A fact from Leo Tornikios appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
@Gog the Mild yes, clearer; though on another point of clarity, the text should not rely on links for clarity and there should be consistency in how contemporaneous terms are explained (ie which term goes in brackets). Per: "He was named patrikios and commander (doux) of Melitene (according to Michael Attaleiates) or Iberia (according to Michael Psellos), both themes on the far eastern frontier of Byzantine territory." Patrikious is a member of the "partrician" class. As a lay reader, I may not know what a partrician is exactly but I am at least (more) likely to have come across the word previously. A themes is a province? This sentence is starting to get a bit complex. Suggest breaking it in two: "He was named patrikios (patrician) and doux (commander) of a theme (province) on the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. This was either Melitene (according to Michael Attaleiates) or Iberia (according to Michael Psellos)." (far eastern is redundant - unless there was a near eastern frontier?) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: Good points. Thank you. I have worked on them. I am not helping myself my repeatedly finding new information, so it has not been stable enough for a proper copy edit. I think that I will pass it on to GOCE for that. All I wanted was to get Cplakidas' baby up to B class. Now I suspect that there is a GA in there if I can do the work.
@Gog the Mild, ping me when you are happier with the product and I will look at it again. This is not an area of expertise for me per content matter but I can (and will) cast a critical eye. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I worked as a reviewer wit Cp on getting Junayd of Aydın to A class. I think it was rewarding for both of us. There was a bit of a lag in communication but this was not unreasonable. Can I suggest a collaboration with Cp to get it to GA? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: You certainly can. I have crossed paths with Cplakidas a few times, our interests are similar, and he seems a helpful and friendly sort. I sent him a courtesy note when I started working on Leo and he responded『thanks for the heads up, and for taking this on. I am unfortunately rather swamped in real life, so go ahead with my blessing :).』I will see if he is any less busy. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: Following your advice Cplakidas has gone through the article. Following his advice I am about to put it up for GAN, co-nominating. Unless you advise me that it is not ready yet. Or perhaps you would care to assess it for GA? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I have been having a closer look at it since you pinged me.
"perhaps expecting a civic delegation to crown him emperor without the embarrassment": "perhaps" is speculation and uncertainty. If it is to be used, it should be directly attributed (per above - words to watch): "Person X opinions that Tornikios was ..." is suggested. "Embarrassment" is an unusual phrase and expresses a judgement. So unusual that it should be quoted. "Necessity" could be simply substituted.
@Cinderella157: Thank you. Too easy to carry over the sources PoV. Eg, Norwich has the undermining as going on "for some years". Sorted. Taken up your suggestion re attributing speculation directly to historians. Any more? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, still working through this as I get a chance. Will let you know when I have. I will go back and have a look at your responses. I have done a few A class but not GAs. A class are a panel of reviewers while a GA is a single reviewer. Having said that, I think I can do this. We can get the hack work out of the road here. That should, I think, just leave a copy vio and image check. Having said that, I would have to do a final review of the criteria. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: Thanks. I have done 7 or 8 in the past 6 weeks. I find that a good template walks me through the process. I like GAHybrid; eg Talk:Leo IV the Khazar/GA1. Of course, that still leaves the actual decision making.
"At this point most of his remaining followers melted away.[2] The army of Anatolia arrived at Constantinople and set out in pursuit. Abandoned by all of his erstwhile adherents apart from his principal supporter, an old companion named John Vatatzes". "Melted away" is a bit of a cliche. "Abandoned by all": pretty much a repetition of most having melted away. "erstwhile": peacockish. "an old companion": was he a companion who was old, a companion of long-standing or both - ambiguous. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cliché removed. The sources indicate a gradual thinning of his army rather than a single event causing it to desert him and I am trying to reflect that. Sources describe Vatatzes variously as an old companion-at-arms or a principal supporter. Amended.
"Its ruthless sack is evidenced by, probably exaggerated, contemporary reports of 150,000 dead." A word to watch and it makes for a difficult sentence structure. Suggest: "Its ruthless sack is evidenced by contemporary reports of 150,000 dead. However, author, XXX, observes this figure is probably exaggerated." Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this is off the topic I don't want to write too much here, so rather than quote the various sources I have taken that out.
Finlay, George (1906) [1853]. History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 – 1057. London: William Blackwood & Sons. ISBN 978-1165515721.
Kurkjian, Vahan M. (2014) [1958]. A History of Armenia. New York: Armenian General Benevolent Union of America. ISBN 9781604447712.
Ostrogorsky, George (1957). History of The Byzantine State. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-0599-2.
The bibliographic detail as it stands appearsincorrect. For instance, the ISBN attributed to the first reference is for a Kessinger Publishing (10 September 2010) reprint. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Two of them are too old to have isbn's. I wish there was an oclc finder. I will track them down. Obviously my hard copies don't have oclc numbers in them.
I think that the oclc site helps you find bibliographic details for different versions of a work. If it is problematic, I wil look more closely for you? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at it again soon to see what you have done with these comments. Having said that, I think it is probably pretty close to as good as it will get. Looked at the template you recommended TY. Will get back to you. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: I have assigned appropriate OCLC numbers to the four pre-ISBN sources. I hope - this is a new one for me.
"he reeked of Macedonian arrogance". suggest an appropriate link. It has always bugged me.
Hi @Gog the Mild, you will note that edited per "rump". I could explain in detail. I have reviewed your edits. I think you can put it up for GA now. I do want to read it through in full but want give a small break so I am seeing it fresh eyes. Ping me in a few days and I will do the review. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and having no military experience, showed unexpected courage and energy in this extremity." This is a potential POV issue. If this is a quote, then it should be placed in quote marks. It need not be otherwise reworded, since the citation sufficiently implies the attribution. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the failure of their assaults Tornikios' men were disillusioned, having expected an easy victory." Pls confirm that my edit per the quote is consistent with the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Nikkimaria:, I am doing the GA review. I would like to ask your opinion per the image "Tornikios' attack". The original work has no copyright, though it appears to have been taken from a work ca 1980. This is attributed. My impression is that a photo copy (particularly of a 2D original work) that simply faithfully reproduces the original work has no claim to intellectual property and copyright. Provided the source of the third party image is acknowledged (as it is), there is no copyright issue? Your advice would be appreciated, specifically, that the use of the image is acceptable wrt a GA review. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to Leo_Tornikios_1047.jpg, you're correct that a copy of a 2D work garners no additional copyright, but the image does need an explicit tag identifying why it is PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The date that the map represents should be made explicit and, where this varies (as it does) from the events of the article, its relevance should be put in context (ie that it is still relevant). Regards
Hi @Gog the Mild, you will see that with fresh eyes, I have made a few more edits. I just want to confirm that these are consistent with the sources (per above). I have asked for a third opinion per one of the images and have indicated a minor issue with the caption for the map. If not minor matters, they are certainly easily resolved. Withstanding these, I would be happy to pass the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
POV issue. This is a close paraphrase of two sources. I am aware that it is a bit PoV, which is why there is a mid-paragraph citation straight after it. I could add the second cite, which would be my preference; I could remove "unexpected"; or I could quote one of the sources. Which do you think would be most appropriate? These are, obviously, not mutually exclusive options.
"easy victory". Yes, this matches my reading of the various sources.
Image. This features in a number of articles. (Just for information.)
Caption. Amended. Is this what you were looking for?
@Cinderella157: Wording changed. I am away for Easter; I will add the cite once I can access the source. (Monday.) Second reference found and inserted.
No, I entirely agree that Wikipedia needs to nail down image copyrights. (Although this is one of my weakest areas in terms of knowledge.) I wanted to flag up that if there was an issue it also existed in a number of other articles.
Link - yes, for reasons outside the scope of this article the annexation was a major event and I can think of three sources off hand. I have used one which I can find online. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) 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);[2]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
