Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Michael Shishman of Bulgaria

Michael Shishman of Bulgaria
I have expanded the article but my style is rough and I am sure I have made some grammar and stylistic mistakes which need to be addressed. I would like to know whether the article can be submitted for a GA or (doubtfully) FA review. I would welcome and address (if possible) all suggestions for further improvement. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo
I mostly review sources, citations, bibliography. Currently this isn't ready for FA.
 * Are External Links references used? If so they should be fully cited with author or corporate author, containing works (ie: the page cited is a section of a larger work or website), publisher, date of access, date of publication, location of publisher (if available).  Lacking this information—the sources fail reliability for FA.
 * Although GIBI is available in the internet, it is nonetheless a book like all others, so I think it is better to be cited as a book. As for other external links, they are only two (41 and 42).
 * As of this time stamp "External Links" contains four citations, none of them full. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have them in proper style with as much information as I could gather.
 * If you can't fully cite a work, then you shouldn't use it as a reference. You can promote the External Links section to a full section rather than a subsection of References. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did find more information for the second source and even found a link to the text in Russian. However, I would rather prefer to use the Bulgarian text because I think more Bulgarians than Russians would read that. If you think it would be better, I can put the link to the Russian (or the Bulgarian) article in brackets.
 * How about the current division of the sources? In fact, I am really confused how the separate sections should be titled, I constantly see different titles in the Wikipedia articles... Can you edit the titles (and whether they should be in sections or subsections) yourself?
 * You're citing primary sources, "(in Bulgarian and Greek) Greek Sources for Bulgarian History (GIBI), volume X. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN. 1980. http://promacedonia.org/gibi/10/gal/10_224.html.". You don't give the author, title, publisher or holding archive, etc for the documents you've cited within GIBI.  Primary sources are unacceptable when used for proof in historical articles, as GIBI is used to demonstrate, "The siege was a failure despite the five-story siege tower with 100 soldiers inside which the Byzantines employed."  This is as it constitutes Original Research in a historical sense.
 * About GIBI - the publisher is "Izdatelstvo na BAN" (it means something like Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Press). The title is "Greek Sources for Bulgarian History (GIBI)", the authors are a collective from the Academy (their names are not shown), all cited material is from volume X, Chapter XIX John Kantakouzenos. GIBI consists of ten volumes and is a book by itself. "The siege was a failure despite the five-story siege tower with 100 soldiers inside which the Byzantines employed." is also used in Andreev, I will add his as well but just I dod not want to repeat him too much. Should I remove GIBI from that particular citation?
 * See below for full details in my original commentary. The citation of GIBI for that particular point is radically insufficient, if it is a PRIMARY SOURCE, then it ought to be cited in full, if it is a secondary source, as a chapter in a collected work (as a Central European Academy of Science work would be) then the chapter ought to be cited in full. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * References
 * You need to provide the title of the works as they were published (and if you choose, a "courtesy" translation of the title into English). As these works were in Bulgarian, I doubt their titles were in English:
 * Andreev, Jordan; Milcho Lalkov (1996) (in Bulgarian). The Bulgarian Khans and Tsars.
 * Bozhilov, Ivan; Vasil Gyuzelev (1999)
 * (in Bulgarian and Greek) Greek Sources for Bulgarian History (GIBI), volume X
 * Pavlov, Plamen (2005). "Russian "Vagrands", Political Refugees and Commanders during the 12-14th c." (in Bulgarian). Rebels and Adventurers in Medieval Bulgaria.
 * Indeed, they are all in Bulgarian. I put them in English because in the review of Samuel of Bulgaria, they told me to be in English even though they are not available in that language. So, if you are sure, I will put them into Bulgarian. Should I put the citations from those books in Cyrillic as well?
 * GA reviews are regularly wrong about citations. Citations ought to be the citation of the work as referenced, which means the citation of the title in the original language and orthography as available on the title page: ie, in Bulgarian, in Cyrillic.  Given that Cyrillic is unfamiliar to English readers, an English translation of the title as a courtesy is an additional benefit, but the title ought to be in full in Bulgarian in Cyrillic as written in the title page. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * GIBI's volume number is incorrectly cited, unless the title of the work is "... Volume X" it would be Volume X of a larger work. The Volume itself may have a volume title ("Greek sources on Bulgarian History in the Medieval period") etc.
 * It is part of a larger work, there are GIBI from volume I to X.
 * So if GIBI Volume X has a title for the Volume itself, then the Volume title also must be given, in Bulgarian in Cyrillic as given, and as a courtesy with an English translation for English readers. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no specific title for the volume. The title of all ten books is "Greek Sources for Bulgarian History (GIBI), Volume ..." That is all in the title.
 * Nicely cited, but check if the Volume has a title: # Kazhdan, A.; and collective (1991). "Volume II" (in English). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-18-504652-8.
 * In fact the correct IBSN is 0-19-504652-8
 * Cite the page span that the chapter occupies in its book in the References section to allow other readers to locate the chapter in the work: Pavlov, Plamen (2005). "Russian "Vagrands", Political Refugees and Commanders during the 12-14th c."
 * The work is available and as you can see there are no given pages. Perhaps I should cite that as an external link as you have suggested in our first remark, shall I?
 * External links are by en-Wikipedia style for materials not cited in the article and in addition to the citation. If it is a web chapter only, then its fine not to give page numbers, unless the web version has page numbers. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Publisher locations: every work or no work. If I don't know where Textor Verlag is located, I can't write them to purchase a copy of their book.
 * I found it in google, it is in Frankfurt am Main.
 * Citations:
 * Kazhdan, p. 1365. & GIBI (but with GIBI note the Original Research problem above)  With works containing many chapters, like a dictionary, it is custom and practice to give the chapter title in the short citation, to allow us to ascertain from your citation if it is relevant, ie "Michael Shishman of Bulgaria" or irrelevant "Querns and milling practice in late medieval Bulgaria"
 * What do you mean here? To put "Kazhdan, vol. II, p. 1365" or "Kazhdan, Michael Shishman, p. 1365"?
 * Kazhdan, "Michael Shishman," p. 1365. Chapter titles in English citations normally go "within quotation marks" and titles of full works go in italics. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, pp. 268-269. Don't use minus signs "-" use n-dashes for page ranges "–"
 * "Jireček, p. 419." your style doesn't use terminal periods, check over and remove extraneous ones in short cites like this one.
 * "Andreev, p.250" your style uses spaces between the "p." and the "123" page number. Check over and add spaces where you've missed them.
 * "Bulgarian National Bank. Notes and Coins in Circulation: 2 levs (1999 issue) & 2 levs (2005 issue). – Retrieved on 26 March 2009." the dash appears to be extraneous and out of style
 * I will correct these.
 * Full citation required, author, publisher, containing works, publication date, etc etc... ""Rulers of Vidin" (in Bulgarian). http://vidin-info.hit.bg/vidinski%20vladeteli%202.htm. Retrieved 8 April 2011."
 * There is no information on that.
 * An unauthored work isn't really a reliable source for Military history. Authors can be corporate ("Bulgarian Academy of Sciences" for example).  The publisher would be the organisation hosting the content. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notes on Original Research.
 * Where GIBI is your only source, using primary materials for facts, like "b: Trajanopolis was a town near modern Feres, situated at 2 km of the Maritsa river in Western Thrace." you can't use this. At all.  It is original research.
 * In fact, that is put in GIBI as a footnote by the authors. Obviously John Kantakouzenos could not have been so thoughful to explain this himself :)
 * So it is a footnote to a primary source in GIBI? Then you need to cite it as such.  Editors.  Footnote to "Primary source title" in GIBI... Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If your source for the facts is commentary supplied by an editing academic when discussing or introducing the source then you need to be pretty explicit, even in your short citation, "Foo Bar (ed.) Commentary on the source "Iason Donnovan. (?1407).  Records of Atrocious Australian 80s Music Sent Back in Time as Manuscripts At the Roman Abbey of Saint Horrible Music.  Excerpted from Archive of Time Travelling Pop Stars MS-1408 Sofia, Bulgaria." in GIBI pp. 14–28".
 * Where GIBI is not your only source ("The siege was a failure despite the five-story siege tower with 100 soldiers inside which the Byzantines employed."), and you've got a secondary source to support the fact, (Andreev, p. 256), then why not quote the primary source for the permitted illustrative purposes. "The siege…as recounted in annals, "They then came upon us with a five story siege…"".  But then you have to footnote fully... "Iason Donnovan. (?1407).  Records of the Lodoss War at the Monestary of Saint Anime History.  Excerpted from the Archive of Time Travelling Pop Stars MS-1409 Sofia, Bulgaria. In GIBI pp. 29–48."
 * I see, then I will put indeed Andreev and cite GIBI in full manner.
 * Yes I know this Original Research policy is hard for Central European medieval history. Those are the rules.  They're enforced at FA.  I can't see any reason why this article couldn't reach and achieve FA.  FAC has at least one editor who does a lot of English early medieval Church Figures (Ealdgyth).  Asking Ealdgyth about the process might be useful given the similar issues with historical editing you both face.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for your review. As I stated in my request, the more real aim is GA, not FA. Now I will try to correct the sources as much as I can and then we should continue to clean up what I could not. --Gligan (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, I have another question. When I put the titles of the book in Bulgarian, should I use the Cyrillic for the names of the authors, the publisher, the location? I will wait for your answers before I do that and the other issues for which I have raised questions above. For now I corrected the dashes and other minor stylisitc mistakes. --Gligan (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You ought to give the publication information as given on the bibliographic / copyright page of the book you referenced yourself. If this is in Cyrillic and Bulgarian, it ought to be given as such.  Most English readers would appreciate an additional translation.  For example (consider text in [brackets as Cyrillic]):  [Iosef Iosefsun] (Iosef Iosefson). (1980). [Bulgarian Histories of Great Men of the Military] (Bulgarian) (Bulgarian Histories of Great Men of the Military).  [Sofia, Bulgaria] (Sofia, Bulgaria): [Bulgarian Academy of the Sciences Press] (Bulgarian Academy of the Sciences Press).   By citing material in this way a scholar with Bulgarian can find the original source, and a scholar with Cyrillic (but not Bulgarian, like myself) can check that your Cyrillic and English match, and a reader with English/Latin only can understand you're citing an academic source which is dead on target for your subject.  Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I must really be annoying with my constant questions despite the fact that you seem to have put a lot of effords to make this as clear to me as possible. I think I have done most of your points but I need to know explitly whether:
 * 1. I should put "Андреев, стр. 256" instead of "Andreev, p. 256" on all citations where Bulgarian books are used.
 * 2. I should put "Chapter XIX "John Kantakouzenos", GIBI volume X, p. 256" on all places where "GIBI, p. 256" is cited (if the answer of 1. is that I must must the Cyrillic, of course I will use it in that case as well) --Gligan (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to 1. "Андреев, p. 256" instead of "Andreev, p. 256".  Why not "стр. 256"?  Because "стр." and "p." are identical indicators, and while we're citing a Bulgarian source, we're citing it for English readers, so the English style of pages ought to be used.  But, in the Bibliography, it would be helpful to list it as Андреев (Andreev) so that people who can't read Cyrillic alphabets can make sense of the name.
 * In response to 2. You should put ""John Kantakouzenos", GIBI Volume X, p. 256". The Chapter Number isn't necessary: it is indicated by the Chapter title.  However, this only counts if the item you cited was the entire chapter "John Kantakouzenos", and not an individual source.  So for example, if you cited ""An extract of a 1409 manuscript with an account of John Kantakouzenos's birth, Institute of Sciences Archives Sofia, Bulgaria," GIBI Volume X, p. 256" then that's how you ought to cite it.  When citing material from GIBI you're not citing a solely authored chapter by an academic, but rather citing documents in a document collection.  The "document" is the relevant chapter for citation purposes, not the book chapter.  Additionally, as noted above, if you're actually citing an editorial footnote, then it is "Editorial Footnote to "An extract of a 1409 manuscript with an account of John Kantakouzenos's birth, Institute of Sciences Archives Sofia, Bulgaria," GIBI Volume X, p. 256". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Asking questions is the best way to get answers! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have done that now. --Gligan (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to know how to rearrange the Bibliography section. Should the authors in Latin come first and then those in Cyrillic or...? --Gligan (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank
Comments.
 * "Energetic and ambitious ruler,": "An energetic and ambitious ruler,"
 * Done.


 * "Michael Shishman led aggressive but opportunistic and inconsistent foreign policy ...": I don't understand what this means.
 * It means that he tried to have the innitiative in his relations with the Byzantine Empire and was usually the aggressive side but despite that he was quite inconsistent, made agreements the broke them, tried to make use of both Andronikos II and Andronikos III in their conflict but without too much actual gains.


 * "Born after 1280, and before 1292": "Born between 1281 and 1291,"
 * Done.


 * "sebastokrator Peter": needs a translation in parentheses, maybe "(Emperor)". It should probably be capitalized.
 * Sebastokrator is a court title which has no equivalent in English.


 * "and later married to her in 1298 or 1299": "and married to her in 1298 or 1299".
 * Done.


 * "Shishman and his son received the high courtly title of despotēs from their cousin Theodore Svetoslav and was referred to in a contemporary Venetian source as a Despot of Bulgaria and Lord of Vidin.": The first part is plural, the second part is singular.
 * Done.


 * "According to some historians he was chosen because he was a descendant of the Asen dynasty and interpret his ascenсion": What's the subject of "interpret"?
 * Well, it is the historians who interpret the acsention of Michael Shishman as...., so I guess that "historians" is the subject.


 * "a continuation to the House of Asen": "a continuation of the House of Asen".
 * Done.
 * Thank you very much for the comments, we should try to resolve your second point. Knowing my style, I expect that these are not going to be the only comments; I will try to answer new remarks as fast as I can but generally I am very busy that month. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)