Wikipedia:Peer review/Basarab I of Wallachia/archive1

Basarab I of Wallachia[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it should be chequed against WP:NPOV. I neither can decide whether the article is broad in its coverage. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 1bandsaw[edit]

Overall, this is a high quality article about an interesting individual. The sourcing is great, and it provides a thorough documentation of this ruler.

1bandsaw, thank you for your comments and suggestions. I accepted all, but one. I also tried to answer your questions. Please find my comments and answers below. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I guess it would take a Romanian reader to check the sources on Theodora's page in order to put her name on here? I'm satisfied with the fixes. Well done on the article! 1bandsaw (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a handful of questions and suggestions below, which will help clarify some things:

Towards independence section

The 'main article' link to Battle of Posada doesn't seem right here, as it really only deals with the second half of this section. Perhaps break this in two and then it would, otherwise just link to the battle where it comes in.

I changed the link ("further information" instead of "main article"). Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph 1: "brawl" -- was this a personal fight or a battle between armies? "stated that Basarab's" what "was more powerful"? Did Stephen make the assessment, or the royal charter (written by Charles, I presume)?

Yes, it was a personal fight. I modified the sentence to clarify it. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph 4: "I will drag him by his heard from his lair" head? beard? heart?

Modifed. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Family section

It would seem good to me to actually mention his daughter's name when linking to her, in keeping with most other articles about royalty/nobility.

I fully agree with you, but no reliable sources referred to in the article mention her name. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section

paragraph 3: "chronicles used the denomination" perhaps simpler language could be used here, "chronicles used the name"

Modified. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1bandsaw (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]