Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuil of Bulgaria/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:53, 14 February 2008.

Samuil of Bulgaria


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the criteria for FA. Gligan (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Dead links need replacing, per Check external links. Epbr123 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed those links in the references. --Gligan (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And some refs are missing the publisher, access date or language. Epbr123 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are a few layout issues, and I think the prose needs work.  There are verb tense issues throughout the article, and some areas where the prose does not flow well.  I'd recommend reading it out loud to identify places where the text is clunky or choppy (or get a good copyeditor to help you).
 * Lead should be expanded a bit. It is fairly short for an article of this size.
 * I have expanded it a bit. Is that enough?
 * The template on Samil's Campaigns should be relocated to the bottom of the article.
 * Where exactly? I am not sure that it would look better at the bottom.
 * It would probably look good in the See Also section. It doesn't belong with the article text, though. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put it there. --Gligan (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * His mother's name is a redlink in the infobox but a valid link is provided for her in the article
 * Corrected.
 * Instead of " In the same year the four brothers David, Moses, Aron and Samuil " how about something like "That year, Samuil and his brothers, ...., rebelled" That way to focus stays on Samuil
 * Done.
 * Should the first section just be titled "Comitopuli". There is really nothing there about his early life
 * Done.
 * There are some verb tense agreement issues in the second paragraph of first section.
 * I think I have done that.
 * "After John I Tzimiskes died on 11 January 976 and the Comitopuli learned this" - very awkward construction
 * Corrected.
 * "In addition, was now the eldest living of the Comitopuli and was tempted by an alliance with the Byzantines and the opportunity to seize power in Bulgaria only for himself." - subject?
 * Corrected
 * "due to the vindication " -> what does this mean?
 * Substituted with a synonym (intercession).
 * Do you know who take over the ruling of Moses and David's areas of the country after they died? Was it Samuel or Aron or someone else?
 * I haven't read anything on this matter but Aron was killed in the summer of the same year David and Moses perished so it is likely that Aron and Samuil did not have time to divide the power again and from 14 June 976 Samuil concentrated all authority in his hands as he was the last of the Comitopuli.
 * " The population of the town was deported to the interior of the country and forced to enlist in the Bulgarian army" Did this include the women and children, or just the male population?
 * The whole population was moved and of course only the males were enlisted in the army; I have cleared that in the text.
 * " after the conquest of Thessaly, Bulgaria won the battle with Byzantium for influence in the southwestern Balkans" did something happen after the battle, or was the battle itself the catalyst?
 * After the fall of Larissa Byzantium did not have any strongholds left in that area and lost its influence there. I have cleared that in the text.
 * The way the bottom two images are placed in the Co-rule section makes there be a double blank line between two paragraphs. One of them likely needs to be moved.
 * I don't know how to do that.
 * I moved the image. Can you check and make sure that its new placement is okay with you? Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any details on what was wrong with his arm after it healed?
 * It healed at 140 degrees as the excavation of his grave showed.
 * Can you put that in the article? Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Gligan (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the quote by the presbyter of Duklja is offset in a very odd way. It is actually short enough that per WP:MOSQUOTE it should be inline.
 * Done.
 * It should be inline (part of the paragraph before it). Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The constant war with the Byzantine Empire meant that such recognition could not be received from Constantinople, so the only possible alternative was Rome." - what type of recognition is he seeking and why was Rome the only possible alternative?
 * Imperial recognition because Boris II officially gave up his title. The Byzantines considered him as a rebel so it was impossible that tha Patriarch in Constantinople would recognize him as Tsar; the only other man with authority to do that was the Pope.
 * That is a very good explanation, and I think it belongs in the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to link it with the text but take a look whether it sounds good. --Gligan (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "which was profitable for both sides" huh?
 * His recognition as Tsar from Rome was profitable for both Samuil and the Pope as the first receives Imperial title and the later lessens the influence of his religious rival, the Patriarch of Constantinople.
 * That is a very good explanation, and I think it belongs in the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I trying to link it with the text but take a look whether it sounds good. --Gligan (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to wikilink words multiple times unless they occur pretty far apart in the article. Duklja is linked three times in a very short time in "Rule as Emporer" section
 * Corrected.
 * I'd rename "Rule as Emporer" to "Emperor"
 * Done.
 * Can you find a citation for first paragraph of Advance of the Byzantines section?
 * Done.

Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for these notes and suggestions : ) --Gligan (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 *  Strongly Oppose. I begin with a comparatively minor matter; but really this will not do.
 * Transliteration is bizarrely inconsistent. We should, in any given article, Latinize, Demotize, Bulgarize, or be hypercorrect. This does all four. We see the severely Latinate Comitopuli (except, for some reason, eta becomes i) and the pedantic Kastoria in the same paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The transliteration of the Bulgarian names are in Bulgarized Latin and of the Byzantine names is in Greek Latin. I would like to transliterate Kastoria as Kostur as it is called in Bulgarian but the Greeks do not seem to agree. If you have suggestions how to improve that, please write them. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The professional Greeks are often disruptive. Our guideline would produce Castoria, which is the English, like Castor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And above all, why Samuil as opposed to Samuel of Bulgaria, which is normal and intelligible in English? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because in Bulgaria we do not call the English King John "Ivan" as it should sound in Bulgarian. The Serbian Kings are also transliterated that way - Stefan instead of Stephen and so on. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is, as seems to have gone unnoticed, the English Wikipedia. It should be phrased, and (where possible) sourced, in English. We English-speakers call him Emperor Samuel; Bulgarian usage should be followed on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * POV: I have marked two cases of "who says?" he is a "heroic ruler", or that so-and-so is the "rightful heir".
 * In addition to the internationally established treatment of facts, founded by the Bulgarian historian V. Zlatarski, regarding Samuil's life and rule,[89] there also exists a minority theory. Initially it was popularized by political reasons in Kingdom of Serbia and then further developed in Yugoslavia by D. Anastasijević, G. Ostrogorrsky and others. In his book History of the Byzantine State[90] Ostrogorsky wrote that all contemporaries and the people of Samuil's state believed it was a Bulgarian empire, but because of its different, westernmore placing it was another state. Anastasijević claimed that the state Samuil ruled was in fact a separate Slavic Empire.[91] It was founded as a result of an anti-Bulgarian rebellion of the Comitopuli, as opposed to a continuation of the Bulgarian state. Today this theory is only popular in the Republic of Macedonia, also to a lesser extent in Serbia (with modern scholars such as S. Pirivatrić rejecting it).[92] In Republic of Macedonia it is often changed to refer to a "Macedonian Slavic" or even only "Macedonian" Empire.[93] This is despite the different location of the geographic area of Macedonia in the Middle Ages and the anachronism.[94].
 * This is polemic; polemic even for the majority view is unacceptable. It probably is present consensus to call Samuel Bulgarian, but dismissing a scholar of the magnitude of Ostrogorsky in this manner is not reasonable. It is unfortunate that this should have become mixed in the Macedonia snakepit; but that should encourage more care for neutrality, not less.
 * done Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He is considered heroic ruler in Bulgaria as Jean d'Arc is considered national hero in France. It is obvious why Boris II and Roman were the rightful heirs to the throne - they were sons of the previous Emperor Peter I. I don't know what exactly you disapprove in the cited section. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To say that he is so regarded in Bulgaria would be (subject to WP:UNDUE) largely unexceptionable. That is how Jean d'Arc is phrased.
 * Anti-Macedonian rants are violations of WP:V, even if (on the whole) justified. (So, of course, are pro-Macedonian rants.) This is not neutral language. I will attempt to rewrite to something approaching neutrality.
 * The fundamental problem, which also shows up in the use of English, is that this has been written almost entirely from sources in Bulgarian. This is undesirable in itself, since it makes the article much harder to verify; if equally good sources in English exist (and they do) they should be used.
 * The Bulgarian historians have carried much more research that the English on this matter so the Bulgarian sources are much more abundant. However, I will try to search for English sources. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholarship is genuinely international. I see very little here not found in English except expressions of opinion, which we should not include in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added several more non-Bulgarian sources. Currently 30 of 111 footnotes are from Bulgarian authors. --Gligan (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Authors should be transliterated, especially if their works have been translated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will transliterate all authors whose works have been transliterated. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact I did not find authors whose works have been transliterated without their names. Did you mean here that I should transliterate all authors and works from Cyrillic to Latin? --Gligan (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Names should be given in the Latin alphabet; our articles on Bulgarian scholars are so titled. Titles should be given in both Bulgarian and English. When an English translation exists, it should be noted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See this policy, and this guideline: Sources in Bulgarian should include translations of the sentences cited, preferably from a standard English translation. On a topic this well-worn, primary sources should be cited only for completely uncontroversial facts, unless a secondary source vouches for their accounts. In practice, this means that the only mention of primary sources should be of the form: "Secondary author X, Title page, citing Chronicle Y, edition, page number or other standard reference." 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So I should write the Bulgarian sources as they are written in the article of Simeon I of Bulgaria, yes? --Gligan (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you should include translations of the passages actually cited. The first is more urgent, and should be easier, than the second; especially if the works have actually been translated. Rather than the latter, it may be simpler to look up English sources, which should not be hard. This is narrative history, little of it actually controversial, I hope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have corrected your link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A proofreading by a native speaker would help, especially with Slavicisms like the omitted the. I have replaced "poetry works" with "verse" at the end; I hope the implication of metrical form is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So to conclude: a Bulgarian source which currently looks "Андреев, Й. Българските ханове и царе, Велико Търново, 1996, p. 127" should be written "Andreev, J. The Bulgarian Khans and Tsars (Balgarskite hanove i tsare, Българските ханове и царе), Veliko Tarnovo, 1996, p. 127". If I have again understood you wrong, please give me an example with that source here. --Gligan (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, or "Jordan Andreev, The Bulgarian Khans and Tsars (Bulgarskite hanove i tsare, Българските ханове и царе), Veliko Tarnovo, 1996, p. 127", especially if we do have an article on him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments made after archiving moved to talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.