Talk:Višeslav of Serbia/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will have a go at reviewing this, assume that most likely I'll have the full review for you by tomorrow (9th July, 2016). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There's a few passages that need a bit of work. "The work mentions the first Serbian ruler, without a name (known conventionally as the "Unknown Archon"), that led the Serbs from the north to the Balkans and received the protection of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), and was said to have died long before the Bulgar invasion (680)." This should be broken into at least two sentences. Perhaps "The work mentions the first Serbian ruler, who is without a name but conventionally known as the "Unknown Archon" that led the Serbian peoples from the north to the Balkans. This ruler would receive protection by Emperor Heraclus (r. 610-641) and was said to have died long before the Bulgar invasion of 680. Fixed. Done.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "According to DAI, "baptized Serbia" (known erroneously in historiography as Raška[3]), included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon (Δεστινίκον), Tzernabouskeï (Τζερναβουσκέη), Megyretous (Μεγυρέτους), Dresneïk (Δρεσνεήκ), Lesnik (Λεσνήκ), Salines (Σαληνές), while the "small land" (χοριον/chorion) of Bosna (Βοσωνα), part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera (Κατερα) and Desnik (Δέσνηκ)." With this many brackets I'd be amazed to find someone capable of making heads or tails of this sentence. I don't think every name needs its Greek counterpart written in brackets. This leaves "According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia" which is erroneously known is histeriography as Raška, included the "inhabited cities" of Destinikon, Tzernabourskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik, and Salines. The "small land" of Bosna, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik. That said, is there any real necessity for this sentence at all, it doesn't seem to be relevant to the main topic of the article Višeslav. So I think it could be removed entirely. Perhaps only include the number of cities?--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] On re-read, without the Greek, the cities can stay. They make a general point about the area that was under Višeslav's rule and don't take a large amount of space to do it. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] This may also apply to the next sentence as well. If necessary outline the principalities and the border between Serbia and the Byzantines, but I don't see how it relates to Višeslav in any meaningful way. Redundant comment. "Prince (archon) of the Serbs" (αρχων Σερβλίας). This there any reason why so many different things that have their Greek name written as well. It's weird to read place names and titles in one language and then have the Greek translation written as well. Removed. The names are transliterations of Greek. I've removed them.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~The very next sentence does a similar thing, except with Serbian Cyrillic instead.~~ Also removed. Removed.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~a confederation of village communities (roughly the equivalent of a county) -> a confederation of village communities roughly equivalent to a county. Unnecessary brackets in this sentence.~~ Fixed. Done.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~(a magistrate or governor); the governorship -> (a magistrate or governor). The governorship... No need for a semi-colon just separate the two sentences.~~ Fixed. Done.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~while Byzantine supreme rule was nominally recognized -> while the Byzantine emperor's supreme rule was nominally recognized. Why supreme rule instead of just rule?~~ Fixed and explained. Done. In Serbian historiography, the term "supreme rule" (vrhovna vlast) is used.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~recognized; domestic -> recognized. Domestic... again, unnecessary semi-colon.~~ Fixed. Done.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "Domestic rulers, veliki župani, ruled Serbia by right of inheritance, the land was divided between the ruler's brothers, the oldest, as the ruler, had for certain domestic rule in the collective." -> Domestic rulers, veliki župani, ruled Serbia by right of inheritance. The land would be divided between the ruler's brothers with the oldest brother becoming ruler and had certain domestic rule in the collective." Redundant. ~~The collective what? land?~~ Clarified. The collective, as in family/government.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "who with his company seized the entire power in his hands and turned himself into a hereditary ruler" -> who, with his company, seized full control of Serbia and turned himself into a hereditary ruler. I assume the "entire power" is referring to rule of the entirety of Serbia. Redundant. "entire power" is referring to the rule (power, control), not necessarily in terms of geographical extent.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "B. Radojković's work was however discredited by S. Ćirković." a nitpick here, is it necessary to write the initial, why not just Radojkovic or Ćirković. This happens quite a number of times throughout the article. Minor nitpick, not were fussing over :). I thought the norm for writers (including initial) could be used.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] That' fine, just make sure its consistent, e.g. "Einhard" needs an initial added and "Kosta Mandrovic" -> "K. Mandrovic". ~~"Bulgars, whose neighbours they were and with whom they shared a common frontier." -> Bulgars, to whom they were neighboured and with whom they shared a common frontier.~~ Rephrase is good. Rephrased.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "The Bulgars, under Telerig, planned to colonize Bulgaria with Slavs from the neighbouring Berziti,[15] as the earlier Bulgar expansion had caused massive Slav migrations and depopulation of Bulgaria — in 762, more than 200,000 people fled to Byzantine territory and were relocated to Asia Minor." I'm not sure what is being said here. Are these two events somehow related, did one cause the other? It seems to me to be saying that "in 762, 200,000 people fled to the Byzantine empire and that because of this Telerig and his people along with the Berziti decided to colonize Bulgaria. Is this right? or are you trying to say something else? Clarification is good. Clarified, the 762 depopulation of Bulgaria is the cause of Telerig's colonization plans.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Višeslav was succeeded by his son Radoslav, then grandson Prosigoj,[9] and one of these two most likely ruled during the revolt of Ljudevit of Lower Pannonia against the Franks (819–822);[16] according to Einhard's Royal Frankish Annals, Ljudevit went in 822 from his seat at Sisak to the Serbs (believed to have been somewhere in western Bosnia),[16] with Einhard mentioning "the Serbs, who control the greater part of Dalmatia" (ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur). Fixed. Sentence 1; Višeslav was succeeded by his son Radoslav, then grandson Prosigoj,[9] and one of these two most likely ruled during the revolt of Ljudevit of Lower Pannonia against the Franks (819–822). Fixed. Done.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Sentence 2; according to Einhard's Royal Frankish Annals, Ljudevit went in 822 from his seat at Sisak to the Serbs (believed to have been somewhere in western Bosnia),[16] with Einhard mentioning "the Serbs, who control the greater part of Dalmatia" (ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur). This sentence seems to be a fragment, why did he leave his seat in Sisak? to move it?, to meet with the Serbs? needs a better explanation. Clarified. Clarified, he escaped his seat from the Franks.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "The long lasting of this dynasty shows great stability of the monarch and state." -> The longevity of this dynasty shows stability of the monarch and the state. Great is a bit of a weasel word here, what's so great about it? On re-read, great is fine, as is long lasting. Longevity (long life) is the wrong word. Long lasting, as in a dynasty ruling for several centuries. That's how the historian put it.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] The names of Serbian rulers through Mutimir (r. 851–891) are Slavic dithematic names, as per Old Slavic tradition, until the 9th century and Christianization after which Christian names appear. -> The names of Serbian rulers through to Mutimir (r. 851-91) are Slavic dithematic names, per the Old Slavic tradition. Around the 9th century after Christianity arrived Christian names began to appear. I didn't realize Christianization was a word, but, good separation of sentences. Rephrased.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~"a source dating to ca. 1300–10[22] largely discredited in" -> a source dating to ca. 1300–10[22] and largely discredited in historiography~~ Fixed. Done.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~historiography (events in the Early Middle Ages deemed useless). What do you mean by this? that the CPD is useless when it comes to events in the Early Middle Ages?~~ Clarified. Yes, that is the view held firm by experts.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Makes sense. Perhaps "(events in the Early Middle Ages deemed useless)" - > (the CPD is deemed useless for events in the Early Middle Ages). clearer, it read to me as thought the events themselves were useless, rather than the source. Fixed. As a final comment, while there is a commendable amount of work done and I think all the major points have been covered, but I'll take a look and see if I can dig up anything more, there is still quite a bit that needs fixing and structuring. Redundant A few other questions and fixes as well, Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC):[reply] "These polities bordered baptized Serbia to the north." Which polities? the Byzantines were to the South and Paganija, Zahumlje, and Travunija are to the West. I assume you refer to Croatia and Pannonia, so perhaps mention them by name. Or are they not specifically referred to in the DAI? Sufficiently clarified. Clarified; the Serb principalities, as shown in the map.--Zoupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "Domestic rulers, veliki župani, ruled Serbia by right of inheritance, the land was divided between the ruler's brothers, the oldest, as the ruler, had for certain domestic rule in the collective." -> Domestic rulers, veliki župani, ruled Serbia by right of inheritance. The land was divided between the ruler's brothers, with the oldest brother having certain domestic rule over the collective. <- I think this would be a clearer phrasing that the oldest brother controls the collective group. Alternatively, replace certain with guaranteed. Fixed. Done.--Zoupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "In this way, the first Serbian state was thus established after 150 years of permanent living in the new homeland and existence of military democracy." -> The first Serbian state was established after 150 years of Serbs permanently living in the new homeland and with the existence of the military democracy. or. The first Serbian state was established after 150 years of Serbs permanently living in the new homeland under the rule of military democracy. "the entire power in his hands", could this be replaced with full control, or absolute control. Entire power, just doesn't sound encyclopaedic at all. E.g. "Višeslav could have been a chief military leader (veliki vojvoda), who with his company, seized the entire power in his hands and turned himself into a hereditary ruler, as veliki župan." -> Višeslav could have been a chief military leader (veliki vojvoda), who with his company, seized absolute control (of ruling power, or, domestic power maybe?) and turned himself into a hereditary ruler, as veliki župan. Fixed. Done.--Zoupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] "History and assessment" -> perhaps "History and reign" or "Reign" for the first paragraph and "History" for the second, since Viseslav is only mentioned tangentially in that section. Assessment suggests that Wikipedia did the assessing, which is clearly not the case as that would violate WP:OR. Dealt with. Refer below. Reign would be the wrong word, again, since nothing definite is known. The term assessment is used in other GAs, such as Alexios Apokaukos and Licario. I'll remove it if you insist.--Zoupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Huh, well alright then. History is preferred, but, final decision is for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] That's all for now, Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Major issue; the article does not have any headings or separated sections. I can suggest a few headings that ought to be incorporated into the article, these are; "Background", "Early Life", "Reign", "Policy (Domestic, Foreign, etc), "Family" and "Legacy". Not all of these must be incorporated, but, there needs to be some division of the sections by subject matter. I assume at the very least that Background and Reign could be made. Has division of subject matter. Will have to re-read the article, see how it stands. I've made a rough division.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Duly, noted. I'll be going through the article again. See if anything needs work or possibly just simple copy-edits. There's a couple points that I haven't struck yet, mainly to look at phrasing. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Incidentally, because of this, there is also no distinguishable lead, this will need to be either written or parsed from the main body of the article. Whichever is the more suitable. On the topic of the lead, the lead should be a summary of the article. In its current condition, it doesn't suffice, so a few things that could be added into the lead; 1. Relationship with the Byzantine empire (summarized) 2. Relationship with the Bulgar neighbours and Bulgar invasion (summarized) 3. Proximity of Charlemagne to Serbia (summarized) 4. and... Anything else you want to include. Keep in mind, anything cited in the body of the article, doesn't need citing in the lead. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Zoupan This is really the only other thing that needs to be addressed, once the lead is expanded I'll take a final skim through of the article and copy-edit any minor issues. After that, it should be ready for GA. Good work so far. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a list of citations that have been correctly formatted. It even separates the primary sources from the secondary sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The majority of sources used are published secondary sources, there are a couple of primary sources and what appears to be a tertiary source as well. This is fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Does appear to contain one piece of original research. "A street in the Čukarica neighbourhood in Belgrade is named after him (ulica kneza Višeslava)." The linked site does not explicitly address the claim that the street is named after the ruler. Ulica kneza, kind of does address the claim... sorry, mea culpa. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There does not appear to be any violation of copyright. A copy-vio check using Earwigs Copyvio Detector rated it unlikely with 18.0% confidence. Not ideal, but sufficient.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I cannot judge this section entirely just yet. It appears that the article covers the rule of Višeslav, though somewhat superficially, this may be due to a lack of available material. So I'll have a look and see if I can dig up more.There is a fair amount on the background, but, parts of it don't seem relevant (per GA1a). The legacy section looks to be the most well fleshed out part of the article so far. The infobox is also good. I've struck most of my original comment, there's little to add in terms of Višeslav himself. I can realistically make two suggestions on how the article could be expanded. What about including in the background a small paragraph or two about the initial invasion of Slavs in the 6th century? Would be relevant, since the Vlastimirovic dynasty is the first to rule in Serbia What about the end of the dynasty, a small paragraph about the dynasty dying out in the 9th century(?) or would that be scope creep? Is there anything about Charlemagne and Serbia? he had conquered Croatia around this time, might he have also had relations with the Serbs? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	~~The article seems to stray a bit off-topic per GA1a, there's a fairly lengthy discussion of the territory of Serbia, while somewhat relevant to the topic, the naming of all places is a bit much.~~ Will have to wait for the time being, I can assess it once the article is just about ready. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is delivered in a ~~mostly~~ neutral manner. ~~there is the rare weasel word but this should be dealt with once GA1a is cleared.~~ It's neutral, great stability was meant to convey that the state was very stable, rather than somehow great for its stability. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is indeed in a stable condition. No editor's have been involved with the article at all since the GA/N and there does not appear to be any dispute currently or previously that has not been resolved.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are three images on the article, they have been tagged with the appropriate licences, one has an international share-alike attribution 4.0 license and the other two have been released into the public domain by their original owners.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The first image is of the ruler himself, clearly desirable in a biographical article. The second of the territory of Serbia in the following century, while not ideal, an eight century image might be better, it is perfectly suitable for the task. The third and final image is of what is likely the Serbian capital during Višeslav's rule, perfect both for subject matter and aesthetics.
	7. Overall assessment.	There is a fair amount of work left to be done before this article hits GA. Most can be completed in a timely manner, send me a message after you have you gotten through everything you can or ping me with any enquries. I'll try find some additional sources to try and expand the article regarding his life, though I expect limited success. The article fits the GA criteria and as such I am prepared to pass the article.

Above is my review of the article. As I noted in the Overall section, there is a fair bit that needs doing before this article can get to GA. Most of it shouldn't take to long, if there are any problems please ping me or put a message on my talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources; I'll just dump in sources as I come across them that may help you too expand the article, I'll go through them first and see if there is anything worth adding.

Here is one secondary source from google books,[1]. I'm not sure how much access you have to sources, it's only one page, but if you could get a copy of the source, it may have something worthwhile in it.
if you have access, this source may be useful for the background of the Slavic invasion; "Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series : The Making of the Slavs : History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700". If you don't have access to it, I can go through it and make a small couple paragraphs of any useful information I find.
That's all for now, I still need to go through and re-read the article in its current state. Will do that soon, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ulwencreutz does not seem reliable. As for the Slavic settlement, doesn't that push the article further from its subject? There are some sources I could go through but I think that overall this is the best it can get. Thank you, I'll go through the last points in the next days.--Zoupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Added an annotation on Slavic settlement.--Zoupan 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I was worried about scope creep, so probably for the best not to extend the discussion further from Viseslav. Just ping me when you're ready for my final read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mr rnddude: What do you think about it's state now?--Zoupan 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Zoupan, It's very close to GA but the Lede still doesn't cover the main aspects of the article. It does indeed discuss Viseslav and the rule of the Byzantine empire but makes no mention of 1. How Viselsav ascended to rulership and 2. His legacy on Serbia (mostly that his sons continued to rule in his stead). Other than this, the article is quite nicely put together and I can pass it for GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I've expanded the lede so that it is clear that the rule was hereditary.--Zoupan 23:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End of Review Comments; The article now fits the requirements of the GA criteria. I'll be going through it later and cleaning up a couple very minor details that don't affect its status as a GA article. The coverage of the subject of the article may appear limited, this is because the subject himself is not generally greatly covered in literature, this has caused the scope to widen somewhat beyond just the subject to also encompass the neighbouring nations and peoples and the history of Serbia as a whole. A significant amount of work has been done to this article to bring it up to par, thanks for the efforts on the article Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]