Wikipedia:Peer review/Glad (duke)/archive1

Glad (duke)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it should be checked against WP:NPOV before its WP:GAN. Thank you for your review in advance. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * , thank you for your review and comments. Please find my remarks below. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article name is not informative. I would prefer something like Glad, Duke of Banat.
 * The term "Duke of Banat" would be quite strange, because the region received this name only in the 18th century. Should we rename Domnall Gerrlámhach (a GA) or Ramón Emeterio Betances (a FA)? Their names are not informative, either. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would move the image of the manuscript to the top - it is visually better to see a picture when the article is opened.
 * Thank you. I moved the picture. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "known in modern scholarship as Anonymus after 1150" - after 1150 could mean 1700. A latest date is also needed.
 * Thank you. I modified the text. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Gesta did not refer to the enemies of the conquering Hungarians, or Magyars, who had been mentioned in earlier annals and chronicles, but wrote of a dozen persons, including Glad, who are unknown for other primary sources of the Hungarian Conquest." I do not understand this sentence - a chronicle about Hungarian conquests which did not refer to their enemies? Also it should be unknown from other sources.
 * Yes, this is the case. The Gesta Hungarorum does not write of the rulers who fought against the conquering Hungarians, according to late 9th-century and 10th-century sources. This is why many modern historians say that Glad was only invented by the author of the Gesta, similarly to all other enemies of the conquering Hungarians who are mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum. "For" is modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Gesta presents Ahtum, who ruled the Banat at the beginning of the 11th century, according to the longer version of the Life of St Gerard, as Glad's offspring." 1. Does this mean that the Hungarians soon afterwards lost Banat? If so this should be made clear. 2. Ahtum cannot have been the offspring (child) of a man who live 100 years earlier. Descendant? 3. According to the article on Ahtum a descent from Glad is only one theory. This should be made clear.
 * Yes, it is only o theory, which is only mentioned by the author of the Gesta Hungarorum. This is exactly what the article says, based on scholarly work: the author of the Gesta says that Ahtum (who is mentioned also by a hagiographic work) was descended from Glad. "Offspring" is modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Magyars stormed into Bulgaria in association with the Byzantine Empire in 894." - stormed into is POV - invaded would be better. Also does in association with mean in alliance with?
 * Thank you. Both expressions are modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Avar Khaganate disintegrated after a series of Frankish expeditions in the 790s" Frankish invasion of Avar territory or vice versa?
 * Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "according to historian István Bóna". It should be "according to the historian". (I have twice been told off by reviewers for leaving out "the"!)
 * Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "but those rivers may only bear names of Turkic origin from a later period." I do not understand this.
 * Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "According to the Gesta Hungarorum, Rus' princes". Further down it appears to be only one Rus' prince, prince of Halych (which should be capitalised as Prince of Halych).
 * Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "According to Tudor Sălăgean and other Romanian historians, the latter list" What list?
 * Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Madgearu says that the Banat, which had been an integral part of Bulgaria since the late 820s, became an independent state under Glad's rule after the death of Simeon I in 927." I am confused. The lead says that Glad was duke when the Hungarians invaded around 900.
 * Yes, according to the Gesta Hungarorum. However, the lead also says that according to Romanian historians' view Glad lived in the early 10th century. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ioan-Aurel Pop writes that Glad must have survived his defeat and recovered at least parts of his duchy in exchange for paying a tribute to the Magyars, because his descendant, Ahtum, ruled the territory some decades later, according to Anonymus." This seems illogical. Rulers have often been defeated and killed and their descendants recovered their lands. Is it accepted by other historians?
 * Maybe its illogical, but this view is presented by one of the historians who dedicated monographies to the Hungarian conquest of Transylvania, Banat and Crisana. I do not know whether his view is shared by other historians. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting and well-researched article, but I have doubts about it on two grounds. 1. It appears to make considerable use of primary sources, which is WP:OR. 2. Very little of the article is about Glad, who is very obscure for such an extensive article. You might consider adapting the article to be 'Banat in the early Middle Ages', with a much shorter and tighter article about Glad himself. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)+
 * Sorry, but I do not share your last views. The use of primary sources is always based on scholarly work, consequently, I think, it cannot be regarded OR. The presentation of the historical background of the territory allegedly ruled by Glad is important, because his very existence is questioned by many scholars. Furthermore, scholarly works that describe the history of his "duchy", always mention the historical background., please let me thank you again your throughout and bold review. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)