Talk:Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Canadian Paul 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some comments:

1. While not a GA requirement, it would be nice to see some alternative text on the images per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
2. Under "Background", first paragraph - "By the beginning of the 10th century, two great powers had come to share the Balkans: the Byzantine Empire, which controlled the south of the peninsula and the coasts, and the Bulgarian Empire in the northern Balkans. The early decades of the century are dominated by the formidable figure of Tsar Simeon (r. 893–927), who in a series of wars expanded his empire at Byzantium's expense and secured for himself recognition of his imperial title." - I feel that with "two great powers", a more neutral word would be "major", and that the word "formidable" is an unnecessary non-neutral descriptive.
3. Same paragraph - "Simeon's second son and successor, Peter I (r. 927–969), was to marry Maria, the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–944), his imperial title was recognized, and an annual tribute (which the Byzantines face-savingly termed a subsidy for Maria's upkeep) was agreed to be paid to the Bulgarian ruler in exchange for peace." - Aside from the fact that I'm not sure that "face-savingly" is an English phrase, this sentence is difficult to read because of its length and the fact that it changes tense in the middle (he was to Maria, but his imperial title was recognized) without warning.
4. When you use the word "however", you need to separate it from the rest of the sentence with commas, or else it becomes very difficult to read, as it does when "however" begins a sentence.
5. Same section, third paragraph, a word like suzerainty should be wikilinked, as the average reader may not understand the term.
6. Same section, fourth paragraph - "In 963, on the sudden death of Emperor Romanos II (r. 959–963), the successful general Nikephoros Phokas usurped the throne of his infant sons and became senior emperor as Nikephoros II (r. 963–969)" - The way this is worded, it makes it seem like the general usurped the thrown from his own infant sons.
7. I think that there's way too much background material in the first section, and the average person who doesn't know much about this history isn't going to understand a lot of this without having to first do a lot of background reading. This section needs to be better summarized so that only the key points relating to the topic of the article are discussed. My suggestion would be to eliminate the third paragraph - I read the entire section again without reading the third paragraph and it still makes sense to me (though it's hard to judge after having read it the first time). It would also help if the language was more accessible in certain places - "Consequently he resorted to the old Byzantine expedient of calling in a tribe from eastern Europe to attack Bulgaria" is a very complex way of saying something much simpler, for example. I'm not saying "dumb it down", but avoid dressing it up unnecessarily as the average reader already has to pay attention to a lot of different terms and one-named individuals. For some reason, though, this is only a significant problem in the first section... most of the rest seems fine except where noted below.
8. Under "Sviatoslav's conquest of Bulgaria", first paragraph, "at any rate" is not a very encyclopedic term. Nor is "indeed" in the second paragraph, but I'm not certain that it's avoidable here. Also problematic the "rather" in "Byzantine control was rather theoretical" in the second paragraph of "Aftermath".
9. Same paragraph - "According to Zlatarski they were looted and destroyed, but not permanently occupied." - Who is Zlatarski and why should I care what they have to say? Are they an amateur historian writing books, a tenured university professor, or something else, all of which makes a difference towards the validity/salience of their opinion. Even adding "According to Zlatarski, an X, they were..." - but just "Zlatarski" doesn't give enough information for the reader to assess the claim. Later on there's a similar problem with A.D. Stokes - you don't describe who they are the first time they're brought up, and the second time they're a "historian". It would be nice to know what kind of historian or where they teach or just anything to put their comments into context.
10. Same paragraph - "The next year, Sviatoslav with part of his army left to counter a Pecheneg attack on Kiev" - This needs some extra commas, because it reads as if he had a portion of his army remaining to counter the attack.
11. Per WP:NAMES, you don't need to keep repeating "Tsar Peter" after the first time unless it's necessary to distinguish him from someone other Peter (or you're describing a confirmed title, like "promptly recognized as Tsar Boris II"). Same goes for "John Tzimiskes", which is repeated at least in the beginning of "Byzantine offensive"
12. Same paragraph, "In marked contrast..." - Same issue as above "marked" seems to be an unnecessary POV word here. In the fourth paragraph "Thus Nikephoros' scheme had backfired dramatically", same problem with "dramatically" - many of these "degrees" are better left up to the reader's discretion... per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, rather than say that it backfired dramatically, explain the facts (as you have) and let the reader decide how severe the backfire was for themselves. Same problem, paragraph five, "giving Tzimiskes valuable time to prepare", with "valuable" I feel being unnecessary here.
13. Under "Byzantine offensive", second paragraph - "The Byzantine army, led by Tzimiskes personally and numbering some 30–40,000, was thus able to advance quickly and unmolested, and reached Preslav." - I think the way you have it may be technically correct, but it's difficult to read either way. I would suggest either "was thus able to advance ... and reach Preslav" or "advanced quickly .... and reached Preslav", eliminating the comma.
14. Same paragraph, this is the only mention of "Sphangel", but it's not stated who he is.
15. Same paragraph, same section - "which was remarkably lenient", again, the facts you describe next will allow a reader to determine how remarkable the leniency was.
16. Not sure that the final paragraph of the article is really necessary but, since the reader at least has the historical background to follow it, it can probably stay; just something to think about.

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, first, thanks for a thorough review :). Points 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,12,13,14,15 have been done. I have also done #4 where I thought it expedient. I'll run through the article again, probably tomorrow, weeding more "howevers" out. Point #1 will be taken care off, I fully intend to push this through A-class and take a shot at FA. As for #7, I trimmed it a little, but I feel the section is important to provide the context of how the balance of power was transformed: the Byzantines were given a repeated thrashing by Simeon, but 40 years later they had strategically encircled Bulgaria and their army was more effective than ever. This has to be explained, not least by providing some names and links to relevant articles. On #11, my experience is that in such articles, where many names occur with which the reader can not be expected to be familiar, it is sometimes good to repeat the titles and the names a few times just to be sure. For #16, the reason for its inclusion is pretty much the same as for #7: Sviatoslav's invasion marked a decisive point in Bulgarian and Byzantine history, breaking the Bulgarian state, altering the status quo and directly leading to the 30 years of war under Basil II and Samuel. It is merely a short the more long-term "aftermath" of the war.

If there are any other points you'd like to make, feel free to do so. I am very interested how a reader not familiar with the subject perceives it, so even the most trivial thing would be appreciated. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, once you've gone over it tomorrow, I will go over it once more and point out anything else I find, in addition to reviewing the changes. Canadian Paul 02:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it now and see how it's progressed. Canadian Paul 02:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think #7 is okay now... it's still a bit heavy, but I do agree with your point and I would also worry that any more trimming might be venturing into "dumbing down" territory. If you're planning on going to A or FA class anyways, then they can suggest further beneficial edits in this respect (if any). I'll accept the rationale for #11, but just be aware that at A or FA review, where adherence to the MOS can be even stricter, this may come up again. Regarding #14, is Sphangel the same person as Sveneld? If so, I think that a wikilink would be beneficial. Good explanation on #16, so there's not that much more to deal with; it's looking very good overall right now. I've struck the items that have been fully dealt with and look forward to passing the article in the near future. Canadian Paul 02:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done a copyediting run through the article, and also added a ref for Sphangel. I think it is OK now, at least for GA standards ;). Unless any other points come up, that is. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, checking it over right now! Canadian Paul 01:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe that it meets the GA criteria now, but it will need some work for FA or A status, where (among other things) alt text will be a requirement. I don't really think that the "however" problem has been cleared up entirely, but maybe that's just me. You may also want to include more information from the "Background" section into the lead, which barely touches upon this important section. Finally, I'm a little unsure why your latest copyedit introduced another one of those awkward "indeed" phrases. In any case, none of this affects that GA Pass that I will now be awarding. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 01:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)