Talk:John Komnenos the Fat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 08:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why is the lede in two paragraphs?
• I think that the first sentence in the lede would read better if you move the date to the very end. (The who on 31 July grates on my ear.)
• I think that "because of" rather than "for" John became the figurehead for the uprising for his imperial
• What do you mean by this late-13th century note? A comment from a later chronicler?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! On 1), no particular reason, I've removed the gap. On 2) and 3), changed as suggested, and I've clarified 4) (unfortunately no one seems to want to reveal on which document exactly the note was scribbled, but it is certainly given credence by most scholars). Constantine ✍ 09:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)