Talk:Vlastimir/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Hello! I will be beginning this review as soon as possible, hopefully later tonight. DCItalk 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Sources
  • Sourcing is impressive. I do not foresee any problems coming from that direction.

• Lead
  • There are multiple issues with the lead.
  • Specify that the "Emperor" is the Byzantine Emperor.
  • The second-to-last sentence in the second paragraph should be rewritten more clearly. Specifically, the statement about "elevating his subjects' titles" is quite confusing.
• Serbian realm and family history
  • I'm not really wild about a section titled "background." I'm a bit concerned that the article doesn't focus enough on Vlastimir as a person. Understandably, there may not be enough biographical information on the man to create an exhaustive article, but, if this is the case, it should be mentioned that little is known about him.
• General issues
  • The article is full of phrases that would make sense to a reader with prior knowledge on the subject, but which would be extremely confusing to others (e.g., "archon"). Could you please revise the article a bit to add more descriptors, or to replace some italicized terms?
  • Throughout the article, there are numerous quotes. Could you rephrase any of these in your own words?

Nominator's comments

I've made the edits to the lead, and I would be grateful if you'd assist in reorganizing it if it's needed. I do think the background-section is important (a significant part of the FA and GA royalty-articles have it), but perhaps we could rename the first sub-section or split the two? There is little known about him (I've added this in the lead). I'm afraid the italic terms archon or župan cannot be replaced as they are used by modern historians. Could you please add the phrases that are confusing and where descriptions are needed, I think there is a description of each "foreign" term. I've rid the quotes. Thank you for your [initial] review!--Zoupan (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I'll respond here to the invitation by DCI on my talk page to provide comments on this article. These are some observation on the first look, not a deeper analysis of the matter:

• religion = Slavic

According to Živković, it is very likely that Vlastimir was a Christian.

• pronounced /vlɑˈstɪˈmɪr/
  

Serbian names are usually accompanied by their Serbian pronunciation in IPA, but it may not be a bad idea to give their approximate pronunciation in English, as it is done here. However, I'm not sure that those accents on the last two syllables are correct in this case. The name would be probably pronounced with the main accent on the first syllable, and a secondary accent on the last syllable.

• He held the first Serbian Principality... (N.B. there should be no bolding here)
  

It would be better to say: He ruled Serbia. It is previously stated that he was a prince, so the rank of his state is clear. The state is referred to in Byzantine sources as Serbia or Serblia. I haven't seen in literature that Serbian sates are enumerated as "first principality", "second principality", "first kingdom", "second kingdom", etc.

• The Serbs were allowed to retain their own dynasty under the Byzantine Empire, characteristic of foederati.[1]

I don't have access to the source cited for this statement, but it looks strange to me. The Byzantine rule over Serbian lands was mostly nominal, and the Byzantines were hardly in a position to allow or not allow the Serbs to have their own ruling class. Also, the term "foederati" seems anachronistic and inapplicable here.

• Vlastimir's ancestor, the Serbian founding father...
  

What, he founded the Serbs? He was the leader of the Serbs when they settled in the Balkans during the reign of Emperor Heraclius.

• The Serbs established several future principalities or duchies...
  

Remove duchies.

• He united the tribes in the vicinity and built the Serbian nation.[19][20]
  

This bold statement, he built the Serbian nation, is reference with two rather old books. I haven't seen such a statement in Živković.

• Vlastimir ensured further unity by marrying off his daughter to Krajina, the son of a local count of Trebinje (in modern Bosnia and Herzegovina), Beloje, in ca. 847/848.[29] Krajina was given the title of župan, to rule the province of Travunia with Konavle (centered around Trebinje), in the name of Vlastimir.[30][27]
  

According to Živković (ref 29), Krajina was already the župan of Travunia, and after he married Vlastimir's daughter, Vlastimir gave him the title of archon. Živković also gave possible explanations for this promotion. Krajina's father, Beloje, was also a župan; whether that title corresponds to "count", is disputable. Vladimir (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed according to User:VVVladimir's comments. --Zoupan (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll post my final comments and a checklist tomorrow night; I don't think that I'll have time tonight to do that because of other commitments. DCItalk 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Review checklist

I am requesting a second opinion for this article, as I am having a difficult time deciding whether it meets certain GA criteria or not. My first instinct was to fail the article, but I'm not sure that a failure could be entirely justified. I apologize for this. dci | TALK 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Citation #32 (Fine, p.53) does not actually support the claim made in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it actually does: "Thus Constantine describes the Serbs settling in [...] Pagania". Note that the internal link of the term "the Narentines" was Pagania; see this secondary source for instance. I've edited "Paganians, also known as Narentines" in the sentence.--Zoupan (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sources of the article are secondary outdated ones, but have been presented as modern ones. Servia and the Servians isn't a 2007 work, but a 1910 one written by Čedomilj Mijatović.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Zoupan (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Second Opinon

Agree there are issues with the focus and prose. A bit of background is good, but this goes into it in too much depth. I would consider removing that whole section, incorporating maybe the first sentence into Life and Reign (it is the only one that directly mentions Vlastimir). Some parts are written in essayish format (i.e. It seems that the governorship was hereditary, and that the župan reported to the Serbian prince, whom they were obliged to aid in war, The date of his accession is not known, though it is thought to have been around 830 and This alliance could easily explain Malamir's action. Sentences like this need to be attributed to someone or be written more encyclopaedic. Other prose issues include unclear sentences Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913–959) mentions that the Serbian throne is inherited by the son, i.e. the first-born, though in his enumeration of Serbian monarchs, in one occasion there is a triumvirate and roughly the later province of Rascia, including Bosnia; part of Zagorje, lit. "hinterlands" (what does lit. mean anyway?). I only had a cursory look at the prose, but found it hard to follow in many places, possibly due to the overuse of commas. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing's been modified since Aircorn's comments. Should it be failed until addressed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The background addresses only facts that are crucial for understanding the data in the Life-section, i.e his descendance and state administration, and a brief history of Bulgaria in the neighbouring Slavic lands. I have fixed the essayish parts. "lit." means "literally", and this has been fixed as well. I think that Background should stay as it is in the article's direct scope and the information is not addressed in other articles.--Zoupan 10:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Zoupan: I've had to fail the article, due to a few issues I noticed with prose. I'll gladly work with you on this in the coming weeks to get it to a point where it could pass a GA with less difficulty, and would be glad to take this one again. I've been offline a bit lately, and I apologize for any lateness in responses. dci | TALK 16:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)