Talk:Tocco family/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 08:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Will take this on soon. Constantine  ✍  08:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


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

Notes:
 * 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:
 * Did some copyedits as it is easier than suggesting all changes here, feel free to revert/adapt.
 * Copy edits look good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Some historical genealogies from when? Put another way, when is the earliest genealogy of the Tocci attested?
 * Miller doesn't say, Zečević doesn't give any exact dates but writes that the genealogies that give the Tocco these kinds of origins are from Renaissance and post-Renaissance historiography, so added that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Add regnal dates to Totila, or at least clarify the era (e.g. "the 6th-century Ostrogothic king Totila"). Add regnal numbers to the other rulers that miss them, e.g. Charles II of Naples
 * Done, hopefully did not miss any rulers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * the Tocci likely originated through being rewarded
 * Looks like this was edited away so not sure what to do here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Rulers of the Heptanese I would change this, for two reasons: one is that Heptanese is a relatively obscure term in English, and second that the Tocci never ruled all of it. I would instead recommend "Rulers in the Ionian Islands"
 * Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * John V Palaiologos granted him the title Dux Leucade I find this dubious; the Byzantines did not have titles of nobility with "Duke". Perhaps the title was "duke" in the administrative sense, but again I find it surprising that it was "duke of Lefkada". The Byzantine province of the Ionian islands was termed Theme of Cephallenia, so I would expect a Byzantine rule of all people to be consistent and call him "duke of Cephalonia" or similar. I also note that the--usually quite thorough--Tabula Imperii Byzantini article on Lefkada makes no reference to this being a title granted by the Byzantine emperor.
 * Looking at what Zečević writes she doesn't actually say that John V granted the title to him (my bad) but does curiously identify the title as a "prestigious Byzantine title". I've changed the text here so that it just says that Leonardo assumed the title. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * which was captured by the Epirotes Carlo I's titles aside, these were not "the Epirotes". Tocco rule over Epirus was that of a foreign power, so it should be "the Tocci" or "the Tocco forces" throughout.
 * Yeah, true. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * often blamed in past scholarship can you name a few of these scholars? Likewise, The two largest schools of thought can you name some of the chief representatives of the two schools?
 * Zečević doesn't name scholars for either, could I say something along the line of "according to Zečević, Carlo II has often been blamed ..."? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * your suggestion works for me. Constantine  ✍  19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * it can hardly be blamed on the rulership of Leonardo III this sounds like editorializing. If it is the opinion of Zečević, attribute it explicitly. OTOH, I think that this debate is slightly overdone; it is relevant to the article on Leonardo III, but not necessarily for the family as a whole. I feel that this could be condensed somewhat, but it is optional.
 * I removed this entire sentence, I think it works fine without it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I suppose the Cantelmo Stuart had some relation to the English house of Stuart? If so, then this should be mentioned.
 * Appears to be more of a claimed connection than a proven one in this case, added with source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please add location to Zečević
 * Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That's it for now. Overall a splendid article, I will have another look at it once the comments above are addressed. Constantine  ✍  20:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking this on! Just so you know I'm not ignoring this, I've got a big assignment due friday morning so won't be able to expend much time before then. I will get right to this when I've once again got the time, if you are okay with waiting a few more days? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Take your time, and ping me when you're ready. Best of luck with your assignment :) Constantine  ✍  21:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Done with the assignment, will finish going through this over the coming days :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone over the article one more time. I am pleased that the changes cover my points above, and that the article is in good shape. I've made a few source spotchecks on plagiarism and couldn't find anything (AGF on Zečević, to whom I don't have access). The only (minor) issues that remain is a) fixing the Tocci plural and b) harmonizing the reference style, specifically, moving the full references used inline to the 'bibliography' section. I also leave it up to you how you want to deal with the insertion of Among the families granted privileges under the Tocco ... and reference #35. The sentence is somewhat superfluous, but if you choose to keep it, I can help with the correct referencing for #35. Constantine  ✍  17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the Tocci plural and made the reference style consistent. I believe the sentence you mention is superfluous, so I've removed it (along with the associated source). Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude and bother. My Italian does not go very far. My father spoke it fluently. I would have thought the plural of Tocco is Tocchi and not Tocci. Just like the plural of poco is pochi and that of fuoco is fuochi. The singular for the plural Tocci would be Toccio if it existed. Don't you agree? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, there's no better time to bring up potential issues than right now. I don't know much Italian; I just used Tocci since that was in the article already (both are mentioned in the lede, though). I wouldn't be able to determine which one is more linguistically sound. Adding to the confusion, the main source I used in the article, The Tocco of the Greek Realm (Zečević, 2014), consistently uses just "Tocco" as both the singular and plural. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Ichthyovenator (fish hunter). I had not even seen that the article under review mentions both plurals in the first sentence. Tocci appeared just very wrong to me. The Italian Wikipedia article about the family (4kB), uses Tocchi once but this refers to a place named after the family. The form Tocci does not appear there. The French article (7kB), rated B, states that the plural in Italian is Tocci. I think this is wrong. The German article (49kB) mentions Tocchi and Tocci but seems to say that the Tocci are a different, Italian-Albanian family. I should probably read this more in detail. Besides, the journal article by Shamà, (in Italian, 74 pages), cited by the article under review, can be read online at: https://www.academia.edu/16158231/I_di_Tocco_Sovrani_dellEpiro_e_di_Leucade_Studio_storico_genealogico
 * I found the URL on the German article. Shamà never uses a plural of Tocco. As long as we do not clearly understand why there are two plurals, it is perhaps best to follow Zečević and avoid the plural also in English. With many thanks for your kind toleration, best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I know enough Italian to confirm that the plural should be "Tocchi". "Tocci" would be correct in Latin. Constantine  ✍  17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've went with Tocchi then. Going with just Tocco without a plural could have been an option as well but it seemed an odd choice. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)