Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Basil II/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2018 [1].

Basil II

[edit]
Nominator(s): Векочел (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Basil II, Byzantine Emperor from 976 to 1025. He is best known as a military leader. He also lessened the power of the Byzantine senior officials. His sister's marriage to Vladimir I of Kiev led to the Christianization of Kievan Rus'. Векочел (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few inline citations n the lead; any thoughts? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see having citations in the lead as a problem. This is rather common, even for featured articles. For instance, the articles of Augustus and Cleopatra both have citations in the lead. Векочел (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citations in the lead (and in the infobox) should certainly be minimized. Generally, anything in the lead and the infobox should be cited in the main body, meaning the mentions in the lead and infobox do not need citation. An exception is when a quote is used in the lead; even if the quote is repeated and cited in the main body, you would expect to cite it in the lead. Other than that, unless there is a statement that for some odd reason simply doesn't fit into the sequence of the main body (an example from some military bios I've written is a nickname and no source states just when it was acquired) there should be no need for citations in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: I have removed all citations in the lead except for one. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Procedural note -- Векочел, the FAC instructions state that you cannot nominate an article within two weeks of a previous nomination being archived, as yours was two days ago. I'd normally remove this nomination as out-of-process but in deference to some reviewers getting in early with comments, I'll let it go. Pls take note of the instructions in future though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A well-written article with good sources. It would be a shame if this didn't end up becoming a featured article. --Pjoona11 (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent candidate, well-written and thorough, and with a nominator of the particularly collegiate kind. Am pleased to support at this juncture. per MOS:CITELEAD, as discussed above. There's no good reason presented to pepper the lead with refs, and that it—unfortunately—happens elsewhere should really have no bearing on this candidate. All things being equal, however, I imagine that this is a relatively easily-rectified position. Cheers! —54129 05:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support It would be great to see this article achieve such status, since it is definitely a well-explained, well-written, and well-cited article in my opinion. I have previously expanded the article, and also previously nominated it, but at the time it did not seem fully ready in terms of structure. However, from the recent contributions to it, it has been vastly improved. Pleasing to see more support for it, nevertheless. Best of luck Векочел. 20DKB03 (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R8R

[edit]

More to come later.--R8R (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: Векочел (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, I haven't forgotten about the review. I'll check your responses and write more when I have enough spare time; probably tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue, shall we.

  • The hatnote says, For the Russian ruler, see Basil II of Russia. I have problems with this. First of all, "Russian ruler" is sort of correct but ambiguous: the phrase may imply that we're talking about a ruler of Russia and that Basil wasn't a ruler of Russia as there was no political entity named "Russia"; it only appeared almost a century after his death. I suggest "Muscovite prince" or something like that. What's even more important, you are directly referring here to the article, rather than its subject; as such, you should use the actual title of the article, Vasily II of Moscow.
  • After re-reading some of the article I noticed you refer to the Kievan prince as "Vladimir I of Kiev." This is rather uncommon. At the time, nobody called Vladimir "the First," and now he is primarily known as Vladimir the Great; in fact, even the article on the prince is called Vladimir the Great. Later, you say, "David III Kuropalates of Tao"; why not say, "Vladimir the Great of Kiev"? Perhaps better still, since this article uses old-fashioned English, you could refer to people the way they were actually referred to in their lifetimes, i.e., "Vladimir Sviatoslavovich of Kiev"?
  • "Al-Aziz Billah"; "al-Aziz" -- is it "Al" or "al"?
  • "he failed to pursue the siege with vigor" -- this is not encyclopedic. What exactly did he do wrong?
  • I am equally unsure about Arabic names here. Why use "al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah" for the first mention of one person, "Al-Aziz Billah" for a second person, and only "Lu'lu'" for third? I suggest you standardize this
  • Aaron -- are we talking about Aron of Bulgaria? if yes, why not wikilink him and call him Aron?
  • By 987, Aaron had been eliminated by Samuel, and Basil was busy fighting both Skleros and Phokas in Asia Minor. -- it seems like the two are not connected; why are they listed like they are?
  • In 992, Basil II concluded a treaty with Pietro Orseolo II under terms reducing Venice's custom duties in Constantinople from 30 nomismata to 17 nomismata. In return, the Venetians agreed to transport Byzantine troops to southern Italy in times of war. -- how did Pietro get involved? Venice is not in Bulgaria and Bulgaria is not in southern Italy; why is this at all important in the section titled Conquest of Bulgaria? Also, the article is named Pietro II Orseolo; maybe you should follow suit, if this is to be kept? also on Pietro, it would be nice to specify "Pietro II Orseolo of Venice" so that the reader gets a proper introduction and doesn't have to guess who this Pietro is and deduce it from later information
  • reducing Venice's custom duties in Constantinople from 30 nomismata to 17 nomismata. -- are these flat? could you import any amount of goods for the same 17 nomismata?
  • Skopje -- I was expecting a link to the article on the town. You should either reword the phrase or retarget the link
  • Watch out for duplicate wikilinks. You normally only need to wikilink terms on first mention. See MOS:DL
  • King George [...] left his infant son Bagrat a hostage in Basil's hands. -- this is confusing. Why would Basil need him after the fighting was over?
  • Basil created, in those highlands, a strongly fortified frontier, which, if his successors had been capable, should have proved an effective barrier against the invasions of the Seljuk Turks. -- I usually avoid making comments on prose as I am not native speaker of English myself but have you tried reading this sentence? You have to make a pause every few words! I suggest rewording it. Also, says who? This is purely hypothetical, you can't state this as if it were true: this is an encyclopedia. Attribute this thought to someone.
  • Southern Italy -- Carefully look through the article to catch any duplicate mentions of anything and see what they are linked to. A while ago, you had southern Italy. Armenia and Tao are two words you should make similar checks for and possibly more
  • the help of land reforms, something that many of his successors would not enforce -- I don't entirely understand it. If Basil managed to get things right, then there would be no need for further reforms, so no new reforms would need to be enforced?
  • our [Bulgarian] national mythology -- you would have no need to make any clarifications if you introduced Kiossev as a Bulgarian. Texts that are naturally clear are preferable to texts with clarifications

An interesting read overall.--R8R (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine

[edit]

Unfortunately a very strong Oppose. I still do not see the chief concerns raised in the previous nomination addressed. There have been a host of mostly cosmetic changes in the meantime, but nothing of substance. Again, to anyone who seriously wants to bring this to FA: take the time to study and understand the subject and rewrite the article top to bottom. Merely copyediting stuff around is not enough, not for an individual of his eminence. A serious effort at bringing this up to scratch would require months of diligent work and an understanding of the period and subject, which is absent from the nominator, as far as I can see. The article as it is may "look" fine to the layman, but in terms of content and analysis, to anyone who is familiar with the subject, it is far from being a serious and comprehensive treatment of the man and the reign, as expected of a FA-level article. Just for starters, on a topic highlighted in the current nomination, "lessened the power of the Byzantine senior officials", the relevant section makes direct reference to Psellos, without providing a modern scholar's interpretation. The "Allelengyon" is not even mentioned, let alone discussed. This is a topic on which modern scholars have shed streams of ink, but there is no indication of that here. The discussion on these reforms then veers off to his being unmarried and childless, which is neither good prose nor a good sign for the authors having a coherent structure in mind. I could go on and on, but as I raised the exact same points in the earlier review, I am not convinced that this is a serious attempt at actually improving the article, rather than point-scoring by getting this with as minimal an effort as possible through FA. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I do hope that this becomes a featured article. Do you have any more suggestions? Векочел (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Векочел, so do I, but frankly, it is far from being there yet. I already made my suggestions above: The scholarship on Basil II is huge, take time to study up and form yourself a clear and comprehensive picture of the subject. I must also say that I do not have confidence in your editing pattern as I have observed it here and elsewhere: you reacted by my mention of the allelengyon above by simply adding it in, without any further explanation or analysis, which is actually the desired point; on my criticism about the marital status, you simply removed it, without putting it anywhere else where it would be more appropriate, and crucially, you still left the direct reference to Psellos, a biased primary source, which is actually the far bigger problem here. You are not the primary author of the article as it stands now (no-one is, that is part of the problem, it is a cobbled-together patchwork), and from your replies to questions above ("I don't know", etc.) and your editing pattern, it is clear to me that you do not have the requisite knowledge on the subject, or understanding of what makes an FA actually "featured".
Making an FA nomination means that you have worked on the article yourself considerably so that you are familiar with and knowledgeable about it, and can stake your reputation among fellow Wikipedians (or scholarly reviewers, if it came to that) that it is both complete and factual. Cosmetic changes and ad hoc addition of factoids to an article that was largely the same a year ago merely to get through a review process is not enough, first must come the hard work to make it "complete", create a coherent narrative, and ensure high-quality and up-to-date sources reflecting current scholarly opinion as well as past perceptions in historiography (and there are many of them regarding Basil). I can point you to sources and issues, but the scope of the work is such that it will take months. If you want to undertake it, I will gladly help, but I will not start making a list of all the problems here, as they go far beyond copyediting; they are fundamental to the structure, scope and content of the article. This may not be evident to the casual reader, but it is evident to anyone with some knowledge of the subject and the relevant literature. Constantine ✍ 22:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I admit that my knowledge about Basil is rather basic. Векочел (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Psellus' statement that Basil was childless to the part of the assessment section describing his successors. Векочел (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

While I admire the honesty of admitting that one has only basic knowledge of their nomination's subject, I have to agree with Constantine that we'd want to feel more confidant that FA criteria 1.b and 1.c are met. I hope that the two of you can work together to put meat on the bones of this article, but that will be something for outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Basil_II/archive2&oldid=864994868"