Talk:Michael I Komnenos Doukas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A small reminder :). Constantine  ✍  06:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I haven't forgotten. All reviews will be completed this weekend. — Calvin999  07:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

*Alexios III campaigned in person → If it was him who campaigned, then isn't it obvious that it was him?
 * Review
 * Link needs dabbing?
 * What does ca. mean?
 * Given the relatively short prose of the main body of prose, I'd say the lead is too detailed. One paragraphs worth could easily be cut.
 * I've trimmed a bit, but I don't see how to cut anything more without cutting essential stuff out. The lede's three paras also mirror the three main sections of the article.
 * But the essentials are covered in the main body of prose, or should be, anyway. The lead is just a summary. If you include all the "essentials" in detail in the lead, why would I need to read on? — Calvin999  20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely, the lead is a summary; one should get a fair idea on the article from the lead alone, the main body is for details.
 * Born ca. 1170, Michael was born → Repetition of 'born'
 * First lead para says assassination, final lead para says murdered.
 * So? The meaning is the same.
 * Same origin, different meanings. Assassination is given to describe when a person of political or social importance is killed in a surprise attack, a murder is premeditated when one person kills another person. — Calvin999  20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite convinced, but fine by me. Changed.
 * which was given to him by later hostile pro-Palaiologos historians and has been used in modern scholarship as well. → There's something about this sentence which doesn't sound right. It's not to the point enough.
 * I've expanded a bit on what is meant and why the surname issue is important.
 * but this is evidently an error. → Says who? Why?
 * Shortly after, in early 1201, for unknown reasons, Michael rose in revolt against the emperor. → Too many clauses
 * over the next years → Not needed
 * bore the title, and it was not until the 1230s that Michael II Komnenos Doukas received the title, becoming the first ruler of Epirus to be titled → Repetition of 'title'
 * Traditionally several scholars, such as Karl Hopf and Antoine Bon, have → Traditionally, several scholars such as Karl Hopf and Antoine Bon have
 * Disagree here. The "such as" clause gives a few names as a parenthetic example of the "several scholars", and this is the grammatically correct way to do it.
 * Nicaean emperor, Theodore I Laskaris (r. 1205–1222), at the time. → Again, isn't it obvious that he was in service 'at the time'?
 * Not necessarily. It does not harm to make it explicit, and avoids confusion.
 * You don't need to say "at the time". It's obvious he didn't do it when he was not born yet or dead. — Calvin999  20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the "at the time" refers to this specific period of ca. 1205/10; Theodore Komnenos Doukas later returned to Epirus to succeed his brother.
 * Lucien Stiernon,[38] followed by Varzos, places the ransoming of Alexios in 1206/7,[22] but Loenertz places it in 1210, as a result of Michael's rapprochement with the Latins, when the interests of the Latin Empire in curbing the growing power of Nicaea coincided with Michael's intention to ransom Alexios. → Too many clauses. Having so many commas in a sentence makes it really disruptive to read.
 * he was murdered in his sleep at Velegrada → Assassinated is the better fitting word here, considering his political status.
 * The motive of the killer is unknown, and although it is plausible to deduce a political motivation, it is not certain.
 * He was a political figure and figure of great social importance, so he was assassinated. — Calvin999  20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per above, I've changed it.
 * Issue (children) should be included in the info box
 * The sections are quite large. I would make Death and legacy as one section, and not in sub-sections, for example.
 * Good suggestion, thanks.
 * As most of the sourcing comes from books, I will assume good faith in their verifiability.
 * There's a lot of prose here. I think more images are needed to break it up a bit. Also, the first or second image should be aligned to the left, Images should follow a left-right-left or right-left-right format.
 * There are too few images to be found with suitable licenses for the subject and the period; on alignment, with barely two images, there is no point. Nor, IIRC, is this a firm MOS requirement.
 * No, but they can help break up all the text. — Calvin999  20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * Summary


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

The article isn't bad or poorly written as such, but I'm not sure why so many sentences so far have so many clauses in them. Just say what you want to say and make the point, don't drag it out necessarily. Placing on hold for 7 days. — Calvin999 17:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Outcome
 * Hi and thanks for taking the time for reviewing this! I've crossed out the issues I've addressed, and left remarks on the rest. The many clauses are partly a result of my mixed Greek and German linguistic heritage (both are languages that love long sentences) and partly a result of the convoluted nature and conflicting opinions of scholars on the subject. I am grateful for pointers on how to simplify them. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  20:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a few further tweaks as you suggested, and also rewritten and expanded the section on the succession a bit. I think it is now OK. Constantine  ✍  09:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:  — Calvin999  10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)