Talk:Domestic of the Schools/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
General:
- Lead:
- Give dates for the Palaiologan period?
- History:
- Suggest "The office of the Domestic ..."
- Themes were basically provinces, right? Suggest "armies of the themes (provinces)..."
- Why is "British" important in "The British historian J.B. Bury has..."? Also I'd suggest just "Bury traced" ...
- "The Schools (Latin: scholae; Greek: σχολαὶ, scholai) were the senior tagma.." was there one regiment or several which were considered the Schools? If there were several, this is correct, but if there was only one regiment - we have a problem with the grammar here. "Were" is plural and this usage is leading me to believe that there were more than one regiment called the Schools. But the lead says "Originally simply the commander of the Scholai, the senior of the elite tagmata regiments..." which seems to mean there was only one Scholai??
- Why is "French" in "The French scholar..." important?
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.
- Hello Ealdgyth and thanks for the review! I have rewritten the portions where you pointed out problems, except for the third suggestion: if I am already writing on the "provincial armies of the themes", wouldn't it be redundant to add "(provinces)" right after? Also is there anything more you might like to see on the post itself? Constantine ✍ 08:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. THe third point isn't vital - so if you feel strongly about it we can leave it alone. Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Ealdgyth and thanks for the review! I have rewritten the portions where you pointed out problems, except for the third suggestion: if I am already writing on the "provincial armies of the themes", wouldn't it be redundant to add "(provinces)" right after? Also is there anything more you might like to see on the post itself? Constantine ✍ 08:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)