Talk:Leo II (emperor)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sigurd Hring (talk · contribs) 21:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I've already taken one article for review but I need practice to get acquainted with the review process here. As this is a short article and (nearly) within my field of historical interest, I'm happy to take this one too. Please bear with me for now. Ziggy (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sigurd Hring:, no problem. There are lots of GAN Reviewing guides across the wiki, along with WP:GAI itself. Feel free to copy my template for reviews as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry for not replying sooner but I've had some real life issues to attend to. I had already found a template of sorts and I've been reading the criteria which make good sense. It's just the site terminology that I need to grasp, I think. Ziggy (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and embedded lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Scope:

B. Length:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Points 4, 5 and 6 are all okay. Point 3 needs consideration because the article has only 3067 characters in 556 words of readable prose, so it is very short and this creates an immediate doubt that it is "broad in coverage". The criteria do not exclude short articles so I'm accepting the length aspect of coverage but I'm not happy about the scope because there is more here about Zeno than Leo and that needs to be addressed.

Point 2 concerns verification and I'm happy with the method and layout but have some concerns about the application. I have therefore okayed reference section, no OR and no CV but not necessary citations. One of the problems I have with the article overall is that it does not comply with Leo's entry in List of Byzantine emperors. The source used in that entry (Alexander Kazhdan) is not evident in this article. The list entry says that Leo was known as "the Little" and the Greek and Latin renditions of his name are not the same as in this article. The list entry says he was born circa 467 while the article treats 467 as a definite date.

In the "History" section, the first paragraph is fine. It is entirely within scope and very well referenced. The second and third paragraphs are largely out of scope, are not well written and it seems that more citations are needed. On the question of "well written", the introduction failed that at first but I revised it myself because it was only a marginal failure of point 1B overall; the article now passes 1B but not 1A. There is overuse of the word "however" and constructions like "so that Zeno could ascend to the throne; However" and "hidden at a monastery; However" are plain bad grammar. There is poor usage of commas as in "Basiliscus was crowned caesar, in 476, and was nearly executed in 477 after his father was murdered by Zeno, but was saved by Ariadne, and placed in a monastery". That should be two sentences and "nearly executed" is poor English as are the uses of "but" and ", and" in the latter part of the construction.

Attention is needed and so I am placing the review on hold for a suitable time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sigurd Hring: As a general rule on Wikipedia, when an article and a list dispute, the list is wrong. In this case the list is, and I have fixed it. On your question of the usage of "the little" not being included, this is only historiographical. Basically, he is called "the little" by some Byzantine texts as they did not use "I" and "II" such as we do. It is not a true nickname, only used by some sources to distinguish I and II. I've also fixed the grammar of the text. On your questions of scope, I would point out that the article contains all that is known about him. Wikipedia generally allows any article that has the full extent of knowledge to be considered full in coverage, such as this article with only 3889 characters and 592 words that is a Featured Article, the highest class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been reading more guideline content and you are right about full extent so that clears up my uncertainty over scope. You've resolved the citation question I raised and with the copyedit you've done, I have no more questions and all the boxes have been ticked. Bear with me and I will complete the GA pass process. Thanks for your help and my apologies for any confusion caused. Ziggy (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sigurd Hring: No problem, Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. It's the scale of it that's the problem. I think I need to focus on individual facets and not try to take too much on. Thanks again. Ziggy (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]