Talk:Alexios Komnenos (governor of Dyrrhachium)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Cplakidas. Will this one be going further, or should I just give it a straightforward GA assessment? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, I don't think it has the wherewithal to go much further, but if you want to review beyond strictly GA criteria, go ahead. Anything that helps improve the article is welcome. Constantine 17:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I thought that you would say all of that, but I wanted to ask.
  • I have had a second read through and made a couple of copy edits. Could you check and flag up anything you're not happy with. I hope to have a third run through tomorrow and tackle most of the review then.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Copyedits look good, thanks a lot :) 17:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Constantine
  • When you first mention the foreign language word "sebastokrator" could you explain it in the text, as you do with "sebastos" and "doux". Or, at a push, in a note. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, unlike with doux, there is no direct translation or concise description other than it being a high title, and I cannot think of a way of introducing a description to this effect that does not make the text convoluted. Constantine 17:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Rereading, I am not sure why you have included it. Does it not largely duplicate "older brother of Byzantine emperor..." immediately after his name. Ie, it is telling the reader that Isaac was a very important person, which they should gather even if this was deleted. I agree that inserting something like "a senior sub-emperor rank specially invented by his doting brother" is a bit much. But would not something like "who was granted a uniquely high rank" or similar do the job better for all but the <1% of readers who are Byzantine nomenclature aficionados? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hah, you do have a point. However, I do feel that including it is better than not doing so. For one, this is the common way of referring to senior officials or noblemen, i.e., title + name. This is equivalent to saying, for a Western nobleman, "son of Duke X", or "son of the chancellor Y". Furthermore, I am generally not in favour of removing technical terms, when they are warranted. Those who know the term will understand; those who don't but follow the link to the title will learn; those who don't care will simply ignore it. Constantine 07:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • And ha! back. Cplakidas, I am going to be away for several days, so I am going to pass this. It is a fine little article. However, I would like to delve into the "sebastokrator" issue a little further, so I hope that you will humour me once I am back. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and no problem. Your comments and insight are always welcome. Constantine 07:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose (Symbol support vote.svg) 1b. MoS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2a. ref layout (Symbol support vote.svg) 2b. cites WP:RS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2c. no WP:OR (Symbol support vote.svg) 3a. broadness (Symbol support vote.svg)
3b. focus (Symbol support vote.svg) 4. neutral (Symbol support vote.svg) 5. stable (Symbol support vote.svg) 6a. free or tagged images (Symbol support vote.svg) 6b. pics relevant (Symbol support vote.svg)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment 2.png are unassessed