Talk:Siege of Syracuse (877–878)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 11:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I will be taking on the review of this article, expect a full review to be up by tomorrow Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I will be using the above table for the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have completed my initial review of the article, the article is fairly well-written and concisely covers the topic however I have both mild and more significant concerns with some criterion. Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance or as you address the issues. Thanks for the contributions it was an interesting read and part of a topic I am interested in. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for a thorough review! I will go over your concerns over the next few days. However, right off, I completely disagree with 2b. Vasiliev is the fundamental work on the subject of the Arab-Byzantine wars to this day. Even if I used more English sources (of which there is none with this particular focus and level of detail), they would simply regurgitate Vasiliev (and I've read quite a few of them). For instance, the ODB article on Theodosios the Monk lists no English references, but does list Vasiliev, Hunger's history of Byzantine literature, and two Italian journal articles. To be frank, reference-wise Vasiliev alone suffices for the events of the siege, as he includes both the primary sources and his own commentary and analysis, complemented in the French version I am using by two of the most distinguished 20th-century Byzantinists, Gregoire and Canard. Metcalfe and the others are for context and additional details, of which I will add more based on your other comments. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  13:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll keep your comment about 2b in mind, it's a relatively difficult topic to have many sources for and if Vasiliev is fine on it's own for this article then the other sources are practically just a bonus. Thanks for the quick response, I'll look at 2b and update tomorrow if I have anything to update with. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, it slipped my mind entirely. I'll get to it this afternoon. Constantine  ✍  11:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr rnddude, I've incorporated most of your suggestions and corrections. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, I'll be doing a final check to make sure everything is okay and pass this article. I noted your comments in the review boxes above and don't have any issue with them. Thanks for clarifying a couple points, again, some of my comments can be tiny little nitpicks that don't really affect the article in terms of GA such as my comment about contrary winds. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise much obliged for taking the time, and suggesting a few rather necessary improvements to the article. It is always to helpful to see one's work through another pair of eyes. Best, Constantine  ✍  22:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)