Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 23:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a look. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Dab links and external links tools show no problems. Copyvio tool returns green. Seeing a lot of duplicate links though if those could be addressed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Source spotcheck Ref 40 backs up material cited in the article. Other offline sources accepted in good faith.
It is broad in its coverage:
Not Yet
- What were the populations of the Cuman groups initially here?
  - Sorry, I do not understand your above question.
    As in, is there a population estimate for the Cumans you can add? —Ed!^(talk) 05:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not have sources to make such an estimation. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Background before" it's relevant to include here what the religion of the indigenous populations are before the arrival of the Teutonic Knights, as religion plays such an important role in the article otherwise.
  - I added information about the Cumans' religion ([1]). That the Vlachs were Orthodox is already mentioned in the same section.
- Creation and Fall: Was there at this point a permanent location for Theodoric? Any town?
  - Scholarly theories about the location of the see of the bishopric are mentioned under section 2. Territory and see.
- Could be mentioned what became of the Cumans and what the impact of the Mongol invasion was on them, that article does have some detail that could be pulled.
  - I will soon add some information on this specific issue.
    I expanded the text: [2].
    
    Sounds good! Please ping when you do. —Ed!^(talk) 05:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "but their attempts to regain the properties of the Diocese of Cumania were unsuccessful." -- Any notable reason stated?
  - I try to collect some information on this specific issue in a couple of hours.
    The source only says that other clergymen and lay men occupied the former properties of the bishopric. Otherwise, there is no further explanaiton.
- Any chance for a map or an image of the areas where the territory is estimated to be?
  - The only map showing the possible borders of the bishopric was deleted because of copyvio. I expanded the caption of the only map in the article with a reference to the bishopric ([3]).
- Would it be possible to indicate where this land is located within today's Catholic organization? While it's only a general idea on land, imagine it's in an area that has a modern day administration.
  - Sorry, I have no reliable sources about this issue.
- Ref 45 is resolving some form of error.
  - I fixed the problem.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass Not seeing any problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Other:
On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive review. I need some days to address the above problems. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Just ping me when you can finish it. —Ed!^(talk) 01:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed!:, thank you for your patience. I tried to fix some of the problems and I made some remarks above. Borsoka (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed!:, please find my new comments above. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so thinking this addresses my major thoughts on the article. Based on this work, going to Pass the GAN. Thanks for your work on it! —Ed!^(talk) 00:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work and flexibility. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]