Talk:Archbishopric of Moravia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article within the next few days. I brought the closely-related article on the Photian schism to GA-status and look forward to working on this one. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Fix link for Methodius. If you're going to use a pipe link, it should be correct. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your remark. The link is correct. Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to "Saint Methodius of Thessaloniki" but the article is entitled "Saints Cyril and Methodius." Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Methodius is identical with Saint Methodius of Thessaloniki, but for the time being there is no separate article dedicated to him. The main article (Saints Cyril and Methodius) is dedicated to Saint Methodius of Thessaloniki is dedicated both to him and to his brother, Cyril/Constantine. Borsoka (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an image that we can have at the top right of the article, like a map, for instance? There are plenty of images in the body of the article and in my opinion, it always looks nice to have one at the top. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A picture added.

Origins

"They ruled that the local Christians who had been baptised in the name of the Trinity should not be rebaptised in contrast with those who had not received baptism properly." This is unclear to me. Is it saying that those who were not baptized in the name of the Trinity should be rebaptized? I suggest rewording this. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified.

"consecrated a church for one Pribina..." Saying "for ONE Pribina" makes it look to me as though we don't know who Pribina is, although we clearly do. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"The Notae de episcopis Pateviensibus recorded..." We generally use the present tense to describe something as it is written, even if it was written a very long time ago. There are multiple areas where this needs fixing. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Do we know what led Pope Adrian II to sanction the use of the Slavic liturgy or what arguments may have been used on him to get him to do so?

Two sentences added. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, I've made it through the Origins section. More soon. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see anything in the final paragraph of the Origins section about why Adrian II decided to sanction the liturgy or how Kocel's envoys persuaded him to do so. Display name 99 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more.

Methodius, Bishop of St. Andronicus's see

In the caption, consider adding a comma after "Pope Adrian II." Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, either remove only or add a semicolon or start a new sentence before but. Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"Historian Maddalena Betti says that the absence of Roman sources implies that negotiations over Methodius's appointment between the Holy See and Koceľ were conducted confidentially, because the pope did not want to come into conflict with Louis the German, King of East Francia." I don't understand why there would be a danger of coming into conflict with him or what this would entail. I think you might want to elaborate here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified.

I also don't understand how the appointment "jeopardized the interests of the Salzburg see." This needs some explaining. Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified.

For the third to last paragraph, shouldn't you talk about John VIII succeeding Adrian was pope the first time that John is mentioned, which is further up in the same section? Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified.

Do we know why Methodius was released? Was there any uncertainty about whether or not to follow the Pope's demands? Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added info about an interdict, but the reason of Methodius' release is not clarified in the sources.

As a general grammatical note, I'm not going to fail the review over this, but when we refer in writing to someone of a specific position, such as the pope, we capitalize the first letter of the word. So you would say "the Pope" if you're referring to a specific pope. Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now finishing up.

Archdiocese of Moravia

For the second paragraph, I don't know what "Maraba" means. Display name 99 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your concern. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's used twice in the paragraph and I'm not sure what it is. The idea of there being a "vernacular 'Maraba' form" of something makes me think that it's a language or dialect, but then the article talks about someone being named "Maraba," which suggests otherwise. I'm just not sure what the word means or why it's in quotes both of the times that it appears. Display name 99 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified.

Collapse

The article says that Stephen V "ordered" the inclusion of the filioque. But Vlasto (p. 81) says that he "urged" it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in this specific case the two verbs are synonyms.

How so? Display name 99 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The verb is changed.

Can you talk about how some of the Moravians were sold as slaves? Display name 99 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info added.

Sources

All sources appear to be good, reliable material. However, I would like to say that it is standard practice on Wikipedia to only include sources in the Bibliography which are cited in the text. There are quite a few sources in the "Sources" section which are showing up as Harvard errors because, although Harvard referencing is used and they're in the Sources section, there aren't any citations to them. The best thing to do here is to create a separate "Further reading" section and move any works that aren't cited in the text but are still relevant into that. Display name 99 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading" section added.

That's all for now. Borsoka, it's been three days since I reviewed the first part of the article, so please be in contact soon. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99:, thank you for your comprehensive review. I need some days to address the above problems. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99:, thank you for your patience. I think I addressed the above issues. Let me know if anythin is unclear or further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, well done. The article definitely looks better now. I have just two outstanding concerns that I didn't think were adequately answered above. Address those and I should be ready to pass the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99:, I only found one and I fixed it. Would you clarify your last outstanding concern? Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, sorry, I wrote it in the wrong part of the review. My concern is that "I still don't see anything in the final paragraph of the Origins section about why Adrian II decided to sanction the liturgy or how Kocel's envoys persuaded him to do so." Any information on that would be helpful. If you don't have any, I'll go ahead and pass the article. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99:, thank you for the clarification. I added all information available to me: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I believe that this article now meets GA standards. I will now promote it. Good work. Display name 99 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99:, thank you for your time and for your suggestions. Have a nice week! :) Borsoka (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]