Talk:Nikephoros Phokas the Elder

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nikephoros Phokas the Elder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 01:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cplakidas, I've begun a comprehensive Good Article review for this nominated article, and should have my comments and suggestions completed within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thank you! -- Caponer (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall

• The article flows well, and all the internally-cited references check out with the one exception of the Guilland reference, which I was unable to verify, but I certainly assume good faith.
• I made a few minor adjustments and fixes within the article, like changing a "he" to "Nikephoros," etc. Let me know if you take any issues with these liberties that I've taken.
• I've completed this review with only a few questions or comments, as I concur with the wording and content in the bulk of the article. Once these have been addressed, this article will be good for transition to Good Article status!

Lede

• The lede needs to include content from each of the subsections so that it provides a comprehensive summary of the article. To satisfy inclusion of Early life and career content, mention that he rose to the post of military governor of Charsianon, where he scored numerous successes against the Arabs. Then place your sentence about his command in southern Italy already in the lede after that, followed by the sentence referencing his Domestic of the Schools gig and the campaigns against the Bulgarians. At the end of the lede, I suggest including a re-worked version of the second paragraph of Assessment and family to hammer home his family connections and descendants, thus providing a legacy statement.

Early life and career

• The third sentence's usage of youngster strikes me as a bit WP:COLLOQUIAL. Would it be incorrect to use child or adolescent here?
• In Life and Society in Byzantine Cappadocia, J. Eric Cooper and Michael J. Decker mention on page 236 that Nikephoros was a "high born man" (gennaios). Would it be fitting to classify his noble origin in the first paragraph of the Early life and career subsection? This is ascribed to Skylitzes. One could also assume this given the mention of and link to the Phokas dynasty in the paragraph.

Alright, Cplakidas this about sums up my comments. Please address each, and let me know if you have any further comment or questions for me. You've done an outstanding job as always in researching and crafting this article. -- Caponer (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Caponer, thanks for taking the time to review this! I made some copyedits per your suggestions, expanded the lede and also a bit on the career of his namesake grandson.

On the question of whether the Phokades were already a noble clan at Nikephoros' time, it is hard to answer. It is just at about this time (mid to late 9th century) that the great families of the hereditary landed aristocracy begin to appear in Byzantium, and the usual assumption is that these families became part of an aristocratic "establishment" through entering imperial service and exploiting the opportunities this offered for social ascendancy as well as for acquiring large estates in the vast depopulated (but now, with Byzantium in the ascendant, mostly secure from Arab depredations) lands of Asia Minor. It is of course possible that the Phokades were already some kind of noble family in the area, but the evidence is too slim to say anything definite, especially since Skylitzes writes two centuries later, with the Phokades having become one of the most prominent aristocratic clans in the meantime, and with Nikephoros II employing propagandists to extol his ancestors, which affected later historiography.

As for further questions, I always ask about readability and comprehensibility given the relative obscurity of the subject, but given the positive feedback from you and The ed17, I feel reassured in this regard. Any suggestions for further improvement beyond the confines of the GAR process would be welcome though. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Constantine, it was a great privilege and a pleasure reviewing this article. Following your diligent responses to each of my comments, I find that this article more than meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: