Talk:Boz (king)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LavaBaron (talk · contribs) 18:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well Written ✗ Fail <- @LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes? Abel (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please rewrite Vinitharius condemned Bozh and his sons, and seventy of his nobles, to crucifixion in order to terrorize the Antes. as Vinitharius condemned Bozh, his sons, and seventy of his nobles, to crucifixion in order to terrorize the Antes.
  • Done.--Zoupan 04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Please rewrite Vinitharius left their bodies hanging in order to induce fear to those who had surrendered. as Vinitharius left their bodies hanging to induce fear in those who had surrendered.
  • Done.--Zoupan 04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Please rewrite Some historians have tried to identify him with Bus as Some historians have tried to identify Bhoz with Bus
  • Done.--Zoupan 04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) -

Verifiable ✓ Pass

• yes, exhaustively sourced to RS

• Comments:
  • Florin Curta and Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen name him Boz in their cited works. Why does the article name him Bozh? (WP:Name) Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The other sources use both spellings; as per studies, "Bozh" is the proper transliteration.--Zoupan 23:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Patrick J. Geary also uses the Boz form. What are the "other sources" or "studies" using the Bozh spelling? Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • In English-language sources - Smal Stocki: "Antes king Boz (or Bozh)", Chirovsky: "In the year 380 Boz or Bozh", Vukcevic: "Bozh, king of the Antes". In Slavic works, his name is written as Cyrillic "Бож", Latin "Bož", transcribed as "Bozh". "Bozh" is unambiguous, "Boz" is not. If you insist, we could move request to Boz (king).--Zoupan 08:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The first sentence is not verified in the main text ("the first Slavic ruler known in history"). Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • For now, I have removed that sentence.--Zoupan 23:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Broad <- @LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes? Abel (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• probably - asking for a second opinion as it's a dense topic
  
• Agree with Tim riley that this should now pass. Abel (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutral <- @LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes? Abel (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• probably - asking for a second opinion as it's a dense topic
  
• Agree with Tim riley that this should now pass. Abel (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments:

:**The lead does not mention that he is only mentioned by Jordanes (if my understanding is correct). Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • Done.--Zoupan 00:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead does not mention that other sources say that the Antes were not ruled by monarchs, and there are scholars (eg. Curta) who think that he was only a legendary figure. Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Procopius' quote is in the article (background). Curta's "quasi-legendary" does not equate to "legendary", and the quote is directed towards the historian's thoughts on Procopius' "Slavic democracy".--Zoupan 00:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the article should clearly distinguish between facts and interpretations. For instance, the article contains the following sentence: "The Antes received a strong ruling power and military organization over time from the Gothic influence." However, this sentence does not contain a fact, but a scholarly POV, which is not shared by all specialists cited in the article (e.g. by Curta). Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done.--Zoupan 00:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Stable ✓ Pass

• yes; other than nom, no sig edits in 1+ year

Illustrated ✓ Pass

• yes, as far as could be expected given the topic

The reviewer has asked for a second opinion. No doubt the opinion of an expert would be preferable to that of a layman like me, but as no expert has come forward, I add my comments here. The article strikes me as neutral: I see no hint of pro- or anti-Bozh bias. As to its breadth, I have briefly searched online, in subscription sites as well as free ones, and I find very little on the topic: I conclude that the article meets GA criterion 3. The prose is not magnificent, but it will suffice, except in the penultimate sentence of "Story of Bozh", where the "however" (if we must have that intrusive and rarely necessary word) needs a stronger stop than a comma. Ideally, ", however," would be replaced by a semicolon. Hope these comments are helpful. – Tim riley talk 07:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Two months since nomination, does it pass or no?--Zoupan 21:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not me who will decide. By the way, the present title (Bozh) has not been verified yet. My other comments were addressed. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Moved. @Tim riley: Pass?--Zoupan 03:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by llywrch

I'm limiting my comments to only this point. In this article, king Boz is said to have lived in the late 4th century. However, in the related article Antes, it is asserted that the earliest mention of the Antes people is 518, when they invaded the Diocese of Thrace; one of these two articles is wrong, & this contradiction should be fixed before this article can be promoted to GA. (I suspect it's the other article that needs correcting, but I'm not an expert on the subject either.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It is already stated that the story of Boz is mentioned by Jordanes (550).--Zoupan 19:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the comments have been addressed and the second review provided, so I'm closing this. Wizardman 16:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)