Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Lalakaon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Lalakaon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

This is an old article (mostly written in 2009, when it also passed GA) on an important turning-point in the Arab-Byzantine Wars. I've revisited it over the past few weeks and added a few more details using a source I previously lacked. I feel it now meets A-class criteria and submit it for your criticism and commentary. Constantine ✍ 12:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Images: File:57-manasses-chronicle.jpg needs a US copyright tag, probably PD-100 (to replace PD-70). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Another great article.
    • Background section: " ...the Arab army numbered 40,000 men. Modern estimates lower that number to circa 20,000, while the contemporary Muslim historian Ya'qubi claims that Umar had 8,000 men at his disposal." -- You might want to account for the difference in numbers, probably an exaggerated claim.
    • Battle section: "Al-Tabari records that the emperor himself assumed command of these forces" -- I believe that, as the title referrs to a specific person and a proper noun, it should be "Emperor." Wanted to confirm this.
    • There is a problem with one of the external links. Looks like it is dead and needs replaced. See: [1]
    • Disambiguation and duplicate links show no problems. Images all have author and licensing information. All of the references seem to be working. Just a few quick points. —Ed!(talk) 17:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ed. I've fixed the "emperor" (and the "emir", since I was at it), as well as the broken link. On the numbers, they are pretty much guesswork, so I'll check again in my sources to see what exactly they have to say. Constantine ✍ 16:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the section on the numbers of Umar's army. Constantine ✍ 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • No dab links [2] (no action required).
    • External links check out [3] (no action required).
    • Images lack Alt Text [4] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required)
    • Image review completed above (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [5] (no action required).
    • No duplicate links found (no action required).
    • Are casualties of each side available? Could they be added to the text (and the infobox)?
    • Could strengths be added to the infobox?
    • "where Petronas was located, in hopes of achieving...", should this be "...in hope of achieving..."?
    • Otherwise this looks quite good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review. "in hopes of" is correct ("in hope of" isn't), but on re-reading this it is probably not the best way to phrase it, so I rephrased it. On casualties and numbers, well, we don't know anything at all about the Byzantines' numbers, and have contradictory information about the Arabs'. Personally I would go with the rather realistic figure of 8,000 men for Umar's strength, and judging by the totality of his defeat I'd say that almost all were either killed or captured, but since there is a considerable degree of speculation involved I'd rather leave this off the infobox. Constantine ✍ 14:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Hello Dank. For future reference, could you please explain why the hyphen is wrong/inappropriate? I've certainly seen both forms around, but even our own article uses the hyphenated form. Constantine ✍ 09:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy editors often leave hyphens alone, if they're consistent and even arguably correct, and SOED doesn't have either form. OTOH, oxforddictionaries.com and dictionary.cambridge.org both list "counteroffensive", not the hyphenated form, and it's unhyphenated in AmEng. Do any BritEng dictionaries list the hyphenated form? - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the printed dictionaries I have also don't display the hyphen, but my browser's BritEng spellchecker does. Odd, that. I'll keep that in mind, thanks. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Suggestions implemented. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments:

  • "was able to brush off the initial Byzantine resistance " - "brush off" felt overly informal to me
  • "Nevertheless, the Arabs managed to evade the Byzantines " "evade" felt wrong (given that they were caught in battle). "escape"? (or "the remaining Arabs managed to evade...")
  • "Charsianon was raised to a full theme." - it would read more easily if it was something like "and the region of Charsianon...", making it clear that its not a person like the first half of the sentence.
  • "The Battle of Lalakaon, as depicted in the Madrid Skylitzes." - should this caption have a full-stop? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some well-spotted trouble points. I've made the necessary changes, thank you for taking the time. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • " thus ensuring that this nation would come within the Byzantine cultural sphere": I'm not a fan. Can you just say what happened, rather than what had to happen?
  • "however": We're getting some resistance to overuse of the word at FAC, and with good reason. Please rewrite each occurence of "however" using different words. If you're like most people who use the word a lot, you'll find that "however" actually means something like ten different things, depending on context ... and words that are this vague generally aren't good choices. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thanks for your edits, Dank! Reduced the "however"s, but I don't quite follow you on your first point. This is a summary of the statement made in the main article body. What exactly should I change here? Constantine ✍ 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving a prediction, that the conversion would inevitably lead to a cultural shift. Instead of predicting a change that was likely to happen, state something that actually happened that will convey the general idea to the reader. Which bits of Byzantine culture did Bulgaria import? - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, the point is that by default, a people that accepted a new religion, whether Byzantine Christianity, Islam or Western Christianity, did not simply choose the religion, but imported most of the "parent" culture's norms, ideas and concepts as well. Indeed, choosing a new religion was more a choice to which cultural and political sphere one wanted to become part of, rather than simply which God to pray to. So it is not really a "prediction" at all; from the moment the Bulgarians "chose" their path, they were bound to come under Byzantium's cultural influence, and barring a cataclysmic event they would (and did) keep this influence to this day, since it became part of their national identity. Anyhow, I could rephrase this to remove the "prediction" element ("thus beginning the absorption of the nation within the Byzantine cultural sphere" perhaps?), but I'd rather not go into a discussion of the Byzantine cultural norms adopted by Bulgaria in an article about a battle. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"absorpton ... into" is a little better than "... within". Yes, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased both instances. Thanks again for the review! Constantine ✍ 08:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Lalakaon&oldid=1138360967"