Talk:Dejan (despot)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Madalibi (talk · contribs) 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This article has been sitting here for a long time! I will take care of the review this week. Madalibi (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Round 1

Solved issues (first round)

Toolbox check No disambiguation links, and all external links are working: no issues. Infobox "sevastokrator" and "despot" are italicized throughout: could you italicize them here too for consistency? Not solved! Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC) penultimate court title at that time: in English "penultimate" means second to last, not second highest. Change to "second-highest"? ultimate court title at that time: "highest court title" would sound better. Occupation: nobleman: could you find a more accurate word to describe his occupation? (left blank) The infobox indicates Dejan's death as 1358 or 1365–71, but a referenced sentence in the text gives the range of dates as "between 1366 and 1371". Which one is right? Prose I added a few links to places like Kumanovo and the Struma river on first mention to help readers. I also did some light copyediting. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my choice of words, if I inserted mistakes into the text, or if I added links to the wrong places. The article is short, so you can afford to add a few phrases here and there to explain who the people you mention are. This will help readers who know little or nothing about Balkan history to understand the article without having to click on too many links. Explain (very briefly) who Jovan Oliver was? Vukašin Mrnjavčević: a few words to tell the reader who he was? His origin is unknown. His place of origin? His place of birth? Or maybe "his date and place of birth are unknown"? (Nom. com: His origin in every aspect: date and place of birth, geneaology, early life..) Is there a good reason to italicize "Greek lands"? (Nom. com: The contemporary term "Greek lands" were used for territories that were predominantly historically Byzantine, in the southern half of the Empire) As Emperor, Dušan could grant titles only possible as an Emperor. Sounds awkward. Do you mean "From his new position, Dusan could grant titles that only emperors could grant"? the church and metochion of Gospoždino Polje and the villages Koznica Kričanovska and Strojkovo: two sentences above this one, the grammar makes it seem as though metochion means "village", but here there is a metochion *and* some villages. Could you clarify the distinction between village and metochion? (Nom. com: "metochion" means 'a granted plot of land, a dependency, to a monastery'; an existing metochion means that the plot of land has been granted before There is a link for Dejan's daughter Teodora in the text (a piped link to Teodora Dejanović, which is actually a redirect to Žarko (nobleman), her husband), but under "Family", Teodora is a piped link to Teodora Dragaš that creates a redlink. Could you clarify? (Nom. com: Same person) ...the territory between the South Morava, Pčinja, Skopska Crna Gora (hereditary lands)...: do you mean Dejan's hereditary lands? Velbuzhd: I'm not sure, but would a link to Velbužd be legitimate? Velbužd redirects to Kyustendil, where Velbuzhd is only mentioned once. [I now see that these links appear in the "Possessions" section.] Serbian historian M. Blagojević believes there is a possibility that Dejan was also the logotet Dejan, mentioned as the envoy of Emperor Uroš alongside kesar Grgur Golubić in the peace talks with the Republic of Ragusa after their war with Vojislav Vojinović. Why mention this right after (and in the same paragraph as) the birth of Dejan's daughter Teodora's child? ...after their war with Vojislav Vojinović: not clear whose war it was, and which side Vojislav Vojinović belonged to. Because Vojinović is mentioned a lot in the rest of the section, that section becomes difficult to follow. ...in Onogošt (Nikšić)...: do you mean "modern-day Nikšić"? (Nom. com: Onogošt is the old name for Nikšić) Vukašin: any relevant link? And what were his "subsequent moves"? Who is "Mandić"? ...while Mandić said it was in 1358, and that Vukašin (who until then was veliki vojvoda) took his place as despot, and that Jovan Uglješa became veliki vojvoda: there are two "and that" in this long clause, but I'm hesitant to modify because I'm not sure these are all things that Mandić claimed. Could you clarify? the Pčinja pomenik: I don't understand what that is, so the argument is difficult to follow. (Nom. com: memorial book) sevastokrator Dejan possessed the župe (counties[31])...: if the likening of župe to counties needs a reference, that reference should appear on the first mention of župe in the text outside the lede, that is, in the second paragraph of the section called "Stefan Dušan's reign". (Nom. com: no need for ref, see parent article) (see the Serbian Grand Principality, Kingdom, Empire): why this parenthesis? (Nom. com: trimmed the whole sentence) ...his province... was appropriated to nobleman Vlatko Paskačić: do you mean it was appropriated by Paskačić, or appropriated by somebody else and given to Paskačić? (Nom. com: appropriated by the Serbian Emperor) the dismemberment of Dejan's province: so was his province appropriated by someone else (see above) or dismantled? Or both at different times? Could you clarify? the most powerful in Macedonia: this phrase seems to be missing a noun: the most powerful what in Macedonia? ("nobleman") the death of Vojislav: at this point, readers who are not familiar with this place or period may have forgotten who "Vojislav" was: use full name? which he de facto held (Empress Jelena de jure): the grammar in the parenthesis does not work, and it's not clear who "Empress Jelena" was. (Nom. com: omitted her mention for now) benefited Vukašin and Uglješa... because Dejan's disappearance ended any stronger candidate to counter the Mrnjavčević family: not clear what the connection is between "Vukašin and Uglješa" and the "Mrnjavčević family", partly because Uglješa Mrnjavčević is only a piped link under "Jovan Uglješa". Explain more clearly? Serbian historian Vladimir Ćorović considered turmoil and disorder the case: not clear at all. however not knowing the extent it developed to and what the consequences were: sounds convoluted and it's unclear who is or was "not knowing". Clarify that connection, and consider using a simpler structure like "not knowing its extent and consequences" or the appropriate equivalent. Verifiability The article is impeccably referenced. Most of the references are in Serbian, so I cannot read them, but I put all the cited text (thank you for including it!) in Google translate, and despite the roughness of the translation, the information supports the text every time. References Mandić 1986 and Mandić 1990 are not in the bibliography, though Mandić 1990 is cited in a footnote. Footnotes 1, 3, 22-23, and 25 to 27 should be simplified to the same format as the other ones. It is not clear what "Vranjski glasnik - Vol. 19–20" cited in footnote 28 refers to. There are a lot of "Harverrors" to be corrected. This means that several notes do not connect to their bibliographical entries. I've corrected a few, but language issues are keeping me from going further. Please install this script to detect them automatically. Could you translate all the Serbian-language works cited in the bibliography into English so that all readers can understand what kinds of works are being cited? Some entries in the bibliography are missing a "language=" value or a language template like (in Serbian) (see template:sr icon) to indicate which language the works cited are in. Could you add them to the relevant entries please? Breadth of coverage I am not qualified to tell if the article neglects important aspects of Dejan's life. One obvious question, perhaps: do scholars have any hypotheses about when Dejan was born, as they do about his death? (Nom. com: no, only about when he would have been active :/) Another question: the "Family" section says that both of Dejan's sons became vassals of the Ottomans. This is not mentioned in the "Aftermath" section, which only explains that they remained loyal to Uroš V. Could you add a sentence or two Much of the information presented in the "Possessions" section already appears elsewhere. Either this section appears unfocused, or the other sections are burdened with too many details, because they are already explained here. Could you sort out which information belongs better where? Otherwise there are no unnecessary digressions. The information unrelated to Dejan is there to give the necessary context, so everything looks good. The article is neutral, and stable. Images The licenses are fine for all three images, but the description and source for File:Деспот Дејан и његова супруга, из манастира Белово код Земена.jpg are in Serbian. Could you translate them into English, please? The caption "Zemen Monastery" under a picture of the Zemen Monastery is a bit unimaginative. :) A good caption "establishes the picture's relevance to the article" and "draws the reader into the article" WP:CAPTIONS. Could you improve the caption so that it can do that?

General assessment
This is a very solid and well-referenced article. The information is reliable, verifiable, neutral, and stable, so this will make a fine GA once the minor issues I raised are addressed. The main issues for me are clarity (because of the density of details and a few awkward formulations), language access (because most of the references are in Serbian), and the format of references, but this is nothing insurmountable. Let me put the article on hold for now to give you time to make the necessary improvements. Please let me know when you're ready for a second round! Madalibi (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Round 2

Ready for phase 2. Maybe you could strike out the fixed issues and add new issues to the appropriate section.--Zoupan 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Zoupan – You expanded the article so much that it's almost a new article! I will a bit busy for the rest of the week, but I will take care of this next week at latest. Madalibi (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zoupan! I'm really sorry it took me so long to get back to this review. As my contributions will show you, I have suddenly stopped all my activities on WP to devote myself to real-life pursuits. But I haven't forgotten about Dejan! Here is my second round of comments. Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Text

• Could you italicize "despot" and "sevastokrator" in the infobox?
• Earlier scholars believed that the Dejanović family were relatives of Jovan Oliver, but this is no longer accepted: an almost identical sentence appears in the "Aftermath" section. It shouldn't be deleted from there, because it's relevant to the issue of why Dejan's sons inherited Jovan Oliver's lands, but you should probably rephrase it.
• The first paragraph of the section on "Stefan Dušan's reign" has three footnotes to the same sentence. Not all claims have to be referenced for GA, so this is ok, but the sentence "A further increase in the Byzantinization of the Serbian court followed" seems like an interpretation, so it needs a specific reference.
  • @Zoupan: (Just in case you missed it...) Not solved. Madalibi (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• What is the source for the list of magnates?
• For consistency, you should italicize vojvoda in the list of magnates.
• The court, chancellery and administration were rough copies of those of Constantinople: reference?
• "chrysobull" should be linked or glossed. (charter)
• few hamlets should be "a few hamlets".
• The fact that Dejan built Arhiljevica rather than renovated it is evidence of his economic strength: the first sentence of this paragraph only said that this church "was built", implying that it was built from scratch and for him, not by him. Could you clarify that first sentence?
• Apart from Dejan's granted villages, Dušan also granted, on his behalf...: the difference between "Dejan's granted villages" and the villages granted by Dušan on his behalf is not clear.
• between the South Morava...: just "between South Morava..."?
• the Serbian nobiles in the Greek lands: "Serbian nobles"?
• župan of Prilep: what is a "župan"? Does it have anything to do with župe? Gloss briefly in the text.
• You refer to many historians in the text, which is a great way of presenting different points of view, but you sometimes use the past tense and sometimes the present. "Blagojević supports the view", "Mandić said", "Ćorović puts it", "Rajičić concluded", etc. Could you use one or the other consistently?
• In image caption: Zemen Monastery, one of the endowments of Dejan: "one of Dejan's endowments" would flow better.
• his province, besides the župe of Žegligovo and Upper Struma: does "besides" here mean "except for" or "in addition to"? Clarify.
• Serbian historian V. Ćorović believed some turmoil and disorder the case: an awkward turn of phrase. Try perhaps "attributes this to turmoil and disorder"?
• in December 2/4 1371: "on December 2/4, 1371.
• Battle of Maritsa: link? You should also mention the Ottomans here!
• "the once powerful Empire": specify "the once powerful Serbian Empire"?
• the brothers despot Jovan and gospodin Konstantin: you should italicize "despot" and "gospodin" as you do with official titles in the rest of the text.
• not only recreating their father's province, but also at least doubled: "doubling" to match "recreating". (recreated)
• Although vassals, they had their own government,[32] and their state symbol was the white double-headed eagle and they minted coins according to the Nemanjić style. Should probably split into two sentences (after note 32) to avoid the "and... and..." structure.
• In the "Family" section, Jovan is marked as "vassal of the Ottoman Empire (1373–1378)" and Konstantin as "vassal of the Ottoman Empire (1378–95)". The last paragraph of "Aftermath" does make clear that it was Jovan who received the title of despot from Emperor Uroš and that Jovan alone was compelled to recognize Ottoman sovereignty in 1373, but otherwise the text gives the impression that they received Jovan Oliver's lands (together), "ruled a spacious province" (together), "remained loyal to Uroš" (together), "greatly expanded their province" (together), and "recognized Ottoman sovereignty" (together). In light of this, is it still accurate to imply that they were successive vassals of the Ottoman Empire, Jovan from 1373 to 1378, and Konstantin only after Jovan's death?

References

• Three new HarvErrors have to be corrected. The Jireček, Novaković, and Rajičić (1954) entries do not connect to any footnote. If you want to see HarvErrors automatically, please install this simple and invaluable script! (unused, removed)
• Notes 15 to "Ferjančić" (not in the bibliography) and 30 to "Ćorović 2001" should be linked like the other ones.
• I don't understand what "Petković 1924, (odlomak)" in footnote 28 means.
• Notes 32 and 33 are in Serbian Cyrillic and point to no entry in the bibliography.
• Note 34 says "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (1986). Balkan studies, vol. 22. p. 38"). "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences" is perhaps the author, but it's not clear what work is being cited.
  • Not solved. We need an article title or something. Madalibi (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Removed the source altogether as the use of "Saruyar" is only found once in sources (his Ottoman vassalage is still mentioned), and should instead be moved to the Jovan Dragaš article.--Zoupan 00:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

After all this we should be good to go! Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I have adressed all the issues, please review the article and hit me up!--Zoupan 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the concerns are addressed and the reviewer hasn't returned, I'll step in and pass this. Wizardman 15:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Zoupan 22:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Zoupan: a ping or a message on my talk page (or simply a non-empty edit summary) would have helped me to notice that you were done! I have reviewed all the issues, and two still need to be addressed. It's two references, so I can't do them myself. Wizardman: thanks for helping out! I will pass the article myself when the issues have been solved. Madalibi (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems you've already passed the article, Wizardman. Some kind of notice from you or Zoupan would have been nice. Anyway, the two issues mentioned should still be resolved. Madalibi (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed issues.--Zoupan 21:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)