The first paragraph of the lead should be expanded (it is to small compared with other two, maybe to include more information from the Background section)
There is no mention of Kingdom of Croatia in fairly long Background section (Croatian-Byzantine pact, Battle of the Bosnian Highlands, even the alt text of the map of southeastern Europe mention all countries except of Croatia).
Consecutive to a remark above, your first sentence of the Background section "By the beginning of the 10th century, two powers had come to share the Balkans:" - does this mean that Croatia was not a part of the Balkan, or...
Check for a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement (...a payment of 1,500 pounds of gold...)

Kebeta (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the isbn issue, I'll also check the spaces and re-check the lede. On Croatia and the Balkans, the wording initially was "dominated", as Bulgaria and Byzantium were indisputably the two hegemonic powers in the region. I'll change it back. As for mentioning Croatia, the sources I relied upon do not actually mention it, since its role was pretty much peripheral to non-existent in the events described in the article. The background section is already too large, if I added Croatia too it would be too much. The breaking away of Serbia, mentioned in the article, is important because it marked the first significant loss of territory to Bulgaria and facilitated Byzantine penetration of the region, while Croatia had never been in the Bulgarian orbit and was to all intents and purposes an independent power. Constantine ✍ 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I expanded the first sentence to summarize the article as a whole, and fixed the other points. Constantine ✍ 08:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments:
- ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
- the Dimitri Obolensky work is missing an ISBN, I think you can find it here: [1]; Done -Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if you have them to hand, the References should have location details added to them (some of them have them currently, but others don't). The worldcat.org link can sometimes help you find them, however, if you can't find them that is okay and it is not a big deal. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since a number of issues mentioned above have been solved Support.Alexikoua (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.