Talk:Zoste patrikia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 22:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.

1. "attached to the empress as her ladies of honour" - the "empress" bit should be capitalized when preceded by "the"

2. "The title is attested in literary sources (the Skylitzes Chronicle) until 1018" - It appears the word "is" should be replaced with "was".

No, the sentence is correct: from the available written sources, the latest mention "is" in 1018. I've rephrase dthis to mae it hopefully clearer.

3. "In Philotheos's Klētorologion of 899, the dignity is placed very high" I would recommend adding "of the court title" in between "dignity" and "is".

4. "she played in imperial ceremonies" - I suppose it's a matter of opinion but I would recommend replacing "in" with "at".

"In" is correct, I think "at" would be wrong.

5. "the only lady who was πατρικία" (a patrician) "in her own right" - There is no need for the quote mark before "in".

Since the quote was broken up, it was correct. I removed the parentheses to restore its unity, though.

6. "Indeed, the title itself appears to be a compound one" - I insist on a reformulation as this sentence seems to be written from a personal view.

7. "(r. 913–959)" - Should be changed to "(r. 913–59)" per MOS:DATEFORMAT.

see my comments below.

8. "The zōstē held her title for life, even after the death of the empress she served" - I recommend changing this sentence to "The zōstē held her title for life, continuing to serve after the death of the empress" as it's a more professional wording.

Rephrased to make my meaning clearer.

9. "As R. Guilland writes" - So far the article has not mentioned any "R. Guilland" so how should the reader know who he is? If he is a historian, write that. Also why write "R." instead of "Rodolphe"?

Done, good point.

10. "(r. 829–842)" - MOS:DATEFORMAT.

see my comments below.

11. "(r. 1015–1018)" - MOS:DATEFORMAT.

see my comments below.

12. "1060–1070" - MOS:DATEFORMAT.

see my comments below.

Now that I've mentioned specific errors I'd like to talk about the length of the article. Firstly, the lead is too short. I know it's not a long article, but it can definitely be longer than three sentences. Secondly, the overall article is too short. The only real meat of the article is the content in the "History and functions" section, which simply isn't enough. Thirdly, the "History and functions" section contain information that could be spliced up into more sections or at least sub-sections which makes the article easier to read and overall better. Lastly, I find this article to be very confusing. I had to read through the article a couple of times before I could understand much of it. The content itself in the "History and functions" seems to be arranged wrong with much material coming off as irrelevant or misleading. All in all, I feel the length and content of this article is not worthy of GA-status.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

The article uses excellent resources, all of which are listed with the required information text and cited with Harvard references. Sayre's book, however, does not include ISBN or OCLC number, just like Guilland.

Sayre's is an article in a journal, not a book, and hence has neither ISBN nor an OCLC number.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

I don't feel the article is broad enough and that it includes unnecessary information and details. I don't see the importance or relevance of all the foreign words mention that, by the way, doesn't include an English paragraph translation which only seems to confuse the reader. It seems to discuss other people who's one way or another related to Zoste patrikia too much.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral and does not include personal opinions or statements (with exception of point 6 which is explained in the "Well-written" section).

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is somewhat new, and is therefore not the subject of an edit wars or disputes, and its content does not change significantly from day to day (with exception of those edits done in the face of a GA-nomination).

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is nicely illustrated with two images both of which are uploaded and from Commons and are public domains.

• Pass, fail or hold?

Some parts of this article does indeed meet the GA-criteria, but even so I've decided to fail it per the points in the "Well-written" and "Broad in its coverage" sections. I hope this helps. Cheers and best of luck. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I feared the article would be difficult to follow as it contains lots of unfamiliar technical terms. Could you please be a bit more specific as to the structure you would find more easy to understand or some specific points hat confused you, where more context might be more helpful? And I in turn don't understand what you mean by "doesn't include an English paragraph translation". As for "I don't feel the article is broad enough and that it includes unnecessary information and details.", the article contains pretty much all the info there is on the subject, so it is broad enough. Could you also please be a bit more specific as to the "unnecessary information"? Thanks again, Constantine ✍ 07:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

PS, MOS:DATEFORMAT is not a straitjacket and certainly not a reason to fail on prose, even in part. You might also want to re-read the minutiae of WP:DATERANGE. Constantine ✍ 07:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Constantine. I will be very busy this morning, but I will come back with a more detailed explanation for me failing this article later per your request. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 11:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jonas, take as much time as you want to be thorough. GARs are not just about adding the GA icon, but about reviewing the article and helping improve it, after all. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Constantine, sorry for the long wait, I have just been so busy with so many deffreint projects. I will set time off to explain my failure reasons more carefully first thing tomorrow. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, here we go. Firstly, I feel the lead is too short. WP:LEAD suggest four paragraphs and this article has none. I know Wikipedia has many short articles that are GA-listed who doesn't necessary have long leads or four paragraphs, but I feel two sentences is simply too short. If the article's length makes it hard to expand the lead, don't be afraid to mention some/more of the body text in the lead. Secondly, I feel that having one section named "History and functions" which contain virtually all the information is wrong. A quick glance shows you could make sections or sub-sections entitled things like "Name", "Notability", "Similar titles", "History", "Functions" and so on. Making more sections would make the article easier to read as you would be able to see where specific information is instead of mixing it all together, which doesn't quite flow and could confuse the reader. Thirdly, this article mentions a lot of Greek/Latin words or terms ("ζωστὴ πατρικία", "magistros", "kouropalatēs", "nōbelissimos", "basileopatōr", "sekreton tōn gynaikōn", "patrikios", "nomismata", "trabea", "lōros") which is fine, but can, as you said yourself, make the article hard to follow. Sine the subject and title of this article is a Latin word, I would recommend only using other Latin words when necessary. For instance, instead of writing "she deposited an offering of 70 nomismata" you could write "she deposited an offering of 70 gold coins". I hopes this helps and improves the article, best of luck. I will happily review it again someday, Constantine. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)