This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Where on earth was the statement that Mstislav Mstislavich was "one of the most popular and active princes of Kievan Rus'" sourced from? Most popular with whom? His contemporaries (the ruling elite; members of the court; peasants; his parents and best friends... or was his popularity attributed by later historians?)? Who, then, were the other most popular princes and how was their 'popularity' determined? According to whom? At least one very, very reliable and verifiable source which clarifies how this conclusion was drawn is needed to back up such a sweeping, subjective statement.
This entire article smacks, not only of non-neutral POV writing, but lacking in any serious sourcing other than generalised references to a couple of texts.
A review of "The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200 to 1304" reads:
As for Michael C. Paul, he's a virtual unknown and only obtained his PhD recently and has only published a handful of papers appended to minor journals or self-published. Surely there must be more reliable sources outside of his essay? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Where on earth was the statement that Mstislav Mstislavich was "one of the most popular and active princes of Kievan Rus'" sourced from? Most popular with whom? His contemporaries (the ruling elite; members of the court; peasants; his parents and best friends... or was his popularity attributed by later historians?)? Who, then, were the other most popular princes and how was their 'popularity' determined? According to whom? At least one very, very reliable and verifiable source which clarifies how this conclusion was drawn is needed to back up such a sweeping, subjective statement.
This entire article smacks, not only of non-neutral POV writing, but lacking in any serious sourcing other than generalised references to a couple of texts.
A review of "The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200 to 1304" reads:
As for Michael C. Paul, he's a virtual unknown and only obtained his PhD recently and has only published a handful of papers appended to minor journals or self-published. Surely there must be more reliable sources outside of his essay? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)