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

Reviewer: Parsecboy ( talk) 12:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

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:

   Only a couple of minor concerns: the Byzantine terms without their own articles should be explained in the text (even just the word in parentheses). Also, the lead seems a little short to me, but I don't have any specific suggestions as far as expanding it. Nice work, Constantine. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I think I've linked every Byzantine term I used in the article, or at least I can't find any unlinked ones. For the lead, I'll try to expand it. Thanks for the review! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I think it's fine actually. The one I saw that prompted that comment was sebastokratores in the last section, but I forgot it was linked earlier in the page. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

OK then :) Constantine ✍ 15:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply