User talk:Gligan/Archives/2010/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Kutmichevitsa
Hi, can you please add footnotes to the unreferenced paragraphs in History? I think the article would be a good candidate for T:TDYK, but all paragraphs have to be referenced for this purpose. Best wishes and thanks for the great article :) — Toдor Boжinov — 16:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Todor. It's a nice article, and inline references would help it get more attention via DYK. Constantine ✍ 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |
DYK for Kutmichevitsa
 | On 29 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kutmichevitsa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Ivan Vladislav
Hello Gligan! I'll probably check the article tomorrow (holiday, yay!). On the "Bulgarian/Bulgar" issue, AFAIK most authors retain the "Bulgar" until ca. 863 and the Christianization of Bulgaria, when it transitioned from the "Bulgar Khanate" to the "Bulgarian Principality" and later Empire. From what I understand, this is because prior to that point the Bulgar/Bulgarian state had not yet developed (or better, the development had not yet culminated) its definitive "Bulgarian" character, which includes Christianity and an increase of Byzantine and Slavic cultural influence vs the fading Turkic elements. I agree that it is essentially the same state and the same people, but I tend to follow my sources closely. At least for the period prior to ca. 860, I think I'll retain "Bulgar" to be consistent with them. I will be making more maps however for the period thereafter, and I will definitively use "Bulgarian" there. No hard feelings, I hope :) Constantine ✍ 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hello again! I've gone through the article making a series of copyedits and changes/additions. Generally, it is a good article, certainly quite complete. The one major problem I had was in the assessment section, where Runciman's opinion was completely misrepresented, which set off alarm bells in my head. I don't know if it was because of the language barrier or due to the instinctive tendency of any Balkan editor to eulogize "our" side's representatives, but you shouldn't do that again. I remember cautioning on the sometimes excessive use of words like "heroic" etc in the Medieval Bulgarian army article, and the same applies here. You must train yourself to be more dispassionate about the subject you write. I know it's not easy and counter-instinctive given the type of history we've been fed with in our youth (I for instance loved the books of Penelope Delta when I was about 8 or 9 and heartily hated Ibatzes as a dastardly coward, while to a Bulgarian he'd be a hero), but nevertheless... That is why I also prefer and advocate using English or other foreign sources. This sort of "national" language and perspective creeps up too often in Greek/Bulgarian/etc works of the period, especially older ones, and from there into the WP articles.
- Anyhow, per se the article is a fine B-class. To go to GA, the only thing missing IMO is adding citations to sentences at the ends of paragraphs that lack one at the moment. Adding a map of the Balkans at the time to show the various locations would be a welcome plus for the readers not familiar with the region. Also, a minor nitpick, but on a couple of occasions you cite "a Byzantine historian" (Skylitzes?). It'd be better if you named him or them directly, so that an interested reader can check this up. Constantine ✍ 17:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that the part from Runciman came from the Polish version, I assumed that you checked it up yourself. That is the problem with translations... As I said, the article is otherwise very good, including the balanced viewpoint part. Indeed your contributions have much improved since our first interactions, and I did find this lapse a bit peculiar. I hope I didn't offend you, it was merely meant as constructive criticism from someone who has been there before and knows the traps the mind all too easily falls into ;)... For the historian, OK, I'll try a search on my own and see what I can find. For the map, I prefer Bury's, although I am working on one for the period myself, and when it is done, I'll upload it. If you want it to get past GA, you might also give a shot at a peer review at WP:MILHIST, I highly recommend it. Constantine ✍ 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)