This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas the Slav article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Thomas the Slav is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 30, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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;
Early life and career
Rebellion:
(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.
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)
Next bit looks ok, I'll read from Rebellion a bit later. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas the Slav article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Thomas the Slav is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 30, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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;
Early life and career
Rebellion:
(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.
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)
Next bit looks ok, I'll read from Rebellion a bit later. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)