Wikipedia:Peer review/Romania in the Middle Ages/archive2

Romania in the Middle Ages

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive one or more constructive feedbacks on its present status, following the previous peer review process, before nominating it to FA. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Article looks very good, and from what I can see you've got plenty of information here. Couple of issues with text sandwiching and wording etc., will note it as I go.

Lead

• First of all, per WP:LEAD the lead should just be a summary of information. As it is, there are 32 citations in the lead, most of which are only used for the lead. The lead should technically be able to stand without any references, merely summarising what is in the article. Due to this if any information is present in the lead but not in the article, move it into the article at the relevant points.
  • As there was no additional information in the lead, I tried to fix the problem by deleting the references. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• The phrase "inflict themselves" seems to be quite a POV wording, something more neutral would be much better.
  • Maybe "invade the territory" is more neutral. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "historical regions of Romania to the west of the Carpathian Mountains" It is unclear why this would have to be stated. Due to the fact the article is about Romania saying that these are historical regions of Romania is confusing, there not being a historical Romania. Perhaps change it to something like "regions of curent Romania that lie to the west of the Carpathian Mountains."
  • The expression "now regions in Romania" may be a proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "The first independent Romanian state" This seems strange, as it's not clear what defines a Romanian state. "The first independent state in what is now Romania"?
  • The expression "Wallachia, the first independent medieval state between the Carpathians and the Lower Danube" may desribe the situation in a less strange way. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "a Romanian nobleman from Maramureş" Remove "Romanian", redundant and possibly inaccurate, and wikilink whatever "Maramureş" is.
  • Maramures is wikilinked in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "But the two principalities were rarely secure in their independence..." Don't start a sentence with "But."
  • Fixed in throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "successful holding operations" What does this mean? Military? Political? An example would be useful if it's not too verbose.
  • Maybe the expression "successful military operations" is a proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "The two principalities' trade with Europe began to decrease" This needs to change, as Europe is a strange thing to say, as current Romania is considered part of Europe. "the rest of Europe" or something similar would be good.
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "after the central territories of the kingdom" Clarify the Kingdom involved, presumably the Hungarian one?
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Thenceforth their princes were increasingly named by the sultans instead of being elected by the boyars." It has never been mentioned before how they were elected. Perhaps just replace this sentence and say the leadership choice came under the influence of the Ottoman Sultans or something similar.
• The sentence is deleted, because it is not necessery at this point. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "But in 1594 Michael the Brave of Wallachia..." Starting a sentence with "But" again.
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "working for the unification of the lands inhabited by Romanians." If you're going to talk about the lands inhabited by Romanians, you have to clarify what they are somewhere. I assume that this means the ethnic group, but in the current text this is unclear. Was there a common Romanian identity at this point? From when was there this common identity? Did it play a role in determining the expansion of these early empires? Basically some information from the background section is needed here.
  • Maybe the expression "the lands that now form Romania" is the proper solution. I think the not easy question whether a common Romanian identity existed already in the 16th century cannot be answered in this article, but later generations of Romanian intellectuals (in the 19th-20th centuries) indeed referred to the unification of the three principalities under Michael the Brave as a historical precedent. Since the article describes a period of the history of the territory what is now Romania, I think in this context a slight reference to the intellectual significance of this "first unification" is necessary. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Background

• Shift the pictures in this section to make sure that no text is between two pictures. In addition, it may be better to replace pictures with current borders of Romania with basic geography pictures that don't include political borders. If that's not possible, remove the first picture of the Carpathians and just use the second picture, as it also shows the Carpathians.
  • I hope that it was fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Include some information about when the Romanian people arrived in the area.
  • I am still working on it. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Romania in the Early Middle Ages shouldn't be a main in this section. I'd assume it would be a main for a time period covered later.
  • I think tha Romania in the Early Middle Ages is the proper main in this section, since that article describes the history of the period spanning from the 3rd century until the Mongol invasion of 1241-42, and the latter is the starting point of the medieval history of Romania. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Move the Mongol Invasion See also to the top of the section, or integrate it into the text.
  • Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm for now not going to comment on specifics within this section, as I feel that on the whole it is too long. As it is supposed to be just a simple background, it should probably not include details about the Hungarian Monarchy etc. Perhaps limit it to 5 or 6 decent sized paragraphs.
  • I think some background details about the Kingdom of Hungary cannot be ignored, since without information on the basic administrative structures, on the Székelys and Saxons, the next parts of the article can hardly be understood. Nevertheless, some less relevant sentences were deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

High Middle Ages

• I'd combine the first two subsections with a much shorter title.
  • I tried to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Look into combining short paragraphs that are only one or two lines long with others.
  • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Once again spread pictures out to prevent text sandwiching.
  • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Move the see alsos at the bottom of ecah section to the top of their respective section.
  • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "had become subject to frequent Polish and Hungarian military offensives.[91] In 1363 Grand Prince Olgierd of Lithuania won a major victory" It's strange to mention Polish/Hungarian attacks and then describe a victory by a Lithuanian.
  • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Thenceforth planned settlement assumed considerable proportions." This sentence doesn't make sense.
  • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Since castles and walled towns could only resist incursions from the steppes, the monarchs encouraged the building of stone fortifications." It's unclear what this sentence is trying to say.
  • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "the Romanians' military role had exceeded their previous task" Exceeded is not the right word her. Perhaps change to "the Romanians' military role had expanded beyond their original purpose"
  • What about "beyond their original task"? Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "For instance, the general assembly convoked in 1279 by Ladislaus IV for seven counties – among them Bihor, Crasna, Sătmar, and Zărand in the territory what is now Romania – ended with sentencing a despotic person to death." This example doesn't really add to the text, and raises more questions.
  • I tried to rewrite the sentence in order to explain its meaning. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "For instance, in 1364 Queen Elisabeth prohibited the count of Bereg (now in Hungary and Ukraine) from employing his own officials to administer the affairs of the Romanians." This is another example that seems out of place. It doesn't describe the sentence before it, and introduces new people who haven't been mentioned before. Who is Queen Elisabeth?
  • alternative solution Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "cneazes" Why is only part of it italicised?
  • The whole word (similarly to boyars) became italicised in the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "'stopped paying tribute to the king.[151] But his army" Combine the sentences so it doesn't start with "But" again.
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• " crusade of Nicopolis" Wikilink to whatever crusade this is.
  • Wikilink added. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "controlled by the Golden Horde.[170][171] But the contemporary" Another sentence beginning with But.
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "recognized Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland as his suzerain.[184] But Hungary did not" Another but.
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's about half of the text, I'll go through the rest of it tomorrow. It may be worth getting someone from the WP:Guild of Copy Editors to give the whole article a run-through in order to make the prose excellent (which is a FA requirement). Good to see all the pictures have alt text, just rearrange them to comply with WP:MOSIMAGES. This article definitely has a huge amount of detail, my head's spinning from just this half! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've decided not to mention sentences beginning with But here, just make sure there aren't any. I'm also not mentioning the See Also's, but they should always be under the title of the section.

• • Both problems fixed in the whole article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Towards Ottoman domination

• Perhaps just keep one picture of a church.
  • Three churches? An Orthodox one, a fortified one and a Lutheran one. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Try to make sure no paragraph is less than 3 lines long.
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "John I had to do homage" Pay homage would be better wording.
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "the throne alternated" How did it alternate? War?
  • Maybe the new sentence add a proper explanation. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "became an effective anti-Ottoman warrior" Effective probably isn't the right word here. "became a powerful force against the Ottomans" may be better.
  • Somethink similar. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "The first Ottoman attack on Moldavia was also repulsed, in 1420, by him" change to "The first Ottoman attack on Moldavia in 1420 was also repulsed by him"
  • Changed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Yet Stephen the Great..." Don't start sentences with "Yet" either.
  • "Yet" deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman suzerainty

• Quite a few short paragraphs here, but besides that and minor grammar errors it's extremely well done.
• "Even Michael the Brave ascended the throne..." Who is this? He hasn't been mentioned before, so it's worth giving a short explanation of his origin.
  • Since Michael the Brave was mentioned in the lead, here a reference to his future anti-Ottoman policies perhaps is a proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Age of Michael the Brave

• "attacked Ottoman strongholds along the Danube and recovered Giurgiu and Brăila" Change recovered to something else, as it probably shouldn't be used if these areas are not mentioned as lost earlier in the text.
  • Information on the former Ottoman occupation of the two fortresses is added to the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Although Aaron the Tyrant refused Sigismund Báthory's conditions, but he was replaced by the latter's protégé," Just thought I'd point this out, since you have "Although" you don't need "but", having both is redundant.
  • Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Who is Giorgio Basta and why is he jealous?
  • Perhaps the new text is clearer. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

After the first union

• "Wallachia and Moldavia fell back in the clutches of the Ottoman Empire" "in the clutched" is rather emotive wording, perhaps "under the control" would be better.
  • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I must say, this is an amazing piece of work, and I don't see why it can't easily reach FA. If I could suggest one thing, it is that perhaps more maps would be useful. A couple of times I wasn't sure where actions were happening, and how some areas related to others. One map from any time showing not only modern Romania but also the surrounding states, such as Poland, the Ottoman Empire, and Hungary, would be useful for context. So, well, very very well done. Good luck with FA,

• • A map added. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Chipmunkdavis, I really appreciate your hard work. Thank you. For the time being, I am a little bit busy in real life, but in a couple of days (hopefully on Sunday) I can work on improving the article based on your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your hard work. See my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you've addressed basically everything I brought up. Just read through it again, short brief comments this time! Made my own copyedits, hope you don't mind.

• Clarify what "centrifugal movements" are.
• Clarify what "the Orthodox Romanian population of the territory received the sacraments from "some pseudo-bishops of the Greek rite" " means.
• "The administrative centers of the province, such as Alba Iulia and Cetatea de Baltă, had been destroyed." Such as? How many were there?
• Still no wikilink for "the disastrous crusade of Nicopolis"?
• "Stefan Lazarević of Serbia received Satu Mare, Baia Mare and Baia Sprie in modern Romania" is the "in modern Romania" necessary?
• "but on July 15 John Szapolyai, the voivode defeated them at Timişoara" Is writing "the voivode" important? The way it is written is sounds like a title.
• "princes succeeded one another on the throne with devastating frequency" devastating frequency? Why was it devastating?
• "only the Székelys remained more than the other "nations" Catholic." I don't understand. Does this just mean remained Catholic?
• "The short and unworthy reigns" Unworthy reigns?

All I can find, excellent work! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)