Talk:Battle of Halmyros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Battle of the Cephissus)
Jump to: navigation, search


In conjunction with conducting WPMILHIST assessment, here's a ghit resource for an editor who is interested in adding inline footnotes. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Halmyros/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 00:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article tomorrow. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Well-written Symbol wait.svg

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is some grammar or sentence errors I discovered.
1. "the Battle of the Cephissus or Orchomenos" - I know what it says, but I would recommend adding "the Battle" in front of Orchomenos.
2. "was fought on 15 March 1311 between the forces of the Frankish Duchy of Athens and its vassals under Walter of Brienne and the mercenaries of the Catalan Company, resulting in a devastating victory for the Catalans" - Instead of first mentioning the date of the battle considerer first telling the reader what the battle was. For instance, the Battle of Stalingrad article starts with "was a major battle of World War II in which Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union".
I don't quite see what you're getting at. How does my text, introducing date and the combatants, differ from the Stalingrad article's? Why is this in any way important either way?
3. "the marauding Company" - Marauding should be capitalized when followed by "Company".
No, here is meant "the marauding [Catalan] Company" with "marauding" as an adjective, not part of the actual name.

:4. "John turned Byzantium and the other Greek principality, the state of Epirus, for aid" - the word "to" is missing between "John" and "Byzantium". :5. "the Catalans scored success upon success" - This is just a suggestion but I would replace "upon" with "after". :6. "The main sources on the events before and during the battle are three" - Three what? Should be clarified. :7. "the near-contemporary Chronicle of Ramon Muntaner, and the Aragonese version of the Chronicle of the Morea, and the account found in the history of the Byzantine writer Nikephoros Gregoras (ca. 1359)" - The world "and" should not be between "Muntaner," and "the Aragonese" as it's not the last mentioned. :8. "According to the Chronicle of the Morea, the Catalan army on the other hand comprised" - Why the "on the other hand" wording? It seems confusing. How about this wording "According to the Chronicle of the Morea, the Catalan army in reality comprised"? :9. "comprised 2,000 horse and 4,000 infantry" - This sentence should be changed to "comprised 2,000 horses and 4,000 infantrymen".

"horse" is used here in the sense of "cavalry", so it is not wrong, but I'll change it to avoid future misunderstandings.

:10. "at least 1,100 of whom Turkish prisoners" - The word "were" is missing between "whom" and "Turkish".

Again, not strictly an error, but the sentence indeed flows better with the verb included.
11. "While modern scholars consider these numbers clearly exaggerated, they do suggest that the Athenian army had numerical superiority over the Catalans" - I'd recommend replacing "suggest" with "agree" as it seems rather vague.
No, the numbers suggest, not the scholars.

:12. "so that Halmyros is now the commonly accepted localization of the battle" - the "so that" part sounds rather unprofessional. Considered replacing it with simply "and". :13. "he formed a cavalry line of 200 Frankish knights "with golden spurs", according to Montaner" - How about this wording "he formed a cavalry line of 200 Frankish knights which, according to Montaner, was equipped with "golden spurs". :14. "Gregoras reports that 6,400 cavalry and 8,000 infantry fell in the battle" - The cavalry and infantry mention should be written as "cavalrymen" and "infantrymen".

15. "Again these numbers must be treated with caution" - Ummmm ... that sentence appears to written from a personal point of view. Should be changed to something like "The casualty rate remains controversial" or "The overall number of casualties remains unknown".
I've rephrased this, hopefully it's OK now.

:16. "senior members of thr Frankish nobility" - Visibly misspelled word.

17. "and a few others, like Antoine le Flamenc, were probably captured and later ransomed" - I would suggest removing this entire sentence. "a few others" and "probably" seems like guessing.
That's exactly what it is, but not by me. It's Miller who speculates on this, and with good reason. I've expanded a bit to remove any cause for doubting its accuracy.
18. "where his son buried him in the Church of Santa Croce" - Because the article refers to Walter V as "Walter of Brienne" I can see why you're forced to write "his son", but if you were to refer to Walter of Brienne as "Walter V" you could change this sentence to "where his son, Walter VI, buried him in the Church of Santa Croce", but this is just a suggestion.
Well, the numbering is confused, Walter V of Brienne was also Walter I of Athens, and his son was Walter II, but as the claim was theoretical, I thought it best not to tangle with numbers at all. Besides, Walter VI/II plays almost no role in the narrative, so it is not really necessary to bother with it.
19. "The battle was "significant and perhaps even could be defined as decisive" (DeVries)" - How about this wording, "DeVries described the battle as "significant and perhaps even could be defined as decisive".
Due to the syntax of the quote, it is difficult to place it in any other way, and if I were to paraphrase it it would be pretty close either way. I've tweaked it slightly, though. The main reason I included the quote verbatim is to have the "decisive" bit, because people around here sometimes want to see it claimed by a historian before agreeing that a battle was "decisive". Pointless, really, but there you go.

:20. "only to be defeated and almost annihilated by the joint forces of the Byzantines and the Genoese at Gallipoli" - When making a reference like this, considered mentioning what year that battle of annihilation was in.

21. "but another Briennist attempt to launch a campaign against them in 1370–71 came to naught" - How about replacing "naught" to "nothing"? This is just a suggestion.
I have a fondness for archaic words like "naught" (perhaps because of reading Tolkien early in my English studies), so if it is not absolutely necessary, I'd prefer it to stay ;).
22. "It was not until 1379–80 that Catalan rule faced its first major setback" - It appears the world "the" is missing between "that" and "Catalan".
I think it is grammatically correct, actually.
  • Verifiable with no original research Symbol wait.svg

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

I'm satisfied with the sources used and Harvard references, but only three of the books cited in the article has ISBN numbers. If you are able to find all the other information (author, title, year of publishing, publishing house, country) and even a links to the books, you should be able to find the ISBN numbers. Other than that, the sources used is great.
  • Broad in its coverage Symbol support vote.svg

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article stays on topic, covers the main aspects of the battle, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
  • Neutral Symbol support vote.svg

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article represents viewpoints fairly and is very acceptable in terms of neutrality.
  • Stable Symbol support vote.svg

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The content does not change from day to day (except in the face of a GA-nomination) and is not the subject of heated or controversial discussion.
  • Illustrated Symbol wait.svg

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The images used in the article are pictures uploaded and from Commons and is public domains. However, I would strongly suggest getting a picture for the infobox. Personally, I would recommend Almogavers-catalans.jpg. It has a high resolution and seems to fit the infobox and overall subject of the article.
I've thought of it, but I am reserving the space for a map of the Catalan campaign in Greece I've begun working on.
  • Pass, fail, or hold? Symbol wait.svg
Because of the points made in the "Well-written" section and the ISBN problem I'm going to put this article on hold and give the GA-nominator and other edits the chance to work a little more on the article per these suggestions. I hope this helps, peace out. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review this. As you've raised several points, I'll address them directly as I deal with them, either crossing them out or commenting directly below them. As for the ISBNs, I'd forgotten the History of the Crusades one, but the others are just too old to have any. Cheers, Constantine 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Constantine, the article is defiantly better now. I actually did not notice the books might be too old for an ISBN while I addressing that problem, so that seems to matter no more. The points I insisted you change or correct in the section have all been fixed, so good job there. Regarding the "naught" issue, I also prefer to use words or synonyms that's not used very commonly, I just thinking it would be easier for the laymen to read, but that also seems to somewhat immaterial (see what I did there? xD) With all theses improvements, I'm going to pass it, and good job. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, Jonas. Best regards, Constantine 07:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's still full of typos though. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Really? Where? And if so, why don't you fix them yourself, since typos are about the easiest type of error to fix? Constantine 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You really are saying "really"? The typos are everywhere! Even on the last sentence: unless that "ambitious lord of Corinth, Nerio I Acciaioli" was EXTREMELY long lived, "1490" must actually be "1390". There were also several misspellings of "Catalans", and lots of other less serious miss-spellings. The fix it yourself advice applies to you too. I was reading the article just to read it (because it is interesting), and not to edit it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I am. If there are typos after two users have gone over the article in the course of a GA process, then they are probably not that obvious. So if you want to point out remaining problems, you are more than welcome to do so, but please either point them out explicitly or fix them right away. Just coming here and saying "there are a lot of typos" doesn't help anyone. Cheers, Constantine 15:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the date and the one occurrence of "Catlanas" and a misspelling of Muntaner. I honestly cannot see the "lots" of typos you refer to. Once again, please list them or fix them yourself. Constantine 15:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
After glancing the article one more time, I don't see many errors either. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I have also looked through it again and don't see any - all of the typos I noticed earlier have gone. But I think 7 typos was a lot of typos to see in a GA of this size, especially if some were serious ones like a date or the spelling of important persons. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Seven typos? As mentioned, I found three, which I fixed. What are the other four? And I think one can be forgiven for misspelling "Catalans" as "Catlanas" and not spotting it immediately, though indeed perhaps less so for the date. Constantine 18:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Cheeky little drive-by, added map, moved some cites to sentence ends, rm dupe wikilinks, changed isbn 10s to 13s rv a few archaisms. All suggestive, rv as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)