Talk:Michael of Zahumlje

Religion

Serbian Orthodox Christianity in 912.!!?? The split between Catholic and Orthodox church happened in 1054, and Serbian Orthodox Church was established in 1219. Furthermore, Višević participated at Synod in Split in 925 which was summoned by Pope from Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ro0103 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Mihailo Višević → Michael of Zahumlje — Mihailo Višević has 1.490 google hints (mostly mirrors Wikipedia content) while Michael of Zahumlje has 1.680 google hints. More important Mihailo Višević has 3 google book hints (all non-English), while Michael of Zahumlje has 8 google book hints (all English). Kebeta (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. On Google Books, I'm getting many more more results for Mihajlo Višević (with a j) than for Mihailo Višević or Mihailo of Zahumlje, even though many of these are not in English. Because it's difficult to judge from these meagre 'statistics', the advisable thing to do would prolly be to get the best sources of relatively recent date first and make your decision afterwards. Cavila (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right, on Google Books Mihajlo Višević has many more results than Mihailo Višević. Although, most of them are in Croatian language. Still, I think it would be best to move the article per WP:COMMONNAME (using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources). Kebeta (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In favour of Michael of Zachlumia. Regionalization of early medieval Slavic names is best avoided when possible (as in this case). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't mind to see Zachlumia instead, but the use of Zahumlje seems to be equally if not better established in English-language sources. Cavila (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Although this stuff is well outside my comfort zone, I've just made a stab at rewriting the (previously unreferenced) article. Some English-language sources seem to use 'Mihajlo', but the best and most useful sources I could lay my 'hands' on - well, mostly through Google Books - prefer Michael rather than the Slavic version. Cavila (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Kebeta (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wustefuchs (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is sourced very good, since ther are no many sources for this person. Neutral point of view is very important to the good article status, and this arcile fits to this demand. Ther is also only one red link in the article, wich is good. The fact is that it is very hard to find images (none of them exists) for this person, so we have decent nomber of files in the article. Ther is no a single edit made since 6 January 2011, and ther was no edit wars. This article can pass as good article.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wustenfuchs for your GA Review. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael of Zahumlje. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719060404/http://bsbdmgh.bsb.lrz-muenchen.de/dmgh_new/app/web?action=loadBook&bookId=00001080 to http://bsbdmgh.bsb.lrz-muenchen.de/dmgh_new/app/web?action=loadBook&bookId=00001080

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this actually a GA?

​This page was nominated for a GA by User:Wüstenfuchs here, then received exactly one review from User:Wustefuchs (who later was tagged as sockpuppet by the nominator) here, and then was tagged as a GA by them even though the review was never closed properly and no one other than a sockpuppet of the nominator reviewed it.

Recently, a set of unregistered editors have been removing the GA tag on the grounds that the nomination was started by an editor now blocked for socking. While this alone is not a reason to remove it as the block took place 3 years after the nomination, so they were not evading any block at the time, and the IP address is evading a block according to Special:PermanentLink/1053892270#Michael_of_Zahumlje, it looks like this page is not a GA as it never went through a real review and only had activity from a sockpuppet.

Anyone else agrees? If nobody objects, I will remove GA in 7 days or so. Naleksuh (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Naleksuh There hasn't been any interest shown in this matter for many years now, or in the last few days mentioned here, and it's a fairly niche medieval topic, so I think you should instead use one of the processes described at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment because they'll list the article in noticeboards which should help gather some more input. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, let me try to do that now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Joy, Naleksuh the article appears to have been nominated by user Kebeta here, not Wüstenfuchs. While the user page of latter indicates they're a sock, no such tag exists for Kebeta.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Wuste(n)fuchs sockpuppetry is less relevant here, but the simple fact that the GAN was approved without any apparent criticism whatsoever merits a review, especially given a lot of other changes in the last ten years. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree the review does not appear very convincing. However neither lack of serious GAN review nor changes made since the review are justified causes for delisting. Theoretically, an editor could nominate an article and a reviewer might reasonably find it GACR compliant, and subsequent changes might be in line with GACR. I do not realistically expect that was what happened in this case. Nonetheless, there should be at least some actionable complaints (taking into consideration current GA criteria) as valid grounds to delist - any one of the significant ones should do (verifiability, relable sources, npov). I'm not saying someone will put their hand up and fix the article within a week, but still.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Michael of Zahumlje

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Per comment at Talk:Michael of Zahumlje#Is this actually a GA? this could be sketchy. Persistent anonymous edit-warring also seems to be involved, so this topic needs help. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This the diff between the version from early 2011 when it was edited by User:Kebeta and today. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Per my comment at here I don't think this is was ever a valid good article in the first place and should be removed. Naleksuh (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment Regarding the note on the talk page that the GAN was passed by a nominator's sock, it appears to me this was not so (and I left a note in the relevant secton on article talk with a relevant diff on that). Had it been nominated and passed by the same user/sock, it would have been unreasonable to do anything but to delist it. However...

Without going into details of the article, there should be some effort to point out what's wrong specifically. For GAR, "the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it". In that respect, I think it would be fair to list what aspects of the article need work in terms of GA criteria before the article is fixed or delisted. The review back in 2011 certainly appears very superficial, so it is very well possible (or likely) there may be justifiable objections. The original GAN nominator appears inactive since 2013, but hey, there may be takers... or even if there are not any this week, a future editor will have something to work with.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

On a further examination (looking for edit warring in article history), I'm wondering if the original complainant at the article talk - Naleksuh was a bit hasty. It appears they thought the nominator promoted the GAN alone per this edit summary. Naleksuh could you please specify which GA criteria you feel are not met by the article and why/how? It would be very helpful for potential fixes to the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: Pretty simple. GA nomination. GA tag. By the same person. Both have similar usernames and one is a sock of the other by CheckUser evidence. Plus this is nowhere close to a complete GA review. Naleksuh (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Naleksuh I think you're mistaken. What you linked as the "GA nomination" diff is actually diff of GA review page creation and there's nothing unusual there. The diff with the GAN nomination is this by user Kebeta while GA was taken up by Wustefuchs (sock, apparently unrelated to the nominator - at least no sock tag is linked to the nominator) diff and the review page Talk:Michael of Zahumlje/GA1 was made by Wustefuchs. I agree that the review was very superficial, but it would be equally incorrect to assume the nomination was in bad faith or not in compliance with GA criteria when it was not reviewed - then or now because two wrongs don't make a right. If the article is non-compliant with major aspects of the WP:WIAGA it should be simple to list such non-compliances.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's use the opportunity to just look at that diff from the last 10 years... I skimmed it and noticed the sentence "Zahumlje belongs to the oldest Serbian principality." that just doesn't strike me as something that would be referenced to John V. A. Fine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have looked up Fine and it does not appear to support the claim. I have tagged appropriate references with the failed verification tag. This clearly makes the article non-compliant with the WIAGA criterion #2.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

In view of above non-compliance with the verifiability criteria and apparent lack of volunteers who might fix this article, I think it would be appropriate to downgrade its quality rating to C or start-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Struck C since at least criteria 2 (verifiability), likely 4 (neutrality), and 1 (prose) are not quite there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

this is good article since its inception

but the code for it, does not show up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.64.238.114 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It was delisted through a standard process. Please read the talk page section directly above. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)