Talk:Droungarios of the Watch

DYK feedback

I reviewed this article for DYK, and although it was adequate enough to pass there, I said that there were some formatting issues that better belonged discussing here. I've done some minor copy-edits already, but I recommend that you ask someone to do a more thorough copy-edit. I'll bring the few formatting issues here:

• Well, one copy-edit question, from the "Judicial office" section: The middle of the paragraph, in the very long sentence, the phrase "also known as the ,..." Is missing a word after "the" and before the comma.
• Ok, one more: why are some people red-linked in the tables and others are not? I know that redlinks encourage the creation of new articles, and that limited uses of them are appropriate in some cases, but if you're going to link some and not others, I encourage you to link none.
• The Laiou & Simon source is formatted incorrectly. It seems that it's an article in the book that's edited by them. I suggest that you add the article title and its author to the template in the "Sources" section.

That's all; let me know how I can be of assistance. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the—more than usual—thorough review and for your copyedits. I've fixed the first point you raised, on the second, the difference is that for some of the people mentioned here, sufficient information exists, and/or they played a role outside holding this office sufficiently important for articles to be possible in the fullness of time. Those I've left unlinked are mostly hapax cases mentioned in a single document, seal etc, where an article would scarcely have meaning. On the third, I know and intended to do it, but forgot it. Thanks for reminding. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Droungarios of the Watch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I will take this review. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6 good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Addressed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Verified several sources
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

What a highly researched piece, and clearly a lot of work has gone into it! On my first pass, I have to say this is a very interesting article. I have some concerns with the prose of the article, which I find difficult to read. Some concerns are:

• The prose is extremely compact.
  • Could you elaborate a bit on what you would like to see in addition? I am loath to add padding for padding's sake, but if you feel that something ought to be explained at greater length, or more context provided to aid understanding, then of course that is necessary
    • Sorry, that was a rather useless comment. My meaning is that the article is chock a block full with interesting information. I don't have and specific concerns here --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Introducing "R. Guilland" in full, preceding with his/her profession (eg "Historian John Smith")
  • Thanks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• An image if at all possible would improve this article
  • I have been looking for one, but although there are a couple of the individuals mentioned here who have images, I don't think they are really representative. I am on the lookout for a seal of office or something like that though. I plan to make a more thorough search when I have some time next week.
    • :( Unfortunate but fair enough. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• The etymology of the term is something that is very pertinent that is missing from the article.
  • I assume you mean "droungarios". Very good point, will be done ASAP.
    • I look forward to your inclusion.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Transliterations

.

• Greek translations need to be dealt with in a consistent way.
  • "the Court of the Hippodrome or "Court of the Droungarios" (τὸ δρουγγαρικὸν δικαστήριον) " (quoted, then Greek)
  • "the dikaiodotēs, the koiaistōr, the epi tōn kriseōn, the prōtasēkrētis and the katholikos, " (Greek transliterations with stresses highlighted)
  • "who headed the court for fiscal affairs (dēmosiaka pragmata)." (direct translation then Greek pronounciation)
  • "The droungarios of the Watch was originally the commander of the Vigla ("guard watch") or Arithmos ("number"), (Greek translation followed by English meaning)
  • The lead and body of the text have a large number of italicised and embolended words
  • One suggestion may be to include a list of terms and their Greek counterparts at the bottom of the article, and then to standardise references to the terms in English where possible without the Greek translation - one common example is the use of Droungarios tes viglas when the article itself is titled "Droungarios of the Watch", and standardising megas Droungarios to "Grand droungarios" per the text
  • I also suggest removing the pronounciation guides for greek terms where both the greek and english have already been provided - this may improve the readability of the lead where often all three are provided. The English term, or the term outside the parentheses, should be the preferred variant in the article if at all possible
    • Hmmm, I am aware of the problem, but unsure whether a complete standardization is feasible or even desirable. My rule of thumb is to provide the Greek term in the original, transliteration, and where necessary translation and/or anglicization, where pertinent to the article, and provide all other technical terms in their transliterated form (if not already, eventually they should be linked to relevant articles where more details should be provided) if no translated or commonly used anglicized term is available (e.g. Eparch of the City). Translating every Greek term like dikaiodotēs or giving its Greek original is, I think, too much for the average reader. That is the reason why I wouldn't change points 2, 3, and 4 above. Re point 1, I added the transliteration. Re points 5 & 7, I've tried to simplify it as well as introduce a bit more of the chronology into it for better overview. Have a look. Re point 6, I've partially answered already re the use of the Greek terms; on the use ofmegas droungarios vs. "grand droungarios" in the lists, the reason I kept the full transliterated form is that this is essentially a quote from the actual primary source, i.e. the form used there, and I felt it should be as close to the original as possible. I will consider though whether it is expedient to half-translate it for ease of reading.

I've split this into a separate section.

My response is this: I understand you're trying very hard to stay close to the original sources. However the main audience of this article will be English speakers, so it's extremely important to try and make as much of the article as possible in English. Articles are already inherently complex, so any further complexity should be avoided. I face a similar challenge when I edit Anatomy articles (which is my humble abode currently). Many are written in complex latinate and Greek terminology. By keeping this terminiology, we make it harder for readers to understand and use our content.

Greek	Preferred term	Reasoning
droungarios tēs viglas	Droungarios of the Watch	Consistency with the title of the article
megas droungarios of the Watch	Grand Droungarios of the Watch	The stated English equivalent term that is easier for readers to understand.

An endnote like this can be used (as it is in many list articles) to note about the sources. Eg: Grand droungarios of the Watch This keeps the text as close as possible to English language, which is what readers are familiar with, and decreases the complexity of the article, which by virtue of your comprehensive research already has enough interesting material in it to keep them occupied.

Notes

What do you think about the endnote solution? I think this addresses both our concerns - mine about readability in text, and yours about maintaining fidelity to the sources.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Three further situations

• If you are following the above solution, I suggest reword "megas droungarios of the Watch (μέγας δρουγγάριος τ. β.), i.e. "Grand Drungary of the Watch". " to: ""Grand Drungarios of the Watch" (μέγας δρουγγάριος tis viglas, megas droungarios tes viglas)."
• In the lead you write "the droungarios commanded the Vigla or "Watch", one of the elite professional regiments (tagmata) "
• In the text you write Vigla ("guard watch") and describe the tagmata as "professional cavalry regiments" which is slightly different

You raise good points. About the footnote, since the English and Greek titles are direct equivalents, I think we can dispense with it. I'll do the changes now. Constantine ✍ 12:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary

I look forward to hearing from you and will check the article's sources and content in a few days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT), and thanks for taking the time to review this! I am a bit busy at the moment, but will probably find some time over the next few days to go through your comments. Looking forward to further comments and suggestions. Best, Constantine ✍ 14:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to worry, I'm happy to wait. Let me know when you're ready, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT), I've gotten around to treating some of your comments. Looking forward to your reply. Best, Constantine ✍ 21:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cplakidas, I've replied above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Tom (LT), was rather busy with work. I've added a brief explanation of the origin of the droungarios title, standardized to the semi-anglicized forms throughout, and overhauled the references as well. Constantine ✍ 13:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks great. I have no further concerns and have promoted the article. Well done! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tom for your review and your input! Best, Constantine ✍ 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)