Talk:Battle of Kleidion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Battle of Kleidion has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] GA Review

Hi, I was going to give this a thorough GA review along the lines I usually do them. However I have discovered after reading through that the only major obstacle to this article's promotion is the quality of the prose, which has significant problems. If you like, I can copyedit the article myself for you and then provide a a review based on any remaining issues? Let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be grateful if you copyedit the article. Thank you very much. --Gligan (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, Some comments on the copyedit below.
  • "the Kievans were defeated by the Byzantines after the fall of the Bulgarian capital Preslav in 971 the Byzantines and Bulgarians had been at war for decades." - I can't make out what this means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to say that as of 1014 the Byzantines and the Bulgarians had been in war for decades after the fall of the Bulgarian capital in 971 (which occurred after the disastrous Rus' raids between 968 and 971 and the subsequent war between the Kievans and the Byzantines). --Gligan (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have copyedited the article, and soon will provide a list of recommended changes. Before I promote this to GA however I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this regarding the prose however as I am not sure that I have sufficiently improved it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay, I've been a little bit ill and haven't managed to get to this yet. I promise I'll provide a review in the next few days.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No problemo: ) : ) : ) --Gligan (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Notes

  1. Why are the first and second notes in the lead? There is really no need to source things in the lead but since the sources are in Bulgarian (I assume), I don't know what they say. In any case, sources should only really be used in the lead for direct quotes, everything else should be referenced further down the article, where it appears in the text.
  2. All sources should be after punctuation. Preferably this means a full stop but a comma is OK. I moved a few but missed others. Please make sure this is complied with.
  3. All web sources should have last access dates and publication information as per WP:CITE or Template:Cite web. Please make sure they all comply.

Otherwise I think the article is in good shape. I obviously cannot read the sources but it seems that the English ones are OK. As I heavily edited the prose I no longer feel qualified to judge its standard and so will apply today for another reviewer to check over this. I should think they will have further comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked a few MOS things, but have a couple of comments. First, in the Bulgarian sources, I take it the "c. " is page number? If so, I think it should actually be "p. " or "pp. " (for ranges). Second, you might want to look at the transliteration and latinization of the Cyrillic text, as PMAnderson commented on in the Sumuil of Bulgaria FAC. Of course, that was FAC not GAN, but worth considering. Carré (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am personally happy for this article to pass, provided jackturner3 is happy with the state of the prose and any other comments he may have. I leave the eventual passing or failing of this article up to him. Nice work everyone and thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    It seems to me that the lead section could stand some shortening. I think that four paragraphs is a bit excessive. Two or three would be sufficient, with my preference leaning towards two. Additionally, the prose looks suitable to me.
Done to three reasonably short paragraphs. Also removed material with inline citations from lead. --Lantonov (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I also second User:Carre’s recommendation that the sources be Latinized. Other than this, the article seems well sourced.

Translated sources titles into English and transliterated from Cyrillic to Latin. Transliteration was done according to the official transliteration decree of 2006 and thus may be different from some earlier transliterations done by various transliteration schemes, some of them using diacritics. --Lantonov (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC) I would like also to transliterate the inline citations but short of time now. --Lantonov (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. The inline sources too. --Lantonov (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  4. 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):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I’ll put the article on hold for seven days pending the above requested changes. jackturner3 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I dropped Jackturner3 a line a few days ago about this but he hasn't responded. Since I'm happy with the article and it looks like you have addressed all the issues he brought up, I'm going to pass this myself. If you (jackturner3) object strongly then please take it to GAR.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)