Talk:Siege of Syracuse (877–878)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 11:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I will be taking on the review of this article, expect a full review to be up by tomorrow Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The concerns I had below have been addressed, minor nitpicks and misconceptions I had may have been excluded for those reasons. Questions, comments and issues; Q: "had tried and failed to take" <- not sure what to think of the linking of the siege of 827-828 as "tried and failed" perhaps link in 827? sort of like what was done for 868. A: Good point, changed. C: ~~"province, in 868, 869, and 873, failed." <- maybe "all failed" or "failed as well".~~ C: ~~"Abu Ishaq" <- suggest to link (even if red-link).~~ C: ~~"claims Theodosios" <- 'according to' is preferred per WP:SAID.~~ C: "by contrary winds" <- I get what is being said, but, is there a better word for it than contrary? Hmmm, that is AFAIK the common term in English? I might substitute it with "adverse" or such like, but I am puzzled why this should be a problem... Constantine ✍ 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] C: "fortifications" <- worth linking to Fortification? I think this would be a case of overlinking. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] C: ~~"inform admiral Adrianos of events" <- of the events.~~ C: "Warfare continued through the 880s" <- throughout the 880s "continued through" is correct, meaning that it continued through the 870s into and for a large part of the 880s. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] C: "Massacred them all." <- a bit much (how do we know that they all died), perhaps -> the Arabs entered the church, where much of the populace had sought refuge, and began massacring them. <- it's a little less explicit as I fail to see how we could know that all of them were massacred, many, even most, but how all? (I hope that makes sense). I understand the concern, but the narrative of the siege comes from Theodosios as an eye witness, and for better or worse we must rely on it. He says that they were all massacred, and even if it is inaccurate, there's really no way of knowing. I've qualified the statement accordingly, to be on the safe side. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article lead has bee expanded considerably, all other MOS requirements had already been met. My main concern is with the lede of the article, the rest of the article is neatly laid out according to MOS. The lede is too short for the article, I'll jot down a couple things that should be incorporated into the lede as I read the article; Summarize the background; The Aghlabids having tried and failed to capture/siege Syracuse multiple times and the change of governors impacting upon the success of the siege. Mention the struggles that the populace faced while under siege. Expand upon the lack of Byzantine response; they were busy ferrying materials and/or the force they sent was greatly delayed. I'd mention that the populace was massacred. A general summary of the events; city besieged, eventually breached and where much of the fighting occurred, eventually a surprise attack successfully breaches the city proper, last the Patriokos and a small contingent of men were left to fight the Arabs and eventually surrendered and were killed. Summarize the aftermath; That the new governor was killed shortly after, that the Muslims in Sicily faced civil war and that the Byzantines were eventually driven from the island. The lede should ideally summarize the article and a couple of the sections are not mentioned at all, for example. Not all of the above suggestions need be incorporated, but, the lede does need to be expanded considerably (about two full paragraphs; currently I'd say its about .5 of a paragraph long).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All of the sources are provided in the appropriate section and are verifiable.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All of the sources of information are reliable, however, two sources are not in English (out of 4) and one source is a tertiary source (which would be fine if the breadth of discussion were deeper or if the majority of sources were in English). Normally it'd be acceptable to use non-English sources if English sources were unavailable, but with only four sources total and only one of those being a reliable English secondary source (which does account for a third of the citations) I'm not sure that this meets GA. Could the nominator have a look at available English secondary sources, or if they have, notify me and I'll take a look and see if I can find anything. Cplakidas brought up a point, after taking a look around, Vasiliev does indeed appear to be the foremost authority on the matter. In which case, while Wikipedia might request more English sources, and may be able to receive them, those sources would not be on par with Vasiliev. No further concerns about sourcing here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I have managed to access Metcalfe, which accounts for 8/24 citations, and can confirm that WP:OR is unlikely.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig suggests that it is rather unlikely that a vio has occurred, ~~I'll be looking at a couple of the sources to confirm this (and also 2c as well).~~ I've managed to access Metcalfe and the article uses clear paraphrasing of the source.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This comment has been addressed. I feel that the background could be expanded a bit further; What are the Aghlabids doing in Sicily? is this attack on Syracuse part of a larger invasion (obviously it is, but, a) is this topic covered in another article and b) what's caused it)? Well, that it was part of a larger invasion is mentioned in the "Background" section, and I've linked again the main article on the Muslim conquest of Sicily (it was already linked in the infobox and campaignbox). What caused the invasion is a bit too much to go into here, I think. Most people should have an idea of the Muslim conquests of the early Middle Ages, and it is pretty clear that this was part of this process. I am open to suggestions, if you think this can be elucidated further without throwing the article out of balance. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is clearly focused on topic and doesn't stray to begin unnecessary discussion.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article maintains a neutral tone throughout and uses a variety of sources to ensure that POV doesn't creep in.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition, there are no on-going edit-wars and no outstanding disputes on the talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Licence updated. Minor issue; [File:MadridSkylitzesFol100vDetail.jpg] <- requires a PD-1923 tag for use in the U.S. Fixed. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images have appropriate captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	My concerns have been addressed.

I will be using the above table for the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cplakidas, I have completed my initial review of the article, the article is fairly well-written and concisely covers the topic however I have both mild and more significant concerns with some criterion. Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance or as you address the issues. Thanks for the contributions it was an interesting read and part of a topic I am interested in. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr rnddude and thanks for a thorough review! I will go over your concerns over the next few days. However, right off, I completely disagree with 2b. Vasiliev is the fundamental work on the subject of the Arab-Byzantine wars to this day. Even if I used more English sources (of which there is none with this particular focus and level of detail), they would simply regurgitate Vasiliev (and I've read quite a few of them). For instance, the ODB article on Theodosios the Monk lists no English references, but does list Vasiliev, Hunger's history of Byzantine literature, and two Italian journal articles. To be frank, reference-wise Vasiliev alone suffices for the events of the siege, as he includes both the primary sources and his own commentary and analysis, complemented in the French version I am using by two of the most distinguished 20th-century Byzantinists, Gregoire and Canard. Metcalfe and the others are for context and additional details, of which I will add more based on your other comments. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep your comment about 2b in mind, it's a relatively difficult topic to have many sources for and if Vasiliev is fine on it's own for this article then the other sources are practically just a bonus. Thanks for the quick response, I'll look at 2b and update tomorrow if I have anything to update with. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, it slipped my mind entirely. I'll get to it this afternoon. Constantine ✍ 11:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr rnddude, I've incorporated most of your suggestions and corrections. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, I'll be doing a final check to make sure everything is okay and pass this article. I noted your comments in the review boxes above and don't have any issue with them. Thanks for clarifying a couple points, again, some of my comments can be tiny little nitpicks that don't really affect the article in terms of GA such as my comment about contrary winds. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise much obliged for taking the time, and suggesting a few rather necessary improvements to the article. It is always to helpful to see one's work through another pair of eyes. Best, Constantine ✍ 22:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]