Talk:Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Strange

I see that the borders of Chersonesos slitly moved...how did did happend? I mean, from what I know(only from wikipedia for my shame) this city was only used for reconisance and jailing....I know it isn`t that important overall but I am fascineted by this city`s odd role and position troughout it`s history. AdrianCo (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo

This is how. Cherson was lost to the Khazars during the second reign of the rather insane Justinian II. Since then the Khazars followed by the Kieven Rus and the Pechengs held great influence in the area and for all intents and purposes the Crimea was lost. However, an expedition by Basil II the Bulgar slayer saw it back in Imperial hands. It was then lost I think in 1050. What happened after the chaos of Manzikert, I know not, but by the 14th century (definately by the 15th) it was in Italian hands as a trade outpost. Tourskin (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
But Justinian II died in 711 and the change of borders according to your maps takes place between 867 and 1045. Now, Basil II was`n even born until 958, and you say that it was Basil II that reconquerd Chersonesos...then how come was it Byzantine in 867 ? AdrianCo (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
Of course what I mentioned above was an overview of a far more complex situation, one involving Cherson and the Crimea being ruled by Khazars, by Rus and by Pechengs and with Byzantine emperors trying to reclaim it. Details regarding this rather small outpost are unfortunately not available to me. Tourskin (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
Hell yes
  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
None
  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
Me. So none. Tourskin (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Not Yet
    1. The lead section should not have any citations in it, because it should just briefly restate details in the rest of the article. The references in the lead should be removed, and if there are details in the lead that are not restated in the body, they should be moved as well.
    2. There aren't very many links in this article compared to how many there could be. Make links out of as many of the words as you can (while being careful not to double-link), so that the article is more networked into Wikipedia.
    3. Single section paragraphs are poor form. The shorter sections, such as "Conclusion" should be either expanded or merged into other articles.
    4. The "Theatres of War" section should be made into paragraph form, instead of bullet point form. Bullet-point lists are discouraged in instances like this, and such an important section could use expansion anyway.
    5. Every image should have a caption telling what exactly it describes. Some of the images in the article lack this.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Not Yet
    1. Five book sources is good, but for such a broad article, I would say that more should be found. Much of the article relies on a single source; the Norwich book. I would recommend finding more sources that corroborate what that book says. Redundant, I know, but it reduces the conflict of interest issue. These sources don't have to come from books, either, you can find reliable internet sources as well.
    2. Every paragraph should have a reference, at the bare minimum. The lower sections of the article should have references, as they are currently completely unreferenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass no problems there.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Not Yet' The small number of sources creates a COI problem, as stated above.
  5. It is stable:
    Not Yet Solving the issues will eliminate this problem.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass no problems there.
  7. Overall:
    On Hold until the above issues are resolved. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick response, until I can come back later - there are very few non-Western sources out there. In fact, there are few sources out there mentioning this war or the latter stages of it since no cares about Byzantium and few Easterners will be proud to record how they almost lost a lot of their 7th century gains. By the way, it is stable in terms that there is no edit warring, and there is no POV problem either; this is a mere assumption on your behalf simply because "only five books" have been used, or worse still Norwich. Again, there are few writers out there willing to shed some light on this topic. However, I will do my best to address these points, just give me 7 days at the least. Thank you. Tourskin (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. As long as progress is being made, you can take as long as you need. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Passed now. The article appears to meet most of my suggestions, though the lead still has citations in it. Congrats! -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on this review

  • There is no requirement that there either be, or not be, citations in the lead. The requirement is simply that material needing to be sourced is sourced somewhere.
  • There are numerous MoS breaches, inconsistencies, and typos - at a quick glance I saw "rememdy", for instance.
  • The advice "Make links out of as many of the words as you can ..." is just plain wrong. Links are there to aid in the reader's understanding, not to turn every word blue.
  • There is no requirement that every paragraph should have a reference.
  • Why are there page numbers given in References and further reading? Which is it anyway, Refernces or Further reading?

I will not delist this article if the prose is gone through again more carefully, but as it stands I will. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NB Malleus, as far as I'm concerned it's usually better to take such cases to WP:GAR, rather than simply delisting. That way everyone, editors and reviewer, can learn something. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree in cases like this one, where the article clearly ought not to have been listed in the first place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] confusion with sources

There seems to be serious confusion with sources here, though hopefully it can be sorted with some ease.

A book is cited as Treadgold, Warren (2002), The Oxford History of Byzantium, New York: Oxford UP.

But as the "References" indicate, in fact the author of the Oxford History of Byzantium is one Cyril Mango.

Warren Treadgold, however, has written A Concise History of Byzantium.

So: which source is in fact being cited here? Is the author wrong, or is it the title?

I won't be able to continue clearing up the references until this is clarified and fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and at least once it's suggested that this book is by Paul Magdalino. But he wrote The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180. Again, then, there's the same confusion about the reference. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And here's another problem: there's no such book as The Latin East, though H E Mayer has written The Crusades. Is this what's meant? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further problems

OK, two more problems:

  • Why does the title not concur with the article's first line? Should this article be renamed "Byzantine reconquest"?
  • What's with the first footnote? An incomplete and ambiguous sentence.

The above, combined with the source problems detailed already, are enough for me to delist (per Malleus, too) and put the article up for WP:GAR. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dashes

See Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Bot_is_being_developed_to_convert_hyphens_to_en_dashes. It's in trials now, and sometime in the near future, the hyphen in the title of this article will be changed to an en-dash, so we might as well fix the problems now. Shall I create the new article and copy the contents there, or should we go get in line at WP:RM in order to preserve the history? In the meantime, I have changed the hyphens in this article to dashes where appropriate...breaking the links, so Byzantine-Arab Wars will also need to be copied or moved.

Dashes drive some people crazy, and I feel fussy just bringing them up, but it's pretty simple on Wikipedia: a hyphen (in this context) means "and"; an en-dash means "or" or "between". "Byzantine-Arab Wars" would mean wars fought by Byzantine Arabs; "Byzantine–Arab Wars" (en-dash) means wars fought between Byzantines and Arabs. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)