I have recently de-stubbed the article, and would like some feedback before nominating it for GA status and higher. The article is complex as there are conflicting accounts and subsequently a lot of different views and interpretations by modern historians, so I am anxious to know how well this comes across. I would also like opinions on whether the article should be split into a main biographical article on Thomas and a separate more detailed one on his rebellion. And of course, any other suggestions or questions for clarification would be welcome! Constantine ✍ 17:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another Cplakidas article, such a pleasure to read.

• Please run through my review of your last article quickly for some ideas ... for instance, I mentioned that it's a good idea to link the first occurrence of "r." since many readers won't know that it means "reigned". We've also been tweaking our checklist for A-class; have a look, and feel free to ask if it seems unclear.
• "the statement in some hagiographic that Thomas": Is there a missing word there?
• Are hetaireia, spatharios, monostrategos, tourma (in the Byzantine sense), tagma and Foederati used in a significant number of English sources? The goal (on Wikipedia, as opposed to journal articles) is for a general reader to be able to read the text without having to click because they have no idea what the text means. Adding a translation in parentheses can help, but if the word isn't one that, say, The New York Times is likely to use, and if there's a reasonably consistent translation used in English sources, then use the translation instead. If scholars often use the Greek words, the Greek words can appear in a footnote or in a glossary article. (I can help with either.)
• "prophesized": prophesied. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I copyedited the lead and first section; please check my work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dank, thanks for taking the time! I agree with most of your points and changes. I think I've fixed your concerns, esp. the technical terms: I've now used more generic terms first and included the special terms after, in parentheses. In most modern works, the technical terms are used throughout, so it's easy to loose sight of the fact that most people find them weird. On style, I'll certainly submit the article for a copyedit before going for A-class or FA, but I really appreciate any suggestions for improvement as to the clarity of the narrative to a non-expert. When you finish going through the article, I'd also like an opinion on the two major issues I raised above. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll come back to this one after I cycle through the A-class and FAC articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies ... it looks like I'm never going to get finished at A-class and FAC. See if you can get some copyediting help, and feel free to bring this to A-class any time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly review sources, footnotes, and bibliographies:

• Lemerle, Paul (1965),: publisher
• Kiapidou, Irini-Sofia (2003): publisher, location of publisher
• Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991): location
• Terminal periods in the sources

References are good. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except for the publisher location for Kiapidou: the Foundation of the Hellenic World is headquartered in Athens, but as the EHW is an online encyclopedia, it is not really relevant (unless I am wrong, of course). Constantine ✍ 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant. The FAC standard is consistency, and MILHIST refers strongly to that standard. In addition, this helps the more academic reader observe for causes of bias in the sources. (The kind of permissible "All scholarly biases" NPOV). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, location added. Thanks for the explanation! Constantine ✍ 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]