Siege of Constantinople (860) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"There seem to have been no siege." ( History page, User:Ghirlandajo)
Grimhelm, I removed the assertion that the Rus referred to the city as Miklagard, because it is known from Nordic sagas only, while all the Slavonic sources of the period (including the Primary Chronicle) refer to the city as Tsargrad. I actually intended to name the article the Tsargrad expeditions of the Rus, so common is the appelation in Russian-Ukrainian sources. As for Roerich's image (uploaded by myself), it should go, because: it is featured in half a dozen articles already (which is annoying) and because it depicts the Varangians navigating on some northern river, most likely the Volkhov. -- Ghirla -трёп- 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I just nominated the article on T:TDYK. An alternative nomination is welcome. -- Ghirla -трёп- 18:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
On Hold, for now.
The problems I see are thus:
1) The lead is too short. Leads for articles this small only have to be about one paragraph or so long, but two sources is too little. The lead should also sum up each major point, which if I read this article right would look somthing like this:
except it would be more proseish. Thanatosimii 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
2) The article is not necersarrily helpful to the layman, or at least it makes it too difficult on us. You have these people and things named which ought to be explained better. Make use of the
appositive. Instead of just saying "Askold and Dir" and making me look them up themselves, summerize them in an apposative, "Askold and Dir, semi-legendary rulers of Kiev." Active links are very good things, but they are no substitute for sufficient clarity. Don't go overboard (I think we can leave Constantinople and the Bosperous as links for whoever needs them) but do define specific terms and people, specifically: The Brussles Chronicle, The Primary Chronicle, and Askold and Dir.
Thanatosimii
19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
3) The article needs a good stylistic overhaul with footnotes and references. First of all, unless there are multiple citations for different clauses in the same sentance, the footnote should always come on the end of the sentance after the period. Take for instance:
Now, you have a citation for the 200 vessels. If that citation also serves the rest of the sentance, put it after the period. If it does not, you have to have a citation for the rest of the sentance anyhow. You technically don't have very good inline citations either. Some of your citations are full footnote style citations. Some of your citations are mere (Author:Pagenumber) style citations making reference to the bibliography. Don't do both.
4) finally, broaden your coverage to explain more about the raid, or explain that there is nothing more known about the raid. I don't know who carried it out except a bunch of Rus who may or may not have been lead by these Askold and Dir people. I don't know why they did it, I don't know what they hoped to achieve besides plunder, I don't know the aftermath on the Rus's side- what happened to them after they plundered? Perhaps there are no answers to these questions. That's fine. But if there are no answers, you must admit in the article somthing to the effect that the reader understands, "There's a hole here in the article's coverage, and it might not make total sense to you, but that's because there's a hole in our scholarly understanding of the period and we really don't know either."
If these things can be quickly adressed, I can still pass this article, so I'm putting it on hold for now. I hope you can straighten this out; it is an interesting article and is mostly GA quality already. Thanatosimii 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section of the article states "the 9th century and later sources are out of tune with the earliest records of the event." This is confusing, because the war itself happened in the ninth century. Chubbles 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
These two sentences are seemingly contradictory:
"It is not clear when the Rus' and Byzantines first came into contact. The first mention of the Rus' near the Byzantine Empire comes from Life of St. George of Amastris, a hagiographic work whose dating is debated. The Byzantines had first come into contact with the Rus' in 839."
Which is it? Could the 839 date come from the Life of St. George of Amastris? Fralupo ( talk) 18:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Siege of Constantinople (860). There was support for a move. The user who moved the page to the longer title and the merge request above appear to prefer this title. If any user wants to move to Rus'–Byzantine War (860) instead, feel free to open a new request. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Siege of Constantinople (Rus' Siege of Constantinople) (860) → Rus'–Byzantine War (860) – A user moved the page "Rus'–Byzantine War (860)" in multiple steps to Siege of Constantinople (Rus' Siege of Constantinople) (860). The new name is overly long and unwieldy, and it will always require a pipe. There was no discussion about moving the page, and several other pages link to it referring to the prior name. It should be moved back. I tried to move it back to the original name, but I cannot because the page already exists, and it was done in multiple steps so it cannot be reverted. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Siege of Constantinople (860). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia, the "Rus' Khaganate" is considered a hypothetical state presumed to have existed before the formation of Kievan Rus'. Nevertheless, historical consensus among scholars does not strongly support the existence of such a "Khaganate" for the Rus' people. Considering this, it is advisable to refrain from employing a speculative term in a Wikipedia article focused on the Siege of Constantinople in 860. I propose replacing "Rus' Khaganate" with either "Kievan Rus'" or the more general term "the Rus' people" for accuracy and historical precision. Odoxon ( talk) 09:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not make sense in article entitled "Siege of ___" to put "X victory" in the infobox where X is the besieging power and the city did not fall. Srnec ( talk) 04:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Siege of Constantinople (860) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"There seem to have been no siege." ( History page, User:Ghirlandajo)
Grimhelm, I removed the assertion that the Rus referred to the city as Miklagard, because it is known from Nordic sagas only, while all the Slavonic sources of the period (including the Primary Chronicle) refer to the city as Tsargrad. I actually intended to name the article the Tsargrad expeditions of the Rus, so common is the appelation in Russian-Ukrainian sources. As for Roerich's image (uploaded by myself), it should go, because: it is featured in half a dozen articles already (which is annoying) and because it depicts the Varangians navigating on some northern river, most likely the Volkhov. -- Ghirla -трёп- 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I just nominated the article on T:TDYK. An alternative nomination is welcome. -- Ghirla -трёп- 18:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
On Hold, for now.
The problems I see are thus:
1) The lead is too short. Leads for articles this small only have to be about one paragraph or so long, but two sources is too little. The lead should also sum up each major point, which if I read this article right would look somthing like this:
except it would be more proseish. Thanatosimii 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
2) The article is not necersarrily helpful to the layman, or at least it makes it too difficult on us. You have these people and things named which ought to be explained better. Make use of the
appositive. Instead of just saying "Askold and Dir" and making me look them up themselves, summerize them in an apposative, "Askold and Dir, semi-legendary rulers of Kiev." Active links are very good things, but they are no substitute for sufficient clarity. Don't go overboard (I think we can leave Constantinople and the Bosperous as links for whoever needs them) but do define specific terms and people, specifically: The Brussles Chronicle, The Primary Chronicle, and Askold and Dir.
Thanatosimii
19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
3) The article needs a good stylistic overhaul with footnotes and references. First of all, unless there are multiple citations for different clauses in the same sentance, the footnote should always come on the end of the sentance after the period. Take for instance:
Now, you have a citation for the 200 vessels. If that citation also serves the rest of the sentance, put it after the period. If it does not, you have to have a citation for the rest of the sentance anyhow. You technically don't have very good inline citations either. Some of your citations are full footnote style citations. Some of your citations are mere (Author:Pagenumber) style citations making reference to the bibliography. Don't do both.
4) finally, broaden your coverage to explain more about the raid, or explain that there is nothing more known about the raid. I don't know who carried it out except a bunch of Rus who may or may not have been lead by these Askold and Dir people. I don't know why they did it, I don't know what they hoped to achieve besides plunder, I don't know the aftermath on the Rus's side- what happened to them after they plundered? Perhaps there are no answers to these questions. That's fine. But if there are no answers, you must admit in the article somthing to the effect that the reader understands, "There's a hole here in the article's coverage, and it might not make total sense to you, but that's because there's a hole in our scholarly understanding of the period and we really don't know either."
If these things can be quickly adressed, I can still pass this article, so I'm putting it on hold for now. I hope you can straighten this out; it is an interesting article and is mostly GA quality already. Thanatosimii 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section of the article states "the 9th century and later sources are out of tune with the earliest records of the event." This is confusing, because the war itself happened in the ninth century. Chubbles 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
These two sentences are seemingly contradictory:
"It is not clear when the Rus' and Byzantines first came into contact. The first mention of the Rus' near the Byzantine Empire comes from Life of St. George of Amastris, a hagiographic work whose dating is debated. The Byzantines had first come into contact with the Rus' in 839."
Which is it? Could the 839 date come from the Life of St. George of Amastris? Fralupo ( talk) 18:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Siege of Constantinople (860). There was support for a move. The user who moved the page to the longer title and the merge request above appear to prefer this title. If any user wants to move to Rus'–Byzantine War (860) instead, feel free to open a new request. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Siege of Constantinople (Rus' Siege of Constantinople) (860) → Rus'–Byzantine War (860) – A user moved the page "Rus'–Byzantine War (860)" in multiple steps to Siege of Constantinople (Rus' Siege of Constantinople) (860). The new name is overly long and unwieldy, and it will always require a pipe. There was no discussion about moving the page, and several other pages link to it referring to the prior name. It should be moved back. I tried to move it back to the original name, but I cannot because the page already exists, and it was done in multiple steps so it cannot be reverted. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Siege of Constantinople (860). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia, the "Rus' Khaganate" is considered a hypothetical state presumed to have existed before the formation of Kievan Rus'. Nevertheless, historical consensus among scholars does not strongly support the existence of such a "Khaganate" for the Rus' people. Considering this, it is advisable to refrain from employing a speculative term in a Wikipedia article focused on the Siege of Constantinople in 860. I propose replacing "Rus' Khaganate" with either "Kievan Rus'" or the more general term "the Rus' people" for accuracy and historical precision. Odoxon ( talk) 09:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not make sense in article entitled "Siege of ___" to put "X victory" in the infobox where X is the besieging power and the city did not fall. Srnec ( talk) 04:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)