Byzantine–Arab wars (780–1180) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 23, 2009, December 23, 2010, December 23, 2011, and December 23, 2015. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see that the borders of Chersonesos slitly moved...how did did happend? I mean, from what I know(only from wikipedia for my shame) this city was only used for reconisance and jailing....I know it isn`t that important overall but I am fascineted by this city`s odd role and position troughout it`s history. AdrianCo ( talk) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick response, until I can come back later - there are very few non-Western sources out there. In fact, there are few sources out there mentioning this war or the latter stages of it since no cares about Byzantium and few Easterners will be proud to record how they almost lost a lot of their 7th century gains. By the way, it is stable in terms that there is no edit warring, and there is no POV problem either; this is a mere assumption on your behalf simply because "only five books" have been used, or worse still Norwich. Again, there are few writers out there willing to shed some light on this topic. However, I will do my best to address these points, just give me 7 days at the least. Thank you. Tourskin ( talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I will not delist this article if the prose is gone through again more carefully, but as it stands I will. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be serious confusion with sources here, though hopefully it can be sorted with some ease.
A book is cited as Treadgold, Warren (2002), The Oxford History of Byzantium, New York: Oxford UP.
But as the "References" indicate, in fact the author of the Oxford History of Byzantium is one Cyril Mango.
Warren Treadgold, however, has written A Concise History of Byzantium.
So: which source is in fact being cited here? Is the author wrong, or is it the title?
I won't be able to continue clearing up the references until this is clarified and fixed. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And here's another problem: there's no such book as The Latin East, though H E Mayer has written The Crusades. Is this what's meant? -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, two more problems:
The above, combined with the source problems detailed already, are enough for me to delist (per Malleus, too) and put the article up for WP:GAR. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Bot_is_being_developed_to_convert_hyphens_to_en_dashes. It's in trials now, and sometime in the near future, the hyphen in the title of this article will be changed to an en-dash, so we might as well fix the problems now. Shall I create the new article and copy the contents there, or should we go get in line at WP:RM in order to preserve the history? In the meantime, I have changed the hyphens in this article to dashes where appropriate...breaking the links, so Byzantine-Arab Wars will also need to be copied or moved.
Dashes drive some people crazy, and I feel fussy just bringing them up, but it's pretty simple on Wikipedia: a hyphen (in this context) means "and"; an en-dash means "or" or "between". "Byzantine-Arab Wars" would mean wars fought by Byzantine Arabs; "Byzantine–Arab Wars" (en-dash) means wars fought between Byzantines and Arabs. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The map at the top of the page shows a depiction of Byzantium in, supposedly, 867. However, it shares a closer resemblance to a map of 717. When 867 came, Byzantium already had more control of the Balkans.
The article should talk more about Tzimiskes' reconquests. It says he retook Damascus, Caesarea, and other cities, but it doesn't say whether they were kept or not. The map indicates that they were given away, though I can't see why Tzimiskes would do that. If the cities were given away, the article should explain when and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.54 ( talk) 23:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I consider a statement like "seriously deficient in feelings of honor...and his subjects paid for his conduct", POV and not very encyclopedic. I'm a noob here, but I think this article should be reviewed for its Neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.83.3 ( talk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I just ran across this article. Lots of good content, but the tone is definitely not encyclopedic. The writing is good, but it freely injects personal opinions throughout, and presents all the information from a Byzantine perspective. Jacksheriff ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
"962 – Byzantine-Arab Wars: Under the future Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, Byzantine troops stormed the city of Aleppo, recovering the tattered tunic of John the Baptist."
the (very strangely written) article says nothing about this tunic business - at all - despite being the primary link for this event. either the article should be expanded to cover the subject, or the entry should be removed from... wherever "on this day" entries are archived. pauli133 ( talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Byzantine–Arab wars (780–1180) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 23, 2009, December 23, 2010, December 23, 2011, and December 23, 2015. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see that the borders of Chersonesos slitly moved...how did did happend? I mean, from what I know(only from wikipedia for my shame) this city was only used for reconisance and jailing....I know it isn`t that important overall but I am fascineted by this city`s odd role and position troughout it`s history. AdrianCo ( talk) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick response, until I can come back later - there are very few non-Western sources out there. In fact, there are few sources out there mentioning this war or the latter stages of it since no cares about Byzantium and few Easterners will be proud to record how they almost lost a lot of their 7th century gains. By the way, it is stable in terms that there is no edit warring, and there is no POV problem either; this is a mere assumption on your behalf simply because "only five books" have been used, or worse still Norwich. Again, there are few writers out there willing to shed some light on this topic. However, I will do my best to address these points, just give me 7 days at the least. Thank you. Tourskin ( talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I will not delist this article if the prose is gone through again more carefully, but as it stands I will. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be serious confusion with sources here, though hopefully it can be sorted with some ease.
A book is cited as Treadgold, Warren (2002), The Oxford History of Byzantium, New York: Oxford UP.
But as the "References" indicate, in fact the author of the Oxford History of Byzantium is one Cyril Mango.
Warren Treadgold, however, has written A Concise History of Byzantium.
So: which source is in fact being cited here? Is the author wrong, or is it the title?
I won't be able to continue clearing up the references until this is clarified and fixed. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And here's another problem: there's no such book as The Latin East, though H E Mayer has written The Crusades. Is this what's meant? -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, two more problems:
The above, combined with the source problems detailed already, are enough for me to delist (per Malleus, too) and put the article up for WP:GAR. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Bot_is_being_developed_to_convert_hyphens_to_en_dashes. It's in trials now, and sometime in the near future, the hyphen in the title of this article will be changed to an en-dash, so we might as well fix the problems now. Shall I create the new article and copy the contents there, or should we go get in line at WP:RM in order to preserve the history? In the meantime, I have changed the hyphens in this article to dashes where appropriate...breaking the links, so Byzantine-Arab Wars will also need to be copied or moved.
Dashes drive some people crazy, and I feel fussy just bringing them up, but it's pretty simple on Wikipedia: a hyphen (in this context) means "and"; an en-dash means "or" or "between". "Byzantine-Arab Wars" would mean wars fought by Byzantine Arabs; "Byzantine–Arab Wars" (en-dash) means wars fought between Byzantines and Arabs. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The map at the top of the page shows a depiction of Byzantium in, supposedly, 867. However, it shares a closer resemblance to a map of 717. When 867 came, Byzantium already had more control of the Balkans.
The article should talk more about Tzimiskes' reconquests. It says he retook Damascus, Caesarea, and other cities, but it doesn't say whether they were kept or not. The map indicates that they were given away, though I can't see why Tzimiskes would do that. If the cities were given away, the article should explain when and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.54 ( talk) 23:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I consider a statement like "seriously deficient in feelings of honor...and his subjects paid for his conduct", POV and not very encyclopedic. I'm a noob here, but I think this article should be reviewed for its Neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.83.3 ( talk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I just ran across this article. Lots of good content, but the tone is definitely not encyclopedic. The writing is good, but it freely injects personal opinions throughout, and presents all the information from a Byzantine perspective. Jacksheriff ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
"962 – Byzantine-Arab Wars: Under the future Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, Byzantine troops stormed the city of Aleppo, recovering the tattered tunic of John the Baptist."
the (very strangely written) article says nothing about this tunic business - at all - despite being the primary link for this event. either the article should be expanded to cover the subject, or the entry should be removed from... wherever "on this day" entries are archived. pauli133 ( talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)