Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sviatoslav I of Kiev

Sviatoslav I of Kiev

This is an old article but over the last few weeks has seen dramatic expansion and improvement and is now, in my opinion, very comprehensive. I did considerable work on it so I guess this is a self-nom, but others, including User:Ghirlandajo and User:Beit Or, contributed as much as or more than I did. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like a very good article, well-sourced and well-written. It would be nice to have a map of the lands he controlled at the apex of his power, but that's unnecessary. I find it mildly amusing that, as soon as he comes up in my Byzantine history class, he appears on FAC. —Cuivi é nen 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brian made a map for this article but it was discarded by an anonymous editor as "original research". After some revert warring, the map was left hanging on talk page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new, somewhat more conservative map has been uploaded. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, everything looks good. One question, though: is the "Kievan chronicler" mentioned at the end of the "Campaigns in the Balkans" section the Primary Chronicle, or something else? Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the vague reference. Thanks for pointing it out. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic article, well-written and sourced. Hello32020 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, great article. I can tell that a lot of time was put into this as there were a lot of references, good pictures, and also very good linking. This definitely deserves to be a FA.-Hairchrm 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like a good article. Atlantis Hawk 05:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article, comprehensive, well-written, illustrated, referenced. Kudos to the authors. --Irpen 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whole paragraphs are without citations...is this because there's basically only one source for these large sections of text (for example, the In art and literature section)? If so, I'd recommend just putting at least one citation in at the end of each paragraph... Also, this is just a stylistic quibble, but I'd recommend switching the artist's name with the title of the work in the two captions where the artist comes first. Gzkn 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Riurik ^(discuss) 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Berig 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A well referenced and written article on a historicla figure mostly unknown to the Western world. Suggestion for improvement: import a small family tree from Polish wikipedia's version of the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Balcer 23:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too condensed, feels as if a lot of infos are kept but in process mess up the prose, I wish that his campaigns section would cover in detail each of the battles.

He is the villain of Samuel Gordon's novel The Lost Kingdom, or the Passing of the Khazars is too abrupt, begin it with something like "In the novel The Lost Kingdom..."
Sviatoslav is famous for his incessant campaigns in the east and south East and South of where? I could be talking about Birmingham & Franklin & nobody would no what I'm talking about.
at times was allied with the Pechenegs and Magyars, when both "was allied" and "allied" make sense, you choose the active tense.
by rapid expansion into the Volga River valley should have a.
the Volga River valley, the Pontic steppe and the Balkans again no reader has any idea where that expansion took place.
Sviatoslav's conquests, for the most part, were not consolidated into a functioning empire maybe "failed to consolidate" might be better.

These are some of the problems that I'm pointing out. I suggest somebody fix the entire article 1 more time. (Wikimachine 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Support. Excellent article, well written, well referenced, interesting, nicely illustrated, and it's a good size. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a co-author. If promoted, it will be the first FA on medieval East Slavic history. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. The last paragraph in "Campaigns in the Balkans" has no citation. And another short part in the next paragraph is also uncited. Other than that it looks fine.--Yannismarou 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as one of the contributors to the article. Beit Or 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —dima/s-ko/ 04:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]