Talk:Battle of Lalakaon/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA review of this version: Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead section should be a summary of the contents of the article: The last part of the final sentence—regarding the 10th century—seems not to be covered in the article at all. Also, the current single paragraph might better be split into two paragraphs, perhaps before the sentence beginning The battle ended in a….
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * "The battle", P1, S3: Does the Kiapidou work cover the assertion of a bias against Michael? If that source does not cover that, it needs to be cited.
 * Same section, P2, S6: the speculation about Karbeas should be cited.
 * None of the works in the "Sources" section contain a place of publication, and two—Huxley and Kiapidou—don't have a publisher listed.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a few minor issues keep this from passing on first read. Should be easily remedied within seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! On the citations, Kiapidou mentions the bias against Michael. The possible participation of Karbeas is also covered by her. On sources, I added additional data on Huxley. Kiapidou's publisher is the Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World website. On locations, it is the first time anyone has asked for them. I added some of them, however. I also expanded the lead a bit. As for the last sentence of the lead, it is intended as a generalization to cap it off. The battle is seen by some historians as marking a turning point, after which Byzantium was able to counter the threat from the Arabs in the East, but it would be too much off topic to go into it in any detail in the article. Any more observations? Constantine  ✍  11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the changes look good, so I'm passing it. Not having full location or publisher information doesn't keep this from passing; I usually indicate items like that they they are optional and will help with higher assessments (like A-Class or FA-Class) but forgot to include that in this case. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All right! Thanks a lot again! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)