Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kapetron

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Kapetron[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Battle of Kapetron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The first well-known large-scale battle between the Byzantines (and their Georgian allies) and the Seljuk Turks. The battle itself was a decidedly mixed affair, while the overall campaign pointed at the deficiencies of the Byzantine military position against the Turks. The article has been recently written practically from scratch, and just passed a GA. I would like for it to eventually go to FA, so any comments or suggestions, above and beyond ACR requirements, are welcome. Constantine ✍ 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this for GA, and thought it a fine article.

  • Your paragraphs are quite short. The last two of "Battle" each consist of a single sentence; six others of two sentences.
    • Usually I get the opposite advice ;). The division into paragraphs is made by the aspect/phase of the battle described
  • "Byzantine–Georgian" should have a hyphen in the middle, not an en dash.
    • AFAIK, per MOS:ENDASH, it is correct. "Byzantine" is an adjective form, but not a combining form.
Yes, "Other uses (en dash only)" permits it. I am not sure that I agree in this case, but you are the author, so OK.
  • "till cock's crow" Quotes need to be cited, even in the lead. (Or you could paraphrase it.)
    • Paraphrased.
  • Infobox: "Byzantine tactical victory, Seljuk strategic success" A semi colon would work better than a comma.
    • Done.
  • "not informed until after they gave thanks to" Very optional: it may read better as 'not informed until after they had given thanks to'.
    • Done.
  • "a large number of Oghuz Turks arrived on the Byzantine borderlands in Armenia" Did they arrive in Armenia? Or would 'near' be better?
    • Clarified.
  • "thematic (provincial levies) troops" Should the bracketed section not be after "troops"?
    • Indeed, done.
  • "a difference of opinion on how to counter" Optional: "on → 'as to'.
    • Done.
  • "thematic (provincial levies) troops"; "standing professional (tagmatic) troops". The first uses the Byzantine expression with the English in brackets; the second the reverse. It would be better to be consistent.
    • Done.
  • "Kekaumenos' urgings to come to the town's aid". "come" → 'go'.
    • Done.
  • "Turkish detachments atrriving to fight"
    • Fixed and rephrased a bit.
  • "including large numbers of horses, flocks, and goods, including 8,000 coats of mail" "including ... including". Would it be possible to change one of those?
    • Done.
  • "and in the amount of plunder and captives seized". Delete "in". (It is a follow on from "in stressing ... ")
    • Done.
  • "bolster their credentials in their championing of Sunni orthodoxy" "their ... their". Maybe 'bolster their credentials as the champions of Sunni orthodoxy'?
    • Have rephrased the section considerably.
  • "The Seljuq ruler instead set Liparit free" I am not sure why you say "instead", given that the ransom was accepted.
    • Done.
  • Note b: "also of kouropalates as well" One of "also" or "as well" is redundant.
    • Done.
  • Note d: "a Black African champion" Lower case B.
    • Done.
  • Note d: You need to look to your formatting.
    • Done.

Great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Gog the Mild, much apprenticed as usual. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 16:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on. Having nominated several GAs from this period and region myself I can vouch that both the detail and the spirit of the article are true to what we know of the time and place. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Emperor_Constantine_IX.jpg: as under US law reproducing a 2D work garners no new copyright, this should include details and tagging for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done Constantine ✍ 11:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

This article is in great shape, but I must admit I know nothing about this period. I have a few comments:

  • in the first sentence, state where the battle occurred, including the modern locality
    • Done.
  • "although the latter encouraged these activitiesthe mass migration" if that is correct?
    • Rewritten to slightly different form; 'Activities' refers to the raiding first, which had settlement as its ultimate consequence.
  • is there a link for Byzantine Caucasus?
    • Not really, changed to "Byzantine provinces of Armenia".
  • Ibrahim Inal's invasion→Inal's invasion, per MOS:SURNAME, there are other examples
    • "Inal" is a sobriquet, not a surname. Changed to "Ibrahim" throughout instead.
  • suggest "The inhabitants successfully resisted for a while"
    • Done.
  • is there a link for Syriacs?
    • Done.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, thanks a lot for your time and suggestions. I assume from your remarks that the article was comprehensible, but if there is anything that was even remotely left unclear, please don't hesitate to point it out. Constantine ✍ 11:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All quite clear. Although my support is tempered by a lack of any knowledge about this era, I offer it regardless. A very well written article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • With the conquest of Iran Wouldn't "After the conquest" be a better wording?
    • Indeed, done.
  • Nicely done.
  • I'm not seeing anything else, but I'll give it another go through in a few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take your time :)
      • I think that the earlier reviewers did all the heavy lifting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Blaum needs an ISSN if one is available, otherwise an OCLC#
    • Done.
  • Other than that, cites and sources are properly formatted.
  • Sources are all from reputable publishers and journals.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Kapetron&oldid=910918515"