Wikipedia:Peer review/Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia/archive1

Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have some comments on the general quality of the article, hoping to soon make it FA. Your help is much appreciated.

Thanks, Davo88 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have started to read this interesting article, but due to other commitments it may take me a few days to finish and comment on it. In the meantime, you could usefully tackle the several disambiguation links that need fixing in the article; you'll find them the toolbox, upper left on this page. Back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

First instalment: I have read down to the beginning of the First Crusade section:-
 * Lead:
 * The first sentence is bedecked with alternative names (some incorrect or in Classical Armenian script), and  is so convoluted as to be virtually impossible to follow. If all this information needs to be given, it should be offered in bite-size quantities rather than in a single, overblown sentence with so many subclauses and sub-subclauses.
 * "It was located in Cilicia..." From the article's title I'd say that was a given. Perhaps rephrase the beginning of the sentence: "Cilicia is the region..." etc
 * Second paragraph: The words "of Cilicia" are unnecesary in the opening phrase.
 * The abbreviation "ca." is Latin and should be italcised. Strictly speaking it should not be followed by a full stop, as "a" is the last letter of the abbreviated word.
 * "...at various times held the thrones of..." needs a "had", thus: "had held the thrones of..."
 * Third paragraph: "kingdom" has become lower case - need to be consistent
 * General point: I haven't read the whole article yet, but the lead section seems unduly brief. Remember, it is supposed to be a summary of the whole article.
 * Early Armenian migrations
 * Tigranes subsection: Overuse of the pronoun "his", not always clear that you mean Tigranes.
 * The final sentence of this subsection is confusing: "From the time of his conquests, some Armenian settlements are thought to have remained in the region of Cilicia." Does this mean that there are present-day Armenian settlements in Cilicia which are believed to have existed continuously from the time of Tigranes' conquests? If so, the point needs to be made much more clearly. **Where is Ecbatana? Don't force your readers to use a link to find this out.
 * Mass Armenian migration subsection: First, it's a big time jump from Tigranes in the 1st century BC to the 6th century AD, and a connecting sentence, perhaps referring to the Byzantine conquest, would be appropriate. Secondly, you say "Armenian families relocated to Byzantine territories" without saying where they relocated from, why they did this.
 * As a matter of style, you should avoid using paragraphs of one or two short sentences.
 * The rest of this section I found difficult to understand, partly because the people mentioned are unfamiliar to me and I kept having to use links to find out who they were. This made raeading a disjointed and frustrating experience.
 * The Rubenid dynasty ("Rubenian" in lead; should you be consistent?)
 * The emergence of Cilician Armenia: There is a non-neutral element in statements such as "however, the king fell victim to Byzantine treachery..." This may be how the sources report it, but an encyclopedia needs to have a more detached tone. You could, for example, omit the phrase and simply say "Instead of negotiating peace, however, the king was forced to cede his Armenian lands and live in exile."
 * "Soon after this assassination, Ruben organized a band of Armenian troops and revolted against the Byzantine Empire in 1080." A better phrasing would be: "In 1080, soon after this assasination, Ruben organized a band of Armenian troops and revolted against the Byzantine Empire."
 * The sentence that follows is clumsily worded and seems redundant; maybe delete?
 * The paragraph beginning "By Ruben's death in 1095..." is very difficult to follow. For example, only by using the links do I find that "Prince Rouben I" is the same person as "Ruben". A lot of this paragraphs seems to consist of dispensible information about other princes and principalities, and takes the focus right away from Cilicia. I was pretty well lost by the end of it.

I'll be contiuing, and will post again shortly. Meanwhile, perhaps you will address the above points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please, could you leave the strikeouts of my comments to me? Mark points you think are addressed by "Done". Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for doing the peer review! I very much appreciate it. --Davo88 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuing: I have gone through a couple more sections, comments below. I will try an d finish this weekend when I might have a bit more time:-
 * First Crusade
 * Section titles should not include definite or indefinite articles, hence "First Crusade"
 * Explain/link "Frankish Crusaders"
 * "Constantine saw this as a one-time opportunity..." To what is "this" referring?
 * "With their help, they secured Cilicia from the Byzantines and Turks" Much confusion; to what, respectively, do "their" and "they" refer?
 * "partly allied, partly rivals" would be better phrased :"part allies, part rivals"
 * The rest of this section has nothing to do with the First Crusade, which is the section's title. Either change the setion title (e.g. "First Crudade and aftermath"), or put this later material into a section of its own.
 * A lot of the history which follows - T'oros I seizing the stronghold of Anazarba, the attack by the Seljuk Sultan of Iconium, etc, is hard to follow because you don't give any dates. I personally believe there is too much detail here, and that you should reduce this material to a few broad sentences. Otherwise you will risk losing your readers.
 * Principality becomes a kingdom
 * Point made earlier about "the" in section title
 * "King Levon I started his reign as Prince Levon II in 1187" Who is he, and what is his relationship to the people previously mentioned?
 * "pope Clement III" requires a capital
 * What is a "catholicos"?
 * Pronoun problem: I've mentioned this before, but it is sometimes hard to work out who is being written about. In the sentence "Thanks to the support given to him by the Holy Roman Emperors (Frederick Barbarossa, and his son, Henry VI), he elevated the princedom's status to a kingdom." In this, the first "him" is the pope, "his" refers to Barbarossa, "he" is the pope again. This could be tweaked to "Thanks to the support given to him by the Holy Roman Emperors (Frederick Barbarossa and his son Henry VI), the pope elevated the princedom's status to a kingdom." But this problems recurs in the article, and you need to watch for similar instances.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the rest of the review
 * The Het'umid dynasty:
 * "The apparent unification in marriage of the two main dynasties of Cilicia, the Rubenid and the Het'umid dynasties, ended a century of dynastic and territorial rivalry and brought the latter to the forefront of political dominance in Cilician Armenia." In this sentence, to what is "the latter" intended to refer? As constructed it is referring to "territorial rivalry", and I don't think that's the intention.
 * Curious use of the term "diploma". You need to explain its meaning in this context
 * "...and was promised to free from taxation the Armenian churches..." Clumsy, ungramattical. Try: "...and was promised the freedom from taxation of..." etc
 * "Originally, they were a cavalry corps..." To whom or what does "they" refer here?
 * "The Armenians were also prohibited from rebuilding their defensive fortifications, required to pay annual tribute of one million dirhams, and forced them to trade with the Mamluks, thereby circumventing the trade embargo imposed by the Pope." Ungrammatical.
 * Decline with the Lusignan dynasty:
 * There needs to be an explanation somewhere in the article of what is meant by "the Latin cause"
 * I'm a bit puzzled by the use of the phrase "Despite this" later in the section. It doesn't seem appropriate - despite what?
 * Dispersion of the Armenian population of Cilicia: I believe that this section is too long and over-detailed. The article is about the Armenian kingdom, not a general history of Cilicia. I think that the aftrnath of the kingdom could be dealt with in a couple of short paragraphs, and I'd omit the more recent history.
 * Cilician Armenian society:
 * First sentence could be expressed more neatly: "heterogeneous demographically" is an awful mouthful.
 * Expressions such as "it is worth noting" should be avoided, as they detract from the neutral, encyclopdic tone. Likewise, "in fact".
 * Are you sure about the use of the term "Unitarian" in the final section? The term has a rather specific meaning in the Christian church, see Unitarianism.

That's it. I would point out that the prose faults I have picked up are examples, rather than representing a complete list of the fixes needed. I would strongly advise that you arrange for full copyedit, to bring the prose quality up to scratch. I regret that I won't be able to spend any more time on the article, though I will watch its further progress with interest. The subject-matter is very absorbing. Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I made some additions to the Early Armenian migrations section (which was signed with my IP address). If you get the time, please take a look. -- Davo88 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)