Talk:Siege of Patras (805 or 807)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to do one of these -- I'm guaranteed to learn something brand new... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox checks

No dab or EL issues.
No dup links.

Prose -- performed my habitual copyedit, pls let me know if I misunderstood/broke anything.

Content -- not my area of expertise of course but I've no reason on past experience not to trust your interpretation of events/sources, and certainly the tone seems perfectly neutral.

Structure & supporting materials -- logical and straightforward, and image licence seems fine.

Referencing -- just a formatting point: I'd have thought "Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De administrando imperio Ch. 49, ed. Moravscik & Jenkins (1967), pp. 229, 231" would be closer to the layout of the sources and other citations as "Moravscik; Jenkins (1967), Ch. 49, pp. 229, 231"

Summary -- nice, succinct article; sorry it took me a while to review but looking forward to passing as GA shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian! Thanks for taking the time to review this, and for ironing out some trouble spots with my prose! I've fixed the reference as suggested. Style aside, as a non-expert on the time and place, how would you rate the readability/accessibility of the content? I don't know if I will push this article further up the review scale, but I'd like to know if there is anything where you think I might clarify/expand upon. Cheers,

Well nothing really made me go "huh?" as I read it, so I guess that's a good sign! To me the level of detail is plenty for GA, I suppose if you were considering taking it further, the only thing that really stands out for me is that the background section is almost as large as the siege section (the point of the article). So perhaps an additional level of detail on the siege itself (if available from reliable sources) might be reasonable; a somewhat more detailed lead might also help. Doesn't affect my passing it as GA though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]