Talk:Thomas the Slav

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A rather nice article. Some minor points on the text, none of which would stop me passing at Good Article, but listed below in case you're looking to take it further (ACR etc.). One copyright issue with an image, which is a problem though - see below. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• A few very minor bits:

Early life and career

• "place his birthplace" - minor, but a repetition of "place". "believe his birthplace to be near..."?
• "both record two different traditions on his life" - "both record two different accounts of his early life"?
• "hagiographic" - worth linking

Rebellion:

• "a fabrication by Michael's propaganda" - "propagandists"? "propaganda machine"?
• "and not very high rank" - "relatively junior rank"?
• "In reality, this is yet another piece of hostile propaganda." - "was yet"?
• "and strengthened the garrisons of several fortresses there to secure their loyalty." - unclear if this was strengthening the loyalty of the themes or the fortresses.
• "Cibyrrhaeot theme" - capitalisation (all the rest are in capitals - "Theme")
• "In this way," - unnecessarily, you could just start with "The great rebellion..." if you liked.

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

Complies with these.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Complies.

(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;

Complies.

(c) it contains no original research.

Complies - no OR that I could see.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Yes.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Yes.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All good, the only issue being with Solidus-Michael II Theophilus-sb1640.jpg. The source is given as Source: English Wikipedia, original upload 12 July 2005 by Panairjdde. Panairjdde was later banned as a sock, and I can't find any evidence of where it came from on the English Wikipedia, making the copyright claim a little dodgy and probably wrong on the description file. Can you see where it came from anywhere else?

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes.

Thanks for taking the time for this review. I've made most of the changes you suggested, bar two cases where I prefer the current wording. I've also replaced the problematic coin image with a new one of the same type of coin. As I intend to take this to ACR and FAR, any other criticism or whatever suggestions for improvement you'd care to make would be welcome. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre FAC feedback

About the best I can offer is copyediting. It isn't looking too bad. I generally make small changes so I can explain my rationale in the edit summary. If you think I change the meaning you're welcome to revert. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

, who together formed an association (hetaireia) - does this have a special/particular meaning? Can we link it somewhere or explain?

Next bit looks ok, I'll read from Rebellion a bit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On Christmas Day 820, - ummm, which Xmas?

Thanks, a copyedit/style check was precisely what I was hoping for ;). The hetaireia denotes a close association, almost a fraternal bond. However it is too specific here and makes sense only to someone with knowledge of Greek. I've removed it, perhaps we can replace "association" with another word. On the second question, what exactly do you mean? If you mean Orthodox/Catholic Xmas, the date was the same then (Julian calendar and all)... Constantine ✍ 07:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) it is a shame to lose teh term which clearly has a very specific meaning - I think it'd be great to link it somewhere though I can't think where....(b) D'oh, dumb calendars should have realised....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, hetaireia has some quite specific connotations of a fraternal bond to a Greek-speaker. I doubt there would be any point in making an article, or even linking it to wiktionary. "association" or some other similar term should suffice. Constantine ✍ 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Then use "brotherhood". The handful of non-classicists who will see any meaning in "hetaireia" will think of Aspasia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for the copyedits! Constantine ✍ 07:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek: Θωμᾶς

This isn't very informative, is it? The Greek spelling of the name Thomas has little to do with the article subject. Why is the name spelled Θωμᾶς rather than Θωμάς, and why is there not even a pretense that this is based on some sort of verifiable reference? What the article should say is that this individual is referred to as Θωμάς ὁ Σκλαβηνός if this can be at all referenced, or nothing at all if nothing of the kind can be referenced. --dab (𒁳) 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately, the article is rather garbled on sources. In a fully developed article, you would expect a section dedicated to tradition, listing relevant authorities. The text makes out that there are two main testimonies, Genesius and Theophanes Continuatus, but then mentions in passing 9th-century sources "namely the chronicle of George the Monk and the hagiographic Life of Saints David, Symeon, and George of Lesbos." No attempt is made to identify passages in these primary sources. Not the slightest indication is given as to where this "hagiographic Life" (sic) may have been edited. I am sure this is all properly discussed in the academic literature cited, but sadly not in the article based on it. Thus anyone trying to verify the statement that "Theophanes Continuatus states that Thomas was descended from South Slavs resettled in Asia Minor ... while ... Genesios calls him 'Thomas from Lake Gouzourou, of Armenian race'" is on his own. No references to the primary text, not even a reference to a passage in secondary literature that may be used to find them. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dbachmann! When I wrote this article, I was faced with the question of whether to focus on the person of Thomas and his life, or whether to include a detailed survey of the sources and the various scholarly debates based on them. After some consideration, I came to the conclusion that a Wikipedia article is not the proper place for the latter discussion, which is too academic (read: boring) and probably completely useless for the average reader. I have tried to present all views and theories on the subject, but without going into too much detail at the expense of the narrative. For anyone interested, the relevant bibliography is given, esp. Lemerle's work. The statement you refer to as unreferenced is actually referenced at the end of the next sentence, both for Bury and esp. for Lemerle, who reproduces the primary sources in full. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 09:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bulgars or Bulgarians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians isn't this confusing? i tried to edit, but i reverted since it would be rude to edit it anonymously. -- Gabriel -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.235.200 (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)