Talk:Siege of Trsat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Here is some initial commentary pertaining to the GA review of Siege of Trsat.

Lead

• Note 1 is confusing, "The city of Tarsatica, where the siege happened, was probably located at the present Old Town in Rijeka, not at Trsat itself, which is found on on a hill overlooking Rijeka on the other side of the Rječina River. (Croatian Academy of America. Journal of Croatian studies (1986), Vol. 27–30)" → According to the article, Trsat was actually founded a year after the siege. Perhaps this should be clarified here, as well.

• Historians have a disagreement whether the battle happened at present-day: 1. Center of Rijeka (Tarsatica was located in today's center of Rijeka) or Trsat (castle and district of Rijeka - on a hill overlooking Rijeka). By the sources I have found, it was probably Center of Rijeka, but I didn't want to exclude other possibility from the article. Is that o.k.?

• I think the lead can use some work, but I won't hold it against the article for the purpose of this review.

• Ok.

Background

• Does the first paragraph of the background follow criteria 3b? I feel as if a multi-hundred year history of the region is a bit undue for an article dealing with a specific siege that occurred a few decades shy of the first millennium. If Wikipedia needs a general history of Dalmatia between the fall of Rome and the siege of Trsat, then this should be done on a separate article. Otherwise, this article strikes me as somewhat incomplete (the general history leaves a lot of holes, and it's hard to find relevance in the first paragraph within the context of the article's topic).

• It a relatively new paragraph which I added following the peer review. If you think that this paragraph is renundant, we could delete it?

• The first paragraph of the siege section should be in the background, and the siege section expanded with information dealing with the battle itself.

• Unfortunately, due to a lack of primary materials the siege section can not be expanden further - there are none other informations dealing with the battle itself. If we move the first paragraph of the siege section in the background, the siege section would have only one para - it would be to small. What do you think?

• There should be an explanation of events directly leading up to the battle, rather than a historical overview of that period of time.

• See two previously answers above.

Siege

• This section is a bit bare, and does a poor job giving an order of battle. As such, events concerning the ambush can be seen as random. There is no information concerning the defenses of Trsat, and where the ambush was set up and at what time, et cetera. Is there information to fill these holes?

• We can only speculate, there is no other information to fill these holes.

Uncertainty

• In the preceding section you make it seem as if Eric died in the ambush, but this section suggests he was assassinated. This should be clarified in the preceding section, or eliminated and instead elucidated only in this section. Otherwise, this leaves room for substantial confusion.

• Eric's assassination by Avars and Slavs is a theory by a Croatian historian Nenad Labus. It is an isolated theory, as most of the historians point that Eric died in the ambush by Croats, instantly after the battle. But I didn't want to exclude other possibility from the article.

Aftermath

• "Tarsatica's surviving inhabitants moved to a more protected hill, where they established a new settlement called Trsat." → What happened to the original Trsat (the one discussed in this article)?

• It was destroyed by the Franks. I added that info into the article.

• What impact did this battle have on Charlemagne's intentions of occupying this part of Europe? i.e. what great strategic importance does this siege have? Or, if not great, what importance does this event have, at all?

• Charlemagne wanted to extend his dominion by conquering Dalmatian Croatia. The strategic importance was for the Franks to be recognized by the Byzantines as an equal Empire, since Dalmatian Croatia was loosely subject to the rule of the Byzantine Empire.

I hope these comments help. I will close the review in three days, or at 4PM (GMT-8) 6 October, pending edits. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Catalan, and thank you for your rewiev. I found the above well meaning comments very helpful. Unfortunately, due to a lack of primary materials this article can't fill all the holes that are missing. All the informations from the secondary sources are included in the article. Thanks again, Kebeta (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While I will promote it to GA, it would prob. be a good idea to get someone to copyedit the text a bit. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Catalan for all your help and your constructive comments. I will ask Diannaa to copyedit, as she was already involved in this article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)