Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Kalavrye/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2015 [1].

Battle of Kalavrye

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A not very long article about a rather unknown battle in one of the Byzantine civil wars, it is nevertheless one of the few where we have a complete description of its course and the manoeuvrings of the opposing armies. It was also the first major battle of the future emperor Alexios I Komnenos, and hence determined the course of later Byzantine history. The article was created back in 2010 and uses all available sources that deal with the event in some depth. It passed GA and MILHIST ACR easily enough, but for some reason I did not nominate it for FA back then, so I'll try to remedy it now. Constantine ✍ 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Diagrams could stand to be scaled up
File:Seal_of_Alexios_Komnenos_as_Grand_Domestic_of_the_West.jpg: the seal itself is PD due to age, but we should still say so explicitly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nikkimaria! On the diagrams, I have left them in this size for smaller screens; I think the gist of the diagrams is evident even at this scale. On the PD for the seal, how exactly would this be done? A seal is not a 2D work of art, so the usual PD-art tags don't apply... Constantine ✍ 09:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Life+100 still works for 3D art. On the sizing, that's why I would suggest scaling rather than fixing a larger pixel size - this allows for a more responsive design that considers the user's settings. See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I sympathise with slow FACs, having had a few myself. I'll take a look now and see if it is something about the article or just because it's an esoteric area. Queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is nowhere for Halmyros river to link to?~~

AFAIK no, the river is unidentified with any modern analogue.

It'd be nice then to have a footnote stating that if you can find a source that says its present day analogue is unknown.

Correction, I was able to find an identification, and even the approximate coordinates of the battle. Constantine ✍ 13:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

~~Bryennios's army fell into disorder after having seemingly won the battle, and due to the attack on its camp by its own Pecheneg allies.~~ ~~- this sentence is ungainly, the "and due" is confusing. If "due" remove the "and" but otherwise is odd as there is no reason and then one is added as an additional reason.~~

I've rephrased that.

~~who sent 2,000 warriors and promised even more~~ ~~- "even" redundant here I think~~

I am not sure. If I leave it out, it reads odd... Without the "even", I feel it becomes unclear what this "more" refers to.

Hmm, to me it clearly implies more soldiers, which it would do whether or not there was an "even" there...I must admit I don't feel it's a dealbreaker by any means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Curiously, and in contravention of established practice,~~ ~~- "contravention" strikes me as breaking a law or something. I think a bit strong for here...~~

Simplified to "against".

~~It was then that Alexios realized his position~~ ~~- do you think this sentence adds anything? As "despairs" is in next sentence.~~

I've merged the two sentences.

Overall a nice, tight article and interesting read. Hope my changes are ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas Liber and thanks for your review and your edits! I've fixed most of the points you raised. Is there anything that you feel might be missing or inadequately explained in terms of context? Given the relative obscurity of the topics I write in I am much concerned with understandability for the average reader. Constantine ✍ 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas Liber for your review and support. Best, Constantine ✍ 09:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all refs look like they conform with each other ok. Spot check to follow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check - going through Birkenmeier refs - FN 9, ~~I can't find on page 58 where it says Alexios's forces were far less experienced than Bryennios's veterans.~~ sorry, my bad, I see it in Tobias 198 and 200 now. All Birkenmeier material looks in order. Tobias refs checked as well and support material in article. All good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I can't find any issues that still need addressing. Formatting of the refs looks fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets the criteria, no comments to make. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.