Jump to content

Talk:John Kourkouas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJohn Kourkouas has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
November 3, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
February 7, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 18, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 24, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Byzantine general John Kourkouas, supreme commander of the Byzantine armies in the East for 22 years, was hailed by his contemporaries as "another Trajan or Belisarius"?
Current status: Good article

comments

[edit]

Comment Clarify pronouns--for example:

  • From this post he played a role, first in the consolidation of Romanos Lekapenos' position as regent over Constantine VII, and eventually his ascent to the post of senior emperor in 919–920. Whose ascent to the post of senior emperor? Romanos Lekapenos? or Constantine VII?
Ok, fixed. Constantine 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of Greek--for example:

  • His brother, Theophilos Kourkouas, replaced Boelas as strategos of Chaldia and in charge of this northernmost sector of the eastern frontier. His brother, Theophilos Kourkouas, replaced Boelas as army leader, or strategos, of Chaldia and in charge of this northernmost sector of the eastern frontier.
Hmmm, I thought it was clear, that since Boelas was governor, and Kourkouas replaced him, that strategos=governor. Apparently not... ;) Constantine 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear meanings--for example:

  • At the same time, the Abbasid Caliphate progressively decayed... The Caliphate decayed? Or its power? At the same time (or concurrently), the authority of the Abbasid Caliphate decayed (diminished). At the same time, the Abbasid Caliphate undermined its own authority by....; at the same time, corruption and vice undermined the military and cultural authority of the Abbasid Caliphate ...

under Al-Muqtadir (r. 908–932) the Caliphate was in disarray, facing revolts and a weakening of its hold on the more distant provinces, where local dynasties emerged.]  ?? Finally, under Al Mutqtadir (r. 908-932) the Caliphate lost its hold on such distant provinces as ...(examples?) As the Abbasid Caliphate's central hold on Byzantium declined, ...

I rephrased this entirely, hopefully it's OK now. As for the specific provinces, this was a phenomenon current throughout the Caliphate (which was never that centralized in the first place), that varied in extent and in the level of autonomy these dynasties enjoyed: the emirates on the Byzantine frontier and in the Caucasus, all internally autonomous but still subject to the Caliph, are one example, while the Hamdanids, practically independent rulers, are another. I really don't feel I can go into too much detail here. The situation should become clear as one reads the article, where the local emirates are left to fend for themselves or operate independently of whatever Baghdad was doing. Constantine 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor tweaks. this is looking much better. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks a lot for your help. Very much appreciated, as it is really hard for me to judge what parts a reader who is not familiar with the subject can understand or not. Cheers, Constantine 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Kourkouas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I reviewed this at its Military History peer review, and I'm happy to look at it again for GA. I'll be posting some comments in the next 24 hours. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]