Talk:Basil I/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 08:51, 12 March 2019 (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, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some of the major modern treatments on the reign are missing: there is a dedicated monograph on Basil I's foreign policy (Vlysidou), an old but still valuable biography by A. Vogt, there are many sources on Basil's wars with the Arabs, etc. The use of Finlay to cite a few critical sections in the article is egregious, as his views represent very outdated scholarship. The article relies very much on generalist works; Tobias 2007 is used only three times, for instance, and not at all for the reign itself, which is his actual topic.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The "From peasant to emperor" section is fairly comprehensive, but the reign is a stub; no to little information on Church policy, his building projects, family relations (broad coverage), and the domestic and foreign policies are treated en passant in comparison to the volume of both the primary sources and the scholarship. A reign of twenty years, pivotal in the history of Byzantium, is reduced to two short paragraphs. A section on sources/historiography, about Basil's treatment by Byzantine historians, would also be necessary, since the Byzantine sources are very biased in his favour as the founder of the Macedonian dynasty. Even for the current length of the article, the lede section is way too short and not representative of the content (see WP:LEAD)

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:

   The reign needs to be considerably expanded and rewritten before this is a serious GA candidate. The nomination is practically spurious, as the nominator has no significant knowledge of the subject, or contributions to this article; therefore, and given the extent of work required, addressing the deficiencies pointed out above is not something that can reasonably be done in the expected timeframe of the GA nomination. Quick fail.