Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive2
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 28 June 2012 (Bot tagging closed FAR discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 13:47, 27 June 2012 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: User talk:Yannismarou, User talk:Dr.K., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece
- Extensive problems with sourcing: "Reconquest of the western provinces ", "Macedonian dynasty and resurgence" (completely unsourced), "Wars against the Muslims", "Relations with the Kievan Rus'", "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders" (also unsourced entirely). Raised sourcing problems on talk page and they haven't been tended to.
- "Division of the Roman Empire" needs a copy edit. Several sentences in a row begin with the same words. I also see several standalone sentences.
- Rewritten and sourced.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes Roman Emperors.org a reliable source?
- Did you check the source? Because it is indeed reliable. All the biographies I used (during the previous FAR) from this site are written by prominent scholars. For instance, Justinian's biography is written by J.A. Evans who has also written this book. Why is the book more reliable than the online biography, when the latter is written by the same person and it is properly cited? Anyway, I already replaced the Roman Emperors.org citations, but now that I think again the whole issue I honesly believe I lost my time and I shouldn't have done it. Your other concerns are indeed valid, but on this one you are wrong.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- External links need an overhaul. There are way too many, including some on personal websites on mac.com.
- They are not too many, but they do need an overhaul, but this is no major issue for the FA status. I'll check them one by one after the weekend.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Last FAR was in 2007.
- Five years! Hmmm ... It seems we did a great job at the time. Didn't we?!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced sections are my main concern, but a copy edit is also in order in parts. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The See also section is way too long. It is unnecessary to repeat links that occur in the text or in the navboxes. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with all the above remarks. And these are not the only problems. E.g. the article has far too many photos, and even the ones that will finally stay need some rearranging. According to the new standards, Brittanica should be replaced as a source and some other citations also need corrections, additions of pages etc. etc.
- The main problem of the article is that there is no editor constantly looking at it and fixing any problems arising. During the last FAR, I had worked my ass off to upgrade it, and, along with other editors, we had managed to save it. I wish I had the time to do it again now, but I haven't. I wish somebody else will undertake the "dirty work", because it is one of the richest articles of Wikipedia and "it would be a pity to lose it" (as another Wikipedian had said in a previous FAR).--Yannismarou (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One good thing about previous checkpoints such as FACs, FARCs and GANs is we can compare versions and easily and systematically review additions and subtractions - this might facilitate this whole process. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention is to work a bit on the article during the weekend, since I have some new additions in my library which might be helpful. But no guarantees that I'll do work finally! During the weekends, I often get lazy!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have begun working on the article, and will continue doing so over the next few days. I re-wrote and sourced the intro to the Macedonian Dynasty section, and plan to eventually source the entire section, as well as copyedit it along the way. I think the sourcing will be the hardest part, the external links, see also, and copyediting are easier to deal with. Though I don't have much time, this is an extremely significant article and it would be a real pity to have it delisted. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Athenean, when adding sources, try not to mix references styles. I think its better to stick to Harvard which has become the standard for this article.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was planning to use the cite book template and then use harvnb, because I figure I would use the same source throughout the text. Is that ok by you? Athenean (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds logical!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok! Then, at least for the time being, I let the "Macedonian Dynasty" chapter to you, since you already started it and look eager to continue. It's pointless and counter-productive to work both on the same place. I'll focus on other issues and problems of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. I have a great source for that section. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was planning to use the cite book template and then use harvnb, because I figure I would use the same source throughout the text. Is that ok by you? Athenean (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Athenean, when adding sources, try not to mix references styles. I think its better to stick to Harvard which has become the standard for this article.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have begun working on the article, and will continue doing so over the next few days. I re-wrote and sourced the intro to the Macedonian Dynasty section, and plan to eventually source the entire section, as well as copyedit it along the way. I think the sourcing will be the hardest part, the external links, see also, and copyediting are easier to deal with. Though I don't have much time, this is an extremely significant article and it would be a real pity to have it delisted. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention is to work a bit on the article during the weekend, since I have some new additions in my library which might be helpful. But no guarantees that I'll do work finally! During the weekends, I often get lazy!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One good thing about previous checkpoints such as FACs, FARCs and GANs is we can compare versions and easily and systematically review additions and subtractions - this might facilitate this whole process. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yannismarou and I are working our asses off adding sources, re-writing, and generally doing everything we can in order to keep the article. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my principle not to update until I am done with what I'm doing; and I am not yet. Athenean accurately described what is now happening in the article. Progress while our work is still in progress can be checked in the article's "History". Everybody's comments to what we are doing are not only welcomed but expected and needed. We are not infallible (although it's not my first time here!) and we need your advice and guidance. My full update will come, when I'll feel confident to say that now this article is close to my expectations and to the high standards I have set for it. Now, back to work ... --Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's something I'm wondering about all day, and I would like to have the opinion of Athenean and the other experienced reviewers here, because, before getting it out of me, I can't go to bed: I gave a great deal of thought about the utility of adding two sub-sections in the umbrella section "Culture" about Law and Demographics. The first subject is very interesting, since during Byzantium Roman law never stopped developping, and, as a matter of fact, the Justinian Code formed the basis of most modern Western law systems and jurisprudence, and the Basilika were officially the law of modern states (such as Greece) until the early 20th century. There is thus useful information and a subject worth analyzing per se. As regards demographics, modern bibliography offers a great deal of information (numbers, nations, evolution etc.), and it is an issue inherently linked to aspects of Byzantium that are the main focus of moder research, such as economy, sociology and culture. They are thus both issues deserving our attention as editors and worth reading by those "surfing" in Wikipedia. My reservations in adding them are due to the current length of the article. "Byzantine Empire" is a big article, but, do not misunderstant me, as I argued in the previous FAR, the article deserves its length, and almost every line is useful, since we deal with a multidimensional topic that is not easy to cover, and, in this case, comprehensiveness demands and deserves length. The question is "should we make it lengthier" or, by doing so, we are risking to make it exremely and inadequately long and therefore tiring for the reader? If I add these section, shall I serve or undermine comprehensiveness? This is why I hesitate and this is my dilemma.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am delighted to announce that the entire "Macedonian dynasty" section and all it's subsections are now expanded, fully sourced, and largely re-written. I think next I'd like to source the "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders" section. I think that should address all the sourcing issues raised by Ten Pound Hammer. By the way, if there are several consecutive sentences sourced the the same source, I usually include a citation only at the end of the last sentence so as to avoid overciting, so some sentences may appear unsourced but in fact that is not the case. Athenean (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll return to work a bit more on "Culture" after the weekend. But the article already looks (to me!) much "shinier".--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Yanni, I don't see anything wrong with adding those two sections, particularly the "Law" section. Yes, the article is long, but I don't think it is that long that it is starting to become a problem. As long as the sections are of reasonable length, I don't see any issue with them being added. Athenean (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm back! I'm back! Give me five more days!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Could we get an update on how work is going on this, please? It's great to see this article being worked on! If you all are close to done, it would be nice to get some outside reviewers in to check for any final issues before we close out this review. Dana boomer (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there, I still need to source the "Komnenian Dynasty and Crusaders" paragraph, but other than that I think the article is in good shape. I will be real busy with RL stuff till the end of the month, but I should have that wrapped up by the first week of next month. Athenean (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just completed the sourcing of the Komnenian section, as well as polished the article here and there. With that, I believe all the concerns raised by the FAR have been addressed. Athenean (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no pressing issues now. As far as I can see, all my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent timing, I was literally seconds away from requesting closure of the FAR. Athenean (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- There has been significant progress during the review stage, and for that I thank the main editors working on the article. I would like to see comments from additional reviewers, though, and so am moving the article to the FARC stage. If comments are not forthcoming, the article will be kept, but it would be nice to see some additional opinions! I am hoping that this move will stir a few more reviewers... Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, my concerns have all been addressed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.