Talk:Višeslav of Serbia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I will have a go at reviewing this, assume that most likely I'll have the full review for you by tomorrow (9th July, 2016). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Above is my review of the article. As I noted in the Overall section, there is a fair bit that needs doing before this article can get to GA. Most of it shouldn't take to long, if there are any problems please ping me or put a message on my talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional Sources; I'll just dump in sources as I come across them that may help you too expand the article, I'll go through them first and see if there is anything worth adding.
 * Here is one secondary source from google books,. I'm not sure how much access you have to sources, it's only one page, but if you could get a copy of the source, it may have something worthwhile in it.
 * if you have access, this source may be useful for the background of the Slavic invasion; "Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series : The Making of the Slavs : History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700". If you don't have access to it, I can go through it and make a small couple paragraphs of any useful information I find.
 * That's all for now, I still need to go through and re-read the article in its current state. Will do that soon, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ulwencreutz does not seem reliable. As for the Slavic settlement, doesn't that push the article further from its subject? There are some sources I could go through but I think that overall this is the best it can get. Thank you, I'll go through the last points in the next days.--Z oupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Added an annotation on Slavic settlement.--Z oupan  00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was worried about scope creep, so probably for the best not to extend the discussion further from Viseslav. Just ping me when you're ready for my final read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think about it's state now?--Z oupan 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , It's very close to GA but the Lede still doesn't cover the main aspects of the article. It does indeed discuss Viseslav and the rule of the Byzantine empire but makes no mention of 1. How Viselsav ascended to rulership and 2. His legacy on Serbia (mostly that his sons continued to rule in his stead). Other than this, the article is quite nicely put together and I can pass it for GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lede so that it is clear that the rule was hereditary.--Z oupan 23:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

End of Review Comments; The article now fits the requirements of the GA criteria. I'll be going through it later and cleaning up a couple very minor details that don't affect its status as a GA article. The coverage of the subject of the article may appear limited, this is because the subject himself is not generally greatly covered in literature, this has caused the scope to widen somewhat beyond just the subject to also encompass the neighbouring nations and peoples and the history of Serbia as a whole. A significant amount of work has been done to this article to bring it up to par, thanks for the efforts on the article Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)