Talk:Syrgiannes Palaiologos/GA1

GA Review

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

I wish to review this article; however, because I have never attempted a GA review, I will ask for a second opinion before I pass or fail it.

On first reading, I have three comments:

1. In the first paragraph of the "Family origins and early career" section, the antecedent of the pronoun "he" is not always clear. I think I can make sense of it after reading it carefully, but I would like to see the phrasing reworked so it is easier to understand whether Syrgiannes the father (grandfather?) or son is implied in each instance.

2. The name "Dušan" (as it appears in the title of the link) is treated inconsistently, as either "Dusan" or "Dushan." I believe Wikipedia policy favors "Dušan," although it is not compulsory. Whether or not, one spelling should be adopted.

3. Perhaps you can't do anything about this, but I find it annoying that some names are translated into their modern English equivalents (for example, Ioannes–John, Thessaloniki–Thessalonica) while others are transliterated. I realize that we may be constrained to some degree by the sources, but I do not believe that it is impossible to be consistent.

PKKloeppel (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the article myself to take care of the first two comments. I have not done anything about the third because I am not certain that it merely reflects my personal prejudices and is not required by Wikipedia policy. I hope that in making these edits I have not violated some other policy by contributing (not extensively) to an article that I am assessing. Assuming that what I have done can be disregarded for assessment purposes, I believe the article meets all Good Article criteria:

1(a) The spelling and grammar are correct.

1(b) The layout meets the requirements of the MOS; it has a lead and several sections.

2(a) It is suitably referenced.

2(b) All debatable statements are accompanied by suitable in-line citations.

2(c) It contains no original research.

3(a) The coverage is complete, so far as the available sources indicate.

3(b) The writing is to the point and not diffuse.

4 The presentation is neutral.

5 The article is stable and has not been subject of major controversy or edit wars.

6 It contains a relevant picture. (But I wish that a picture of Syrgiannes himself would be used, if available, rather than one that appears in several other Wikipedia articles.)

As the article satisfies the GA criteria, I am in favor of rating it as such. I still want a second opinion, just to be sure that I have not overlooked something.PKKloeppel (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Generally, I agree that the article is worthy of GA status, following a thorough review, but I would strongly suggest that an inforx, e.g. Infobox Military Person be added. I would also suggest that request for a picture be made at WP:Requested pictures Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to both of you! First, thanks for reviewing the article. Pkkphysicist, thanks for your edits, they have indeed helped. I am afraid I was more focused in trying to differentiate between the two Andronikoi, so that I forgot the two Syrgiannides. As for consistency, in personal names it has been an established practice in WP (and in scholarly works, lately) to use the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium forms, which are a bit awkward: sometimes they are fully transliterated from Greek, at others (e.g. "John" instead of "Ioannes") the anglicized version is used. Otherwise however I have tried to keep names (esp. place names and the like) in the form most familiar to an English-language reader. As for an image, I have searched about a dozen books on the period and even more on the web, but there is not even a reference to the existence of an image of Syrgiannes. Granted, one may exist somewhere buried in the libraries of Athos, but... An infobox will be added imediately. Also, are there any comments as to the content? Do you feel some areas ought to be more expanded upon? At any rate, thanks again. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am happy. With the infobox added, I think you have done everything we have asked. I understand the difficulty with the picture; if one shows up, you can make the change. (By the way, my comment about using English vs. transliterated names is something of a hobby-horse with me, and editors may reject it with reason, as you have done. I will continue to push for it in hopes of meeting a kindred soul, but your position is compatible with Wikipedia policy and therefore not grounds for disapproval.)

Summary: I am pleased to assess the article as GA class. PKKloeppel (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]