Talk:Gubazes II of Lazica

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gubazes II of Lazica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, look, obscure medieval Byzantine client-king!! How can I resist! Review incoming shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   a few spots of confusion

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• General:
  • LOts of extraneous and unneeded "howevers" - suggest some culling of them (It's a fault I have myself...)
• Lead -
  • suggest saying where in modern geography Lazica is ... something like "king of Lazica, now modern day western Turkey, from..." or something similar. We're in deep obscure waters here - the chances of many folks having the least clue where Lazica is located... well, it's slim.
  • Dates for the Lazic War?
  • "...but the Persian occupation of the country turned out to be even less preferable.." awkward. Suggest "but the Persian occupation turned out to be worse and by ..."
• Early life:
  • Suggest moving the bit about his father up close to the information on his mother - it's very disconnected in its current location -
  • Do not really like the subheading title here - it's a bit long - can we shorten?
  • "Professor Cyril Toumanoff of Georgetown University has.." I'd rather know what his specialty is than where he teaches... is he a historian? Something else?
  • "...Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565), a series..." need to explain what the abbreviation "r." means here
  • You knew I'd request it ..."...monopoly by the magister militum John..." quickie explanation of magister militum?
  • Linkie for "shah"?
  • "At the time, Khosrau was already in war with the Byzantines, having broken the "Eternal Peace" of 532 in 540..." the two dates are confusingly placed here.. suggest "In 540, Khosrau broke the "Eternal Peace" of 532 by invading ..." or something similar.
  • "The Byzantines under John Tzibus resisted valiantly from Petra, but he was killed, and the fortress fell soon after." I'm pretty sure you mean Tzibus for the "but he was killed"... but better make this explicit, it's slightly confusing.
  • Quickie explanation of Procopius, so the reader understands why we care that he reported something?
• Return:
  • Again, long unwieldy title for this subsection - can we shorten?
  • Linkie for Khorianes?
  • "In 550, a pro-Persian revolt broke out among the Abasgians." and this relates to the Lazi how? Are they neighbors?
  • "Despite enduring harsh conditions in the winter of 551/552, Gubazes rejected the peace offers conveyed by envoys from Mihr-Mihroe. In 552, despite substantial reinforcements..." repetition on the "despites" can we rephrase?
  • "Bessas was recalled, but the other two, Martin and the sacellarius Rusticus, resolved to get rid of him." which him? Bessas? Martin? Rusticus?
  • Linkie "Athanasius"?
• Sources:
  • Picky - but the first three all give the date in ()s after the author name, but the last doesn't, can we be consistent here? (This isnt' required for GA, but it'd sure look better...)

As usual, your normal excellent work. I've done some copyediting, feel free to fix any major errors I've made (hopefully none but ...)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello! As always, thanks for a thorough review and your copyedits. With User:No. 108's aid, I think your points have been addressed. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)