Talk:Nikephoros Komnenos/GA1

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

Reviewer: Washoe the Wise (talk · contribs) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I will begin the review soon. Washoe the Wise (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A brief, but very interesting read. Here are my comments:

Comments -Washoe the Wise (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC).
 * The lead could be split into two sentences to increase readability, the first ending after Constantine VIII, and the second starting with "He served" instead of "serving". As well, replace "and one of" with "and is one of" at the start of the final clause.
 * Good suggestion. Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding "emperors" before "Basil II and Constantine VIII" in the first sentence will provide some clarity and context, even though their stations might seem obvious.
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, a word or two before introducing the Komnenos family at the end of the lead would prevent users having to click through to another page before returning to the article. Something like "esteemed", "renowned", or "distinguished".
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Replace "but his early life, and indeed his connection to the main branch of the family, are unknown" with "but nothing is known of his early life or his connection to the main branch of the family" in the first sentence of Biography. Saying that "his early life is unknown" is not quite syntactically correct.
 * Done and clarified what the "main branch" is about. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Replace "but both assumptions cannot be verified" with "but neither assertion can be verified" in the second sentence of Biography.
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At the beginning of the second paragraph in Biography, "He" should be Nikephoros' name. As well, the phrase should be in the past tense, "He was" instead of "He is". And finally, I'm not sure what is meant by the use of the word "attested" here. I would suggest finding an alternate way to express the idea more clearly.
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The phrase "unable to confront the pressure" makes more sense with "manage" instead of "confront".
 * Changed to "resist". Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At the start of the second sentence of the second paragraph in Biography, I would change "Basil" to "Basil II" to maintain clarity and consistency, especially as another person named Basil is introduced later in the same sentence.
 * Good point, done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the next sentence, the phrase "was the chosen successor as governor" makes more sense as "succeeded Basil Argyros as governor". Additionally, the "he" before "swiftly" can be removed and the word "actually" should be removed as well.
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The last clause of the third sentence of the third paragraph in Biography, "aiming to declare himself emperor or making Vaspurakan an independent kingdom" is more readable as "aiming to either declare himself emperor or make Vaspurakan an independent kingdom".
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the next sentence, the phrase "sent him prisoner" should be "sent him as a prisoner".
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the last sentence of Biography, "any descendants" should be "the existence of any descendants", for the same reason that "his early life is unknown" is slightly off.
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ISBN numbers, if they exist, for the two sources listed without them should be provided.
 * Neither Varzos nor Lilie et al. have assigned ISBNs. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As a final note, a map of the areas and locations mentioned throughout the article would greatly benefit the reader's experience. Any pictures of the significant people mentioned throughout the article would complement the text as well, especially if one could be found for the infobox. If you can't find any in the wikimedia commons or have already looked, it's not a problem.
 * I had quite forgotten that the incident of his blinding is depicted in the Madrid Skylitzes. The relevant image has been uploaded and added to the article. Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This is looking pretty good, and the image is great; there are just a few small changes to make before I pass the article: -Washoe the Wise (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the further suggestions, Washoe the Wise. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The (r. x - x) segments are helpful additions, but should only be inserted after the first mention of the person in question. The ones following King Senekerim-Hovhannes and King George I are good, but those after Basil II and Constantine VIII should be moved to the lead, where both emperors are introduced.
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Change "that" to "which" after "the main branch of the family,...".
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Insert Nikephoros' name in place of "he" in the phrase "records that he captured the principality".
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, names should only be linked the first time they appear, which means that in Biography the words Komnenos, Basil II, and Constantine VIII can be unlinked.
 * The way I understand the MOS, the lede is separate from the article body; what is linked in the lede should be linked again at the first occurrence in the article body. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the passage I believe you are referring to : "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." While it does not explicitly say that links found in the lead  be repeated in the body, but rather that they  "if helpful for readers", I understand this is a judgement call and in any case not a requisite for GA review. Thanks for catching my misstep, and congratulations on achieving GA status.-Washoe the Wise (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC).

Assessment


 * 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:


 * Thanks a lot Washoe the Wise for taking the time and for the thorough review! Any further comments or suggestions, beyond the requirements of GA? Constantine  ✍  10:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)