Talk:Byzantine Greeks/GA1

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

Reviewer: Buchraeumer (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Hello! I am reviewing this and will correct/change very minor points like linking while reading through.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Overall/Pass or Fail: On hold

This is an interesting article with exciting details and the prose flows well. I undertook some changes, mainly regarding MOS and tone issues, because it is much easier to do them on the spot than to explain all this here in detail. A few points so you can better understand my reasoning (I would generally recommend to read WP:MOS carefully):
 * Please see WP:tone: WP is no textbook; try to avoid argumentative, essay-like style (WP:ESSAY). I have fixed all these instances of "we present" etc.; this is not difficult. Apart from NPOV problems it is also unnecessarily wordy, which is also deprecated on WP.
 * American versus British spelling. Decide for one; it must be consistent. I had the impression it was mainly British and corrected the rest. (Please note that all this does not apply to quotations).
 * Consistency in centuries, numerals etc. see WP:MOS. I fixed this in the article but try to be consistent when adding material.
 * Capitalization: please see WP:MOS; emperor, pope is generally low, only if it's a specific pope, e.g. "Pope Benedict...the Pope said he would..."; and in: Emperor of Byzantium, King of France etc. (I have corrected these).
 * I renamed the first section, as "Identity of the people" is treated also further down (extensively). This section is mainly about terminology and the use of term "Byzantium", so if you perhaps prefer "Use of the term Byzantium" to "Terminology"...

Some remaining problems:
 * There are signs of content disputes. I hope this will right itself. Seems to be o.k., now.
 * File:Palaeologoi eagle.jpg lacks a source, though it is declared as public domain; so I hope this should not be a problem (it would certainly in a FAC). ✅
 * Please try to give translations (as you did in most cases) for:
 * "There were several categories of poverty with the ptochos being lower than the penes." These Greek terms should be translated, if possible. ✅
 * aerikon: some translation (if possible)? (It came after the hearth tax) ✅
 * "According to a fourteenth century survey of the village of Aphetos, given to the monastery of Chilandar, ...". "Given" is confusing; perhaps "pertaining to" would be better (or: "settled on the monastery..." ✅
 * citations needed for "Language" paragraphs. At the end of a paragraph there must be a citation. This goes also for this interesting fact: "Husbands would often beat their wives, though the reverse situation was not unknown as in Prodromo's description of a battered husband." in "Women". ✅
 * References section should be alphabetic. Some titles are not in it, like Runciman; others appear only in the notes, like: Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II: Speech at Council of Clermont. (this one must have more specific data, publisher, year, page number?). Some titles are first time fully cited, others are not (Hamilton, e.g.). Be consistent: either only short titles in the notes, and full titles for all in references; or first full title, then short, for all. ✅

There is one major problem, mainly with the Buchraeumer (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Greco-Roman perspective" section: ✅
 * I had the impression that it repeats material aready in other sections, and in a more argumentative, less neutral tone than in the other ones; so a radical solution would be to dissolve it, placing some of the material in other relevant sections. For example the piece on Western-Eastern religious conflicts could be placed in religion; Charlemagne figures in the same way in "Western perspective" further down; question of ethnic identity figures also in next section.
 * the section is confused as regards sequence; national identity (Avril Cameron) is followed by theological problems between East and West; then follows:
 * "...be resolved, then the two cultures would be reunited in a new "Romanity". Yet, the pretense of Romanity began to wear thin in the age of the Crusades." -- a bit ironic and cryptic. Comments are to be avoided or presented as historian's views WP:ESSAY, else bordering on POV. The sentence is also too cryptic for many readers: I do understand what you are hinting at, but not everyone will know what you want to say; Also, this is treated (and repeated) further down, in the last and penultimate sections. If you want to keep this sentence, try something like "concept" instead of "pretense" (pretence in British sp.): "This concept of Romanity began to wear thin in the age of the Crusades, becoming a mere pretence.", or so.
 * After this religious/Crusades theme, there follows Mantzikert which happened before the Crusades and introduces ethnicity again. Try to order the sequence thematically, in case you keep the section altogether.


 * Buchraeumer, I will begin implementing your suggestions presently. Thanks for taking the time to review the article.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a first pass through the notes and will continue tommorow with splitting the Greco-Roman section. This was part of the article from before and I am not 100% happy with it either. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt work! I think the article has greatly improved. I'll have to have a further look at the references/notes thing, still. Please indicate here when you are finished with the former Greco-Roman section, though I think it's already fine as it is now. Buchraeumer (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The GR section is now history so it won't be troubling us anymore. This was all work from way back in the article's life. Now I will try to fix the refs so as to conform them to WP standards.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FINAL REVIEW

I do think now that it meets the criteria. It's a really good article and it was a good idea to rewrite the language section and to dispense with the Greco-Roman section, Anothroskon; and thank you, Monsieur, for the new lead -- that saved me a lot of work! So, I am happy to pass this! Buchraeumer (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Buchraeumer and MonsieurDl, thank you for reviewing the article and most of all thanks for putting all the work. Your guys' stance was an object lesson on what WP is supposed to be about. Take care and drop me a line if you ever need help with anything.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done gentlemen. Great cooperation. Great editors. Great experience. Dr.K.praxislogos 00:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same goes to you Dr.K.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Anothroskon. It was a pleasure working with you. Take care. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 12:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)