Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Basil II

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Basil II
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I have been sent here to have this article reviewed for A-Class before I nominate to FAC in a peer review. I had this article pass on to GA, but it was not ready for FA yet. After my large contributions back in August of 2018, other people also had their share of improving the article to be more coherent, and I feel like it is ready now. I'm open to further ideas on improvements too. 20DKB03 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine
I hate to do be the one to do this every time, but really the most fundamental concern from the FAs has not been addressed: the article still is a jumble of loosely cobbled sections, worked on by various editors over various years, and now coated with layers of copyedits by Векочел, which for the most part only served to make cosmetic changes to the text and bring the references out of sync. Just as an example, I invite you to examine the original state of the "Campaigns against the Fatimid Caliphate" section, as written by me, with the current one. The textual differences are minor, almost the only change is the removal of some sources and their replacement by others, without apparent rationale. It says a lot that in one+ year and 1000 intervening edits (i.e., 50% of all edits in the article's existence), the article is still mostly the same size and with virtually the same content and structure as when you left it, 20DKB03. It is fine for GA, but needs a lot of dedicated work, not just window-dressing, to get anywhere near comprehensive enough to qualify for A-class status. I've tried to get myself to do it, but my other interests and RL do not allow me to dedicate myself to this sufficiently. Constantine  ✍  11:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Gog the Mild
I have had an eye on this article since taking five of his six immediate successors to GA last year. I have been put off working on it by the high rate of editing, IMO largely either trivial or deleterious. I probably have a slightly lower bar than Constantine re "comprehensive", but even so this isn't there. The use of language is also not good. Not so much "incorrect use", as a wall of facts in recondite phraseology with little flow or connection. Frankly, if this were up for GAN I would be sucking my teeth, and I agree with Constantine that it needs a lot of work before it will be ready for ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review (oppose)
I have not looked at the prose at all, just a cursory look through the referencing. I have not carried out any checks for close para-phrasing or copyvio. Harrias talk 16:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of short references aren't linking properly: refs #3, #13, #14, #16, #23, #24, #25, #26, #28, #30, #36, #67, #106, #130, #146, #149 and #151.
 * Similarly, a lot of the sources listed in the Bibliography are not linked to: Ash, John (1995), Blöndal, Sigfús; Benedikz, Benedikt (16 April 2007), Cartwright, Mark (19 January 2018), Gibbon, Edward (1788), Gregory, Timothy E. (2005), Lopez, Robert Sabatino (20 July 1998), Nicol, Donald MacGillivray (1992), Reuter, Timothy; McKitterick, Rosamond, eds. (1999), Runciman, Steven (1988) [1929], Talbot, Alice-Mary; Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald (14 May 2012) and The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (20 July 1998).
 * There is inconsistency of whether sources include the publisher location or not.
 * Older sources such as "Vogt, Albert (1923)" should include an OCLC number.
 * Ref #1 uses "p." where it should be "pp." for a range, as do some others.