Wikipedia

Talk:Byzantine army (Komnenian era)/GA1

< Talk:Byzantine army (Komnenian era)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Urselius in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago37 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply


At the outset, I must admit that I know nothing about this era, so I am flying blind to some extent. I have a few comments, which might take me a few bites to get through:

  • The structure makes sense and the article flows nicely.
  • in the lead, I am left wondering what the defeat in 1081 was, suggest explicitly using the Battle of Dyrrhachium here, and state it was against the Normans.
Done. Urselius (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • when Pecheneg is first introduced, do the variations on the name then.
Done.
  • there is a bit of wikification needed with Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace. Most readers will not know where these regions are.
Done.
  • link Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301), Anatolia for Asia Minor, Constantinople, Grand Principality of Serbia, Alexios Branas, Serres, Manuel Kamytzes, Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor
First use of Alexios Branas was already linked. The rest done.
Under Size, Alexius Branas is mentioned, I assume this is Alexios Branas? Therefore, link at first mention here, and delink the first mention in the Timeline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Done. I didn't write that para., and the use of the Latinised 'Alexius' defeated the search.
  • which Philippopolis is it? Link?
First use was linked to Plovdiv - all instances are referencing the same city, do you want all instances linked to Plovdiv?
First use is in the Size section, link that one then delink any after that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Done.
  • 1092-1094 needs an ndash
You got me, not a clue. Urselius (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
It needs to be 1092–1094, not 1092-1094, per MOS:NDASH. The ndash is available under Wiki markup at the bottom of the edit window. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Done, I think

Down to Structure. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking on the review of such a lengthy article. Urselius (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
No prob. I like to look at GANs in areas outside my areas of interest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • link John II at first mention in the body
Done
  • Bohemund, is this Bohemond I of Antioch? link?
Done, yes an alternate spelling from Bohemundus
  • per MOS:DATERANGE and MOS:NDASH, 1107-8 should be 1107–08 or 1107–1108
Done
  • Western European 'knights,' should be Western European 'knights', but why the single quotes? Were they not actual knights?
Done - 'Knight' was becoming a social rank rather than purely a type of soldier - see: Man-at-arms and Ministerialis - an armoured horseman looking like a knight might not be of that social rank.
  • link Seljuk Empire for Seljuk
Done
  • link Cumans and also Oghuz Turks for Uzes
Done

Down to Equipment:Arms and Armour. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • "used by light infantry" needs a comma after it
  • link Huns for Hunnic
  • link Sling (weapon)
  • link cuirass, chain mail, and scale armour
  • link Pontic–Caspian steppe and Kievan Rus'
Done for all above

Down to Troop types. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • My Greek is obviously not up to this, but isn't hoplites a plural? It seems to be a singular in this case, talking about a heavy infantryman? Should it be hoplite
The term was added by a native Greek speaker - so I suspect it is correct. In Greek the singular was οπλίτης (oplítis) and the plural οπλίτες (oplites) so it depends how you transliterate the respective vowel letters. Urselius (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • menavlion should be italics
  • link lance
Done for both above
  • "were organised into formal regiments" earlier you have used the term tagmata. Should this be used here too?
No, I don't think so. I was using 'regiment' here as a contrast with more informal bands of mercenaries hired for a particular campaign.
  • for Alexios Petraliphas, perhaps link Petraliphas which mentions him
Done
  • suggest ‘imperial tagmata’ for consistency
There is a difficulty here as the "Imperial Tagmata" were a formation created by Constantine V in the 8th century that disappeared in the later 11th century, they were decimated at Manzikert and Dyrrhachion probably saw their end. However, the word 'tagmata' also just means 'regiments' and was used rather loosely in Greek. I have capitalised all references to the formation of Imperial Tagmata, which may help discriminate between usage.
  • should Alexiad be in italics throughout as the title of a work per MOS:ITALIC?
Yes, done
  • link Cappadocia
Done
  • link Roman Syria#Syria in the Byzantine Empire
Done for the single specific case - other instances linked to 'Syria (region)', when the general region was intended
  • "the fall of Anatolia" should this be Asia Minor? Earlier you have used Asia Minor as the name for this region. There is another couple of mentions in the Development section.
All use of 'Asia Minor' has now been changed to 'Anatolia'
  • link Danishmendids
  • should Nikephoros II Phokas be linked in the Kataphraktoi subsection?
Done for both above

Down to Development. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • the mention of the 300 young commanders has been mentioned before, it is a little repetitious.
Wording changed and '300' removed, it was an important innovation of Alexios, however, and bears some level of repetition.
  • link İpsala for Kypsella at first mention
  • link Lopadion at first mention
  • link Sea of Marmara for Sea of Marmora
Done for all above - Marmora is an alternative form.
  • in the Timeline, drop the space in 1107- 1108
  • The list of Notable generals needs citations
I would argue that it is essentially just a list of links to articles that have citations themselves, and therefore does not require independent citation. I am not particularly attached to the list and would preferentially delete it rather than slog though the citations.
It really does need citations, unless all the generals are already listed in the main body or the timeline. We can't use Wikipedia as a reference, per WP:CIRCULAR, we have to cite them directly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Section deleted
  • There is a citation link for fn 112. to Choniates & Magoulias 1984, which doesn't link anywhere
I suspect these were imported from another article with differing citation methodology - I have converted all Choniates & Magoulias to just Choniates.
  • There is a citation link for fn 118. to Magdalino 2002 which doesn't link anywhere
Can't seem to find it
I fixed it, it was a harvard cite, with isn't consistent with this article, so I changed it to conform. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • there are a bunch of duplicate links, which need to be reduced to a single link on first mention. The script to identify this is available at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
Quite possibly far beyond my computing skills - although a scientist I leave computer-related stuff alone as far as possible.
It is actually really easy to install, you just click on User:Urselius/common.js to create your common.js user page and paste in importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); // [[User:Evad37/duplinks-alt]] and save the page. After that, you will see a link under "Tools" on the left hand side of your page which says "Highlight duplicate links". If you click on that when viewing any article, it highlights all duplicate links in red rectangles for ease of reference. The duplicate links are Byzantine Army, Normans, Tagmata (military) (×2), vestiaritai, archontopouloi, Vardariotai, Theme (Byzantine district), Cumans, Dynatoi, Varangians, Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081), Nikephoros II Phokas, Cyprus, Battle of Sirmium, Battle of Myriokephalon, John II Komnenos, and Andronikos I Komnenos. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Done

Still to look at the bibliography and images. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Is there a publisher for Choniates?
Done
  • Kinammos needs to be changed to conform with the formatting of the other sources, ie the year needs to be in parentheses immediately after the authors. Brand also.
Done
  • some sources have a place of publication, others don't. This should be consistent.
Done
  • some sources need a numerical identifier to be added, ISBN or OCLC.
Have done most of the outstanding ones, but three have eluded me - I cannot find the number codes online
  • in general the sources are not consistently formatted, some use the citation template, some use the cite book template, others are plain text. It is not a requirement at GA, but if you are hoping to submit this as a Featured Article candidate at some point, it would be a good idea to make them all consistent.
I have experience of one FA review, and would prefer to gnaw my own arm off than do it again :(
  • some footnotes have a bare page number instead of p. X or pp. X–X. For example, fns 33, 34, 49 etc
Think I changed all of them
  • some footnotes have been done with harvard formatting, these are the ones that have the name and year highlighted, such as fns 163 and 179. The footnoting style should be consistent, so you should change these to plain <ref></ref> like the rest of the article.
Done

The image licensing needs some work:

  • For File:John II Komnenos.jpg use use PD-Art with PD-old-100. It also needs information added to the Description. A simple English translation of the French, along the lines of "A photograph of a depiction of John II Komnenos from a mosaic in the Agia Sophia mosque in Istanbul, Turkey.", Date: Unknown, Source: Unknown, Author:Unknown. G'day Nikkimaria, can we use such a file if there is no information about who took the photograph of the mosaic? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Replaced with another image of the same subjetc
  • File:Hortus Deliciarum 36-6m.jpg needs a PD-1923 licence tag for the US
Done
I have looked through the licencing for 20+ Byzantine low relief steatite and ivory sculptures and found only "PD-old-70-1923" employed, and that was in one instance, additional to the photographer's 'release'.
Uncertain about what to do here, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of precedents available for licencing tags for Byzantine low relief sculpture. However, I have added {{PD-old-100-1923}} pro tem. Urselius (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • File:Yaroslav II helmet.jpg needs a PD-1923 licence tag for the US
  • File:Trebuchet1.png needs a PD-1923 licence tag for the US
Done
  • If File:Hungarian warrior.jpg is from a Middle Ages fresco, then use PD-Art with PD-old-100
Done
  • Add PD-old-100 to the PD-Art tag on File:Alexius I.jpg
  • What sources were used to draw File:Manuel'sEmpire.png?
I suspect Ostrogorsky, from the look of the map. I have added a note about the source of the map - it was certainly in the first edition, though later paperback editions do not contain any of the fold out maps.

OK, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

    • I have not a clue about image licensing - perhaps the GA review should just be scrapped. Urselius (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm sorry that you don't have a clue about image licensing, but dealing with copyright issues is a Wikipedia requirement to get an article right for GA, and frankly, I have put in quite a bit of effort to help you get this article to this point, and it would be disappointing to give up now. I am happy to help you and walk you through it, but you need to get a grip of it if you want to get articles to GA. It isn't that hard really, and there are editors who are quite expert on this stuff who you can call upon to get advice if you are not sure. However, if you want to drop it, I'm (relatively) happy to fail it at GAN. Personally I think that would be a shame given this is so close, but it is up to you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Part of my difficulty is that I do not know what PD-1923 licence tag, PD-Art or PD-old-100 mean. I presume that they are some sort of pro-forma declaration that can be stuck on an image page on Wikimedia Commons, but where would I find them? Urselius (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I searched the page, but nothing containing "1923" was evident - is the tag out of present use? Urselius (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I am floundering - the "1923" tag does seem to have been replaced. "PD-Art" seems to produce a red link on the page - I tried on the File:Alexius I.jpg page. Urselius (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
The 1923 tag is {{PD-US}}. The PD-Art tag seems to be working, you just need to add in the parameters for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have uploaded a total of two images to Wikimedia, and the process is foolproof, that is the only real interaction, apart from using images in articles, I have had with it. Never in a month of Sundays would I have worked out combining two tags with a "|" between them. Urselius (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate this has a been a bit of a learning experience, but at least you have a bit more of an idea about image licensing now. Given you have had a bad experience at FA before (who hasn't, frankly) you might like to submit this for a WikiProject Military history A-Class review to get a few more experienced sets of eyes on it and see where it could possibly be improved further. The A-Class standard is very close to FA, and it has been my experience that having been through an A-Class review eases the pain of FAC. The instructions for that are at WP:MHR. Saying that, this article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, in particular for all your work in reviewing the article, which is not unappreciated. Also thanks for the help with the image licensing - my brain just does not work well in that sort of context, and what is obvious to others entirely escapes me. I was involved in an FA review for the Battle of Waterloo, which failed because some of the reviewers wanted a historiography section. They could not comprehend that the sheer volume of works written since 1815, plus the history of revisionism and nationalistic bias would require an entirely separate article. I will certainly think about your A-Class review suggestion. Urselius (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Byzantine_army_(Komnenian_era)/GA1&oldid=887550754"