Talk:Stratopedarches/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ghinga7 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Ghinga7, and I'll be reviewing this shortly. This is my first review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Ghinga7 (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So before I begin, I just want to suggest a change that does not affect the status of good article. For the subtitle "Origin of the term and use in the early Byzantine period" I suggest it be shortened to something like "Origin and early use." Overall, great article! I will be posting my review within the next few days. Ghinga7 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I hesitate to put anything on this review until I am sure the nom is available. @User:Marcomogollon, you still alive and/or available? Ghinga7 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ghinga7 I already made the change you indicated. Regards, Marco M (messages) 17:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool! So before I post the formal review, I have a couple things I would like to say. On Evad37's Rater, this scores a B or higher, 95.6%. That's pretty good. While it is in no way a defining line, (it tends to be a bit optimistic in my opinion) it serves as a pretty good base for review. Also, I'm pinging @Cplakidas, the creator of this article and contributor of 97.2% of the content. I'll be posting my review later today sometime. Ghinga7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Havlng trouble with the template... I hope to have it working by the end of the day. If not, I will just post the results manually. Ghinga7 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Formal Review

Prose: Pretty O.K. The only thing I see wrong with this part is the variance between Megas Stratopedarches and Megaloi Stratopedarches. You should say something like Megas stratopedarches are also known as Megaloi Stratopedarches, or vice versa, and then use only the first one.

 Comment: In this case megas stratopedarchēs is singular and megaloi stratopedarchai is plural.

Oh, Ok. This will be a pass, then.

Verifiability: I have no access to the greek book sources. If I could see what those say, then I'd be able to say this is fine.

 Comment: Unfortunately those books are not available online, see [1].

Hmm. I wonder if anybody else has a copy of those books. I'll ask around.

Coverage: This is a pass.

Neutrality: Don't see any problems here.

Stability: I haven't seen anything that shows any conflict at all. This is probably because of how much of a niche topic it is.

Illustration: Does have 2 pictures. If there were others out there, I would want them put in, but there isn't.  Done

Overall: I'm gonna put this on hold until the changes are addressed. Ghinga7 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I made the requested changes, except those that would harm the quality of the article. Thanks, Marco M (messages) 19:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice job! While I'm verifying those sources, I'm going to give you a Pass, unless I find anything wrong with the sources. Ghinga7 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. Best regards. Marco M (messages) 20:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I came because of a request at the Greek and Roman project talk page. I can't check much of the sourcing directly because I'm a long way from a library and can't travel right now! But, for what it's worth, the sources I can check are correct in detail and properly used, and I find the whole sourcing of this article clear and convincing. Andrew Dalby 08:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)