Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khazars/archive1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I didn't write the original article, but I substantially re-wrote it (with the help of several dedicated researchers) so I suppose this is a self-nom. Other than Kevin Brook's Khazaria Info Center this article may be the most complete reference on the Khazars available online. --Briangotts 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't read the article yet, but the lead section seems way too short to adequately describe the entire article, especially when you consider the length of the TOC. Is there a suitable image to use for the lead? The map further down is helpful to those of us who aren't familiar with the region. slambo 15:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lots of information there but the structure is horrible seriously needs work. As mentionned above, the lead section is too short, and the table of contents is enourmous. There are several subsections that contain but two or three sentences. Phils 16:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "Structure needs work" would have gotten your POV across without resorting to hyperbole. Personally I think the extensive TOC helps access the information quicker, and I wish more Wikipedia articles were so painstakingly organized. --Dzimmer6 18:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. My apologies to the author. I cannot agree with you about the TOC: although I agree more articles should use subheadings, this TOC is longer than it need be. It is not the length of the TOC per se that bothers me, but the fact that sections like "Byzantine, Georgian and Armenian sources", "Date of the conversion", "Extent of the conversion", which are comprised of 3 or 4 sentences take a place in the TOC. I know whether they deserve this place or not is subjective, but if you look at the way most of our best articles are organized, you'll see such minor items usually do not appear in the TOC. Finally, regarding the structure, what bothers me (apart from the lead, which is definetly too short for a 37kB article)personally is the structure from the "Extent of Influence" section on: there the articles starts to make heavy use of bulleted lists and "keyword lists" instead of flowing text. Once again, I apologizefor responding so crudely to the nomination without explaining my rationale in detail. Phils 21:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Article is incredibly detailed. --Dzimmer6 18:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Unfortunately I have to agree with Phils. Brian has done great work, and the resulting article is scholarly and thorough. However, it has problems with readability. Definitely needs a longer lead. Could also use some rewriting of awkward sentences and a less choppy structure. The detail is overwhelming to a casual reader. Major discussion of primary sources or disagreements between historians is crucial in an academic work, but somewhat distracting in a general reference like Wikipedia. Sections like Late Historical References could possibly be spun off into separate articles and summarized for the main article. Isomorphic 19:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I just took a stab at rewriting the intro. Not perfect, but better. Isomorphic 03:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have a problem with the structure; all the bases are covered in reasonable detail, and logical proceed from one topic to the next. If there seems at times to be a confused amount of data it needs to be remembered that the subject itself is full of gray areas and speculative points. I do agree that the article would be served well by the inclusion of a more images, one especially for a header. Also, I could quibble here and there about spelling or conclusions. But any such objections would be minor nit-picks; basically, it looks good to go for me. -- Obsidian 12:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too many red links and also too messy, as the other users have said. Detailed doesn't mean that's a great article. --Neigel von Teighen 21:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The criteria call for judging this article. The existence, or not, of other articles isn't a criteria. Now if the redlinked article is needed to understand material in this article, that could be a problem, but then this article should be rewritten to add the needed context. The linked article does not necesarily need to be written. - Taxman 21:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Glorious content, but object for now. Needs a lot of stylistic cleanup, and improved narrative. Try reading some of the other featured history articles for inspiration and templates to follow. Some specific to get you started:
  • "Khazars outside of Khazaria" - sections should be paragraphs, not bullet-lists
  • "Debate" - all sections should have an introductory description. In this case, what kind of debate? debates by whom, when, about what?
  • "Extent of influence" - make these choppy bullet lists into sentences; with connecting phrases.
  • Improve the intro paragraph; make it two, with a better overview. And why is Dmitri Vasil'ev the only person named in the first section? If he's so important, why doesn't he have an article? or a link? or even a bullet in the references section?
  • More references.
  • Clarification of which information comes from what source. Very important in such a fast-developing and debated field.

  +sj + 22:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support, there will never be "definitive" information about this subject (so the "red line" articles-to-be are understandable.)IZAK 05:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Bibliography is an ambiguous term that does not make it clear if those resources listed were actually used to add or verify material in the article. Can you either rename the section to 'References' if all those listed were used properly, or split those sources that were into that section and those that were not into a 'Further reading' section or similar. I would also have to echo the request for better flow, especially in the second half of the article. The material appears incredibly well done so I hope these fixes are made and anticipate supporting. - Taxman 18:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.