This peer review discussion has been closed.
As part of my plan of expanding articles on late antique/early medieval "Barbarian" European kings I've created this article with in mind of making it a GA. Concerning the completeness and objectivity of the article I'm confident it's OK; the articles difficulties may eventually manifest themselves in the quality of the prose. Most importantly I'd like a careful evaluation of the lead and if the article is ready to stand up to a GAN. Thanks for any help, Aldux (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Jappalang
I had this big problem with the article right from the start: Who are these guys? I was basically confused (even though this is supposed to be a biography of the subject) because I have no idea who are the Gepids and Lombards nor where is Pannonia or whatever else location is mentioned. The only thing that seems familiar to me is the Byzantine Empire. Sure there are links, but it is likely the reader is already lost (like me) and would not bother to read further or click them and go to another article (thus disrupting the reading experience) to find out.
I suggest giving a familiar location in where (continent or general location, e.g. Middle East, Persia, Egypt, or something) this is taking place. Give the reader some familiar ground to grasp at and with which he or she can associate the subject.
Images
- File:Prefecture.png
- What public domain (or appropriately licensed) base map or data was this map derived from?
I feel these are serious issues that should be resolved. Jappalang (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a fast answer, regarding the images: 1) isn't a problem anymore 2) I think the issue is hardly all that dramatic: Ant83 has only uploaded images under a PD license, so it's highly unikely now should be any different; but if you have doubts, you can contact an admin 3) the map is adeguately sourced through multiple sources: there is no need that these sources be PD, and I don't see any clear grounds to suspect it of copyright violation 4) as for the last, oh no, he DID upload from the original, only the link doesn't send to the original but instead the German translation; the original was Latin, and here it is [1], page 368. I'm afraid several of these mistakes in the uploading of the Nuremberg chronicle illustrations may have been made.Aldux (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not for any other user to keep going to administrators to verify the images. The information should be visible to assure re-users of the veracity of the images. This rule applies to all images. See WP:IUP. As for the map, it is not the sources, it is the base map (the geographical outlines) that is at issue. For the Nuremburg image, such an old book would unlikely be in the hands of the editor. If he or she found the image on a website, then the source should be plainly stated (see WP:CITE#IMAGES. Jappalang (talk)
- I forgot to add that I've worked on the context, show it should be clearer even if one is not all that well versed in the period. I solved the issues with the Nuremberg image, but I must admit I have some difficulties understanding the map's problems: shouldn't the sources guarantee the geographic outlines? Thanks for your help and ciao, Aldux (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Mike Christie
I'll add comments here as I work my way through the article.
- The first thing that caught my eye was some debris from copyediting; things like "was to had assassinated", "just had been the case", and "was now close to expire" are examples. I'll point others out as I go through, but I recommend reading the article out loud -- it can help you notice this sort of thing. I also some infelicities in the prose; I am happy to copyedit as I go, but it's often best to delay a copyedit till there is consensus that the content is more or less right, so I wouldn't worry too much about that yet.
- I am not at all sure where the Gepids are located. They're "east Germanic" according to the lead; given the movement of peoples through Europe in the early middle ages, this doesn't help me much. With my limited knowledge of continental Europe I'd guess they're somewhere between modern Denmark and modern Bulgaria. Then the mention of Pannonia -- few modern readers will have heard of this; I had heard of it but can't remember where it is -- somewhere between modern Italy and (ex-)modern Yugoslavia? The maps aren't much help either. I think the Carpathians are in the north Balkans, or a bit further north than that, in Romania/Hungary or thereabouts. The first map gives me almost no information because the topographical features have no scale and the borders shown are unlabelled. The second map is a bit better, because at least the rivers are labelled, and I can guess we're looking at the north Balkans here, but without some of the surrounding geography this is a very unhelpful map. Could we at least expand this so we can see the Adriatic and/or the Black Sea, or overlay it with modern country boundaries? Or inset a tiny map showing the location of the larger map? Also, again, there is no scale. (By the way, for map work I can recommend user:Kmusser, who is skilled and helpful.)
- Comment I've added a map of Pannonia in the context of the whole Roman Empire so one can see where the province was. In the first paragraph I mentioned which modern countries the Gepid kingdom lied on. I've removed the map of the Pannonian basin as ultimately useless. I'm really sorry for the map of Gepidia, but the first map I used for the Gepids (in another article) has been discarded as unsourced while the other deleted. This is the last one still around, and yes, it's not all that great, and unfortunately, I don't know how to create or modify images. But thanks for the input, I'll try asking putting this map in a larger context, as you suggested.
- This is just a suggestion, but it might be good to start with a short section discussing the sources for the period. See Ælle of Sussex for an extreme case from the Anglo-Saxons; there are very few sources for Anglo-Saxon history and the secondary sources almost always start by talking about the available sources and the limitations they place on a historian. It may be that there are numerous sources available for this period for the Gepids, but if, for example, the primary source is really just Paul the Deacon, and there is little to corroborate details he provides, then in that case an introductory note describing Paul's work would be helpful to the reader. If there are lots of primary sources and the secondary sources pay little attention to this issue then I think you can ignore this comment.
- Comment If you think there are few sources for Anglo-Saxon England, than you should see the central European sources for this period ;-) But luckily, the situation isn't as desperate here because while Paul is a key source he is often supported and integrated by the last of the classical historians, the contemporary Procopius (when the Byzantines pop up in the narrative, you can be pretty sure that's Procopius, and you may have noticed how often the Byantines do in the article). Where saga plays a role (the initiation of Alboin) I put it clear. The problem isn't so much an absence of sources as that these sources have very little interest for Thurisind in particular.
- Some more initial context would be useful at the start of the article. Currently you start with "Thurisind rose to power amongst the Gepids, a powerful east Germanic people, in about 548"; the only context this gives us is the date, the name of his people, their ethnicity and the fact that they were powerful. Where in Europe were they located, and how long had they been there? What is known of Thurisind's origins, or at least of the origins of the earlier Gepid kings? Take a look at Eadbald of Kent (sorry to use my own articles as examples, but they come readily to mind); the introductory material there tells the reader something about the state of Kent at the time of Eadbald's accession, plus information on Christianization, sources, Eadbald's ancestry -- all before we get to Eadbald himself. I don't know what source material is available to provide context, but a couple of sentences at least would be useful here; more if you have it.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really can't thank you enough for finding time to drop by and help me with your valuable assessments. As for the prose, you're all too correct, I often do mistakes. Thanks for spotting some. Regarding the context I've worked hard on this and inserted a brief history of the Gepids, their faith and where they were settled. As for Eadbald's example, sadly much more is known of his origins and ancestry than of Thurisind or Elemund. The issue here is that our two sources didn't care much, to put it plainly, about the Gepids so Elemund is just a name (he may have ruled either 40 or 1 year(s) for all we know), and nothing is known of Thurisind's age or origins, and it's the same for all kings after Ardaric. You may have noticed that Elemund is ared link: well, it's no surprise as I would have difficulties writing an article on him. Even christianization is all very vague: we only know that by the 6th century they were Arians, how this happened is unclear. Still, I hope the context I've added can be of some help. Hope it sounds better know.Aldux (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Nev1
- "he succeeded King Elemund by excluding from the succession the dead king's son Ostrogotha": while I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with this arrangement, I think it might be clearer to say "he succeeded King Elemund by staging a coup and forcing the dead king's son into exile" (it's perhaps not necessary to name Ostrogotha in the lead).
- "Thurisind's kingdom, known by its people Gepidia": should this be "known by its people as Gepidia"?
- At the moment, the lead doesn't make it clear if Thurisind was dead when Cunimund ascended to the throne; did Thurisind abdicate, or did Cunimund take over because his father died?
- Regarding the first part on Gepidia, I must agree that it's quite confusing: what I meant is that the land inhabited by the Gepids was called Gepidia. As for the second part, we really don't know anything about the Gepid kingdom between 552 and 565, so we don't know how Cunimund succeeded his father, but he's presumed to have taken power after his death, since nothing is said of Thurisind after 552.
- "After Turismod's death it will be the turn of his second son Cunimund to become commander in Sirmium and thus new heir apparent": in contrast with the rest of the paragraph, this is in present tense rather than past. I would have changed it myself, but it might be referring to a theoretical situation where the heir apparent dies, so I wasn't quite sure how to phrase it. I'd recommend something along the lines of either "In the event of Turismod's death, Cunimund would become commander in Sirmium and thus heir apparent" or "After Turismod died, his younger brother Cunimund became commander in Sirmium and thus heir apparent".
- Have to agree, quite confusing; corrected now.
- "for this reason Justinian wanted to be able to rush troops in Italy if they were needed": as Justinian was securing the route from the Balkans to Italy, shouldn't this be "rush troops to Italy"?
- "According to Procopius, Justinian...": I think it would be useful to mention which of Procopius' works he says this in (I assume it was the Gothic Wars). While on the subject of Procopius, Ilywrch makes an interesting point. I like the way things are currently done and support the status quo, but one possible route would be to mention the book and chapter of the ancient source when it's mentioned and say which modern source it is quoted in (eg: <ref>Procopius The Germanic Wars III:12, quoted in Pohl 1997, p. 90</ref>). The original research concern stems for editors putting their own interpretation on the sources, however as long as the interpretation is sourced to a modern RS it shouldn't be a problem.
- You're correct, it's the Gothic Wars; made it clear. Also, gave a try to your idea, seems a good compromise.
- "The Ostrogoths acted this way because they were too occupied with the war in Italy to maintain their possessions out of the peninsula": this is a little unclear. Did the Ostrogoths wish to keep their lands in Italy? If so I recommend rephrasing this to "The Ostrogoths acted this way because they too were occupied with the war in Italy and sought to retain their possession in the peninsula".
- It needs to be explained whose side Calluc was on and who lost Dacia ripensis and Singidunum.
- Perhaps merge the last paragraph of the section first war with the Lombards with the previous paragraph as they seem related and the second doesn't really seem long enough to stand on its own.
- The article refers to "battle of the Asfeld" whereas Wikipedia's article on the battle itself calls it "Battle of Asfeld". It's "the" that's the problem. Does the article on the battle need changing or is either acceptable?
- It's something I've asked myself too. The site of the battle is mentioned only once in sources, when Paul the Deacon speaks of the clash in campum Asfeld: this is translated as "to the field of Ashfeld", but also "to the Asfeld". So I'm not sure: they're probably both more or less correct.
- "both kings secretly murdered their respective hosts": this doesn't seem quite right, do you mean the kings murdered their guests?
- My crappy English hits again, I'm afraid ;-) Corrected.
- "Thurisind died in an unrecorded date esteemed to be around 560 and was succeeded by his son Cunimund": esteemed seems to me to be an odd word in this context.
Overall, a very good article and covers the main points are far as I can see. I've made some of edits you'll want to check over to make sure I haven't unintentionally changed the meaning of anything. The prose could do with a bit of polishing, but I think addressing the above points should address that. I'm sorry this has taken me so long to get round to properly; my time on Wikipedia has been limited recently. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks a lot for examinating the article; I've corrected the shabby parts you indicated. Once the peer reviews are archived, think I'll put it up for an A-review to see what the good people at MILHIST think of the article. Thanks again for your help. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
