Talk:Boniface of Verona/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this article.

Summary

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead section and infobox

 * Salamis (in the infobox) links to more than one page.
 * Done
 * Link protégé (Mentorship).
 * Done
 * He served as regent for the Duchy of Athens in 1308–09, following Guy II's death,… - consider improving the prose by amending this part of the sentence to ‘Following Guy’s death, he served as regent in 1308–09,…’
 * Done
 * Boniface, whom the Catalans esteemed… - this sentence seems imo to need rewriting, so as to reduce the number of commas. It might work, for instance, if the sentence was split.
 * Rewritten
 * ...died in 1317/18… - improve the prose by amending to ‘...died in 1317 or 1318…’. I would write '1317 or 1318' in the infobox.
 * Done
 * ...as the primary heir… - is primary needed here?
 * Indeed not, removed

Life

 * Unlink Greece (MOS:OL).
 * Done
 * Two years later… - You have to go back quite a way in the text to find the right year, I would simply put ‘In 1296…’ (assuming this is the correct year).
 * Good point, done
 * On the other hand is the sentence Two years later, Boniface turned his attention to his home island of Euboea. actually needed here?
 * It introduces the section, the article could probably work without it, but I feel it would be too abrupt a change of setting (back to the 1270s) otherwise
 * Fair enough. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ...Boniface decided to campaign… - amend to ‘...Boniface campaigned…’?
 * Done
 * I would remove He was swiftly successful, and… - as it sounds like an editorial comment.
 * Done
 * ...seizing the town of Fanari. - I would mention that the town is also called Phanarion.
 * This is actually a weird thing with Greek names, in that Fanarion/Phanarion is simply the Katharevousa form of Fanari. For the average reader, this is unnecessary, for anyone actually familiar with Greek history, the knowledge that the town might also be called Fanarion would be implicit.
 * Understood (but I nearly gave up looking fior Fanari). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ...a hundred knights. – amend to ‘...a 100 knights.’
 * MOS:NUMERAL is quite permissive here, and with round numbers my personal preference is to spell it out
 * Agreed (I always get picked up on it, and I 've learnt to keep to numbers as a result). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Principality of Achaea is a duplicate link.
 * Fixed
 * The Catalans captured and garrisoned several fortresses… - needs to be more specific.
 * Added a small specification ("around Domokos") but a) the sources themselves are not much more specific and b) I feel this is not the place to be more specific as it does not concern Boniface
 * MIller p. 119 states "...more than thirty castles..." (apologies if I've misunderstood the history here). At GA level I think you would need to either go for 'not being vague' or 'not having it there at all as it's off topic'—at present it appears to be neither. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ...the Frankish army was smashed in a well-prepared ambush… - this is the most interesting part of the whole article! I would add more detail of the nature of the ‘ambush’, even though the battle has its own article. Also, smashed is idiomatic, and so should be avoided here.
 * I agree, but as the article on the battle makes clear, unfortunately we don't have many details, and what the sources tell us seems to be contradictory. I've added what detail seems certain, but it is not much :)
 * It looks fine now. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would add at the top of the subsection ‘Battle of Halmyros and aftermath’.
 * Done
 * Consider using the image File:Aragon Aragon en la Crónica de Muntaner f. 114r.jpg, or the cropped version File:Aragon Aragon en la Crónica de Muntaner f. 114r cropped.jpg.
 * Other than decoration, I don't see what it would contribute to the article. I did add a photo of the castle of Karystos, however.

On hold
Not a lot of work needs to be done here. I've put the article on hold for a week until 29 September. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Amitchell125 and thanks for your thorough review. I think I've addressed all the points you raised. Anything else, above and beyond GAN requirements? Is the article easy to follow/understand, or do you think there is context missing? Constantine  ✍  08:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Constantine, ready to pass now, bar a last check for small typos. The article is understandable, with nothing much missing imo, but the map, although very useful, needs tweaking a bit to help make it easier to read (something i can do). As I've assessed the article up to GA, there would of course be a list of amendments to make to go further with the article, here's a few examples I think would be spotted at a higher level, but nothing's compulsory from now on...

Other points (concerning the exactness of the text in the article)

 * A poor knight... - impoverished? or not very good at being a knight? or deserving pity? I would replace poor here.
 * ...a powerful Lombard Crusader lord... - powerful is redundant, as lords have power by definition, and the notion is repeated later.
 * The Catalans esteemed Boniface... - I would say 'held Boniface in high regard...'.
 * ...and her own interests... - '...and its interests...' imo (see WP:GENDER).
 * ... his extensive domains. - extensive is vague and subjective, and could be interpreted as a peacock term.
 * ...(the "triarchs") who divided the island of Negroponte (Euboea) ... - I personally avoid brackets where possible.
 * ... three brothers... - worth naming, if possible?
 * ...a single castle... - single is redundant here.
 * ... the under-age Duke... - I think it's worth providing more of an indication of his age here, or how old he needed to be when he came of age.
 * for the knighting - is probably not needed
 * ...castles on the mainland... - was he in a position to award island castles? if not, on the mainland is redundant.
 * ... given the hand of a lady... - is idiomatic, and so may not be understood by all readers.
 * ...by earlier scholars... - I would clarify the period that earlier is referring to here.
 * ...the Duke stipulated... - stipulated implies there was an official agreement—is this the case, or did he simply decree this?
 * ...was to become regent of the duchy... - of the duchy is redundant.

Stopping there, I would check carefully for similar examples of (i) redundant words/phrases (ii) text that some readers might misconstrue. All the best, Amitchell125 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)