Talk:Siege of Shaizar/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I have boldly done a little copy editing. Please flag up here anything you are unhappy with. Thanks
- The lead seems a little brief to me and would benefit with an expansion to more fully cover the text of the article.
- Done
- Link citadel.
- Done
- The infobox image needs a US PD tag. As do the other two images.
- Not a clue what it is - I just write stuff, my knowledge of how Wikipedia works is minute.
- Well I did my first one of these last week so I'll have a go. And done for all three. I hope. I'll let you know if an admin hunts me down.
- Not a clue what it is - I just write stuff, my knowledge of how Wikipedia works is minute.
- "Freed from immediate external threats in the Balkans or in Anatolia" absolutely cries out to be followed by 'by...', with … being the reason(s) for this freedom.
- Done
- Link suzerainty.
- Done
- "to assert his rights of authority over Antioch". A little redundant; can we have him asserting either his rights or his authority? Or, if the sources support it, 'his rights and authority'.
- Politically fraught - Antioch was nominally Byzantine into the 1190s and the legal position of the Antiochene Latin principality was shaky - when able to the Byzantine emperors made the princes grovel (literally) - but they never managed to assert direct control. The link to the Treaty of Devol should make things a little clearer to the interested reader. Have added 'and'.
- Actually I knew all that. (I have had 14 Byzantine GAs in the last 6 months. That sounds boastful, but I am trying to establish that I have a grip on the basics.) Mostly I was picking at the grammar, admittedly in the context of the political situation.
- Politically fraught - Antioch was nominally Byzantine into the 1190s and the legal position of the Antiochene Latin principality was shaky - when able to the Byzantine emperors made the princes grovel (literally) - but they never managed to assert direct control. The link to the Treaty of Devol should make things a little clearer to the interested reader. Have added 'and'.
- "for a descent on Antioch". A "descent" seems an odd choice of word. Perhaps something like 'The necessary preparation for putting pressure on the crusader states was the recovery', or 'The necessary preparation for putting pressure on Antioch was the recovery'?
- No this is purely geographical - Cilicia is between the areas under firm Byzantine control and Antioch. To get his army to Antioch (and sea transport was inherently risky - so many armies of the period were lost in storms at sea when in transit) he had to reconquer Cilicia.
- Hmm. Well i'm not going to argue at GAN. Fine.
- I think that "descent" carries the exact hint of veiled menace that characterised John's expedition from the Latin viewpoint. The princes of Antioch slipped between being dutiful vassals, unreliable vassals and outright enemies of the Byzantines with a total lack of conscience. Though aimed at Muslim Syria, John's army was a potent threat to Latin Antioch. Even had Aleppo been taken, I think that the hand over of Antioch would not have gone smoothly. Urselius (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well i'm not going to argue at GAN. Fine.
- No this is purely geographical - Cilicia is between the areas under firm Byzantine control and Antioch. To get his army to Antioch (and sea transport was inherently risky - so many armies of the period were lost in storms at sea when in transit) he had to reconquer Cilicia.
- Link vassal.
- Done
- "the Emperor was soon thrown entirely on his own resources." I am not sure what this means. On the surface I would read it as his being abandoned by his allies, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Is it possible to be more precise? It may be clearer if this sentence runs straight into "Although John fought hard for the Christian cause in the campaign in Syria, his allies Raymond of Antioch and Joscelin of Edessa remained in their camp playing dice and feasting instead of helping to press the siege."
- Wording changed.
- An ISBN for Angold please, and an OCLC for Runciman.
- I do not know what an OCLC is.
- Apologies. I have just noticed that it is a 1990 reprint, so needs an ISBN, which it has, not an OCLC. Sloppy of me to have missed it.
- ISBN done
- I do not know what an OCLC is.
- A publisher location for Birkenmeier.
- Done
- It doesn't work like that. I have sorted it.
- Done
Congratulations. A fine GA there. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
