The article was kept by Dana boomer 13:47, 27 June 2012 [1].
Byzantine Empire ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The unsourced sections are my main concern, but a copy edit is also in order in parts. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The See also section is way too long. It is unnecessary to repeat links that occur in the text or in the navboxes. DrKiernan ( talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
It's something I'm wondering about all day, and I would like to have the opinion of Athenean and the other experienced reviewers here, because, before getting it out of me, I can't go to bed: I gave a great deal of thought about the utility of adding two sub-sections in the umbrella section "Culture" about Law and Demographics. The first subject is very interesting, since during Byzantium Roman law never stopped developping, and, as a matter of fact, the Justinian Code formed the basis of most modern Western law systems and jurisprudence, and the Basilika were officially the law of modern states (such as Greece) until the early 20th century. There is thus useful information and a subject worth analyzing per se. As regards demographics, modern bibliography offers a great deal of information (numbers, nations, evolution etc.), and it is an issue inherently linked to aspects of Byzantium that are the main focus of moder research, such as economy, sociology and culture. They are thus both issues deserving our attention as editors and worth reading by those "surfing" in Wikipedia. My reservations in adding them are due to the current length of the article. "Byzantine Empire" is a big article, but, do not misunderstant me, as I argued in the previous FAR, the article deserves its length, and almost every line is useful, since we deal with a multidimensional topic that is not easy to cover, and, in this case, comprehensiveness demands and deserves length. The question is "should we make it lengthier" or, by doing so, we are risking to make it exremely and inadequately long and therefore tiring for the reader? If I add these section, shall I serve or undermine comprehensiveness? This is why I hesitate and this is my dilemma.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Update - Could we get an update on how work is going on this, please? It's great to see this article being worked on! If you all are close to done, it would be nice to get some outside reviewers in to check for any final issues before we close out this review. Dana boomer ( talk) 21:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I have just completed the sourcing of the Komnenian section, as well as polished the article here and there. With that, I believe all the concerns raised by the FAR have been addressed. Athenean ( talk) 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Dana boomer 13:47, 27 June 2012 [1].
Byzantine Empire ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The unsourced sections are my main concern, but a copy edit is also in order in parts. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The See also section is way too long. It is unnecessary to repeat links that occur in the text or in the navboxes. DrKiernan ( talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
It's something I'm wondering about all day, and I would like to have the opinion of Athenean and the other experienced reviewers here, because, before getting it out of me, I can't go to bed: I gave a great deal of thought about the utility of adding two sub-sections in the umbrella section "Culture" about Law and Demographics. The first subject is very interesting, since during Byzantium Roman law never stopped developping, and, as a matter of fact, the Justinian Code formed the basis of most modern Western law systems and jurisprudence, and the Basilika were officially the law of modern states (such as Greece) until the early 20th century. There is thus useful information and a subject worth analyzing per se. As regards demographics, modern bibliography offers a great deal of information (numbers, nations, evolution etc.), and it is an issue inherently linked to aspects of Byzantium that are the main focus of moder research, such as economy, sociology and culture. They are thus both issues deserving our attention as editors and worth reading by those "surfing" in Wikipedia. My reservations in adding them are due to the current length of the article. "Byzantine Empire" is a big article, but, do not misunderstant me, as I argued in the previous FAR, the article deserves its length, and almost every line is useful, since we deal with a multidimensional topic that is not easy to cover, and, in this case, comprehensiveness demands and deserves length. The question is "should we make it lengthier" or, by doing so, we are risking to make it exremely and inadequately long and therefore tiring for the reader? If I add these section, shall I serve or undermine comprehensiveness? This is why I hesitate and this is my dilemma.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Update - Could we get an update on how work is going on this, please? It's great to see this article being worked on! If you all are close to done, it would be nice to get some outside reviewers in to check for any final issues before we close out this review. Dana boomer ( talk) 21:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I have just completed the sourcing of the Komnenian section, as well as polished the article here and there. With that, I believe all the concerns raised by the FAR have been addressed. Athenean ( talk) 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC) reply