- Background
1b A "background" section is often used to gently introduce the reader to the background of the subject of the article, so that the subsequent information makes sense. I like the material in the "background" section, but I think it could do with a new paragraph in the front that briefly explains the world at that time. "The Roman Empire was the most powerful empire Europe had ever seen", stuff like that. Say in a sentence what role provinces played in the empire, and how as Roman power declined the provinces had to defend themselves against invaders, or whatever information would be useful to introduce readers to the world that Romania came from.
- Thanks. Some further sentences were added to the "Background#Roman provinces and native tribes" subsection. Borsoka (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an excellent addition, thank you. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1b It would make more sense to me if the organization of the "Background" and "Early history of the Romanians" sections were improved in the following way: There should be one "Background" supersection with two subsections. The first subsection would be called "Romanian territory within Rome", and would say "Main article: Roman Dacia". It would include the introductory paragraph mentioned above, and all the information currently in the present background section. The second subsection would be called "Linguistic origin of Romania", and would say "Main article: History of Romanian and Origin of the Romanians." It would include all the information currently in the present "Early history of the Romanians" section. I think the novice reader would better understand the beginning sections of the article if they were presented in this way.
- Thanks. A "Background" supersection was created with two subsections: (1) Roman provinces and native tribes (2) Origin of the Romanians. The "Roman provinces and native tribes" title is better, because (a) there were more than one provinces in the territory of modern Romania (Roman Dacia and Lower Moesia) which were separated from each other with a wide region inhabited by free native tribes (such as the Carpians, Sarmatians, Bastarnae). Borsoka (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Very well done. The organization here is perfectly clear. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Roman provinces and native tribes
1b Hatnotes: The "Roman provinces and native tribes" section lists Lower Moesia as one of the main article hatnotes... but first off, there is no "Lower Moesia" article; it's just a redirect to Moesia. And secondly, this section barely mentions Moesia. Roman Dacia is a better main-article-hatnote, but it only covers a part of what the section is about. I would prefer if the text could mention Roman Dacia and wikilink it, without having any "main article" hatnotes. Also, the see-also-hatnotes are not needed, since they are mentioned in the text of the section (though Goths should be wikilinked there).
- Thanks. Moesia in place of Lower Moesia added (because there were two Roman provinces in the territories now forming Romania.) "See also"-s deleted. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a "Barbaricum" should be defined or explained.
- Thanks. The new text above this word (with reference to "fierce'barbarians'") may be clarifies this issue. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a "a projecting salient north of the Danube" is not easily understood in modern English. I would reword this, and not use a direct quote.
1a "Moldavia" is first mentioned in the "Gutthiuda" section, unlinked and unexplained, and the article never links to the Moldavia article. "Transylvania" is not linked in the article body (and should be, in the "Roman provinces and native tribes" section). There needs to be some way of introducing the reader to the idea that Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldova, and others, are regions that would later become Romania. This section seems like a good place for that. Could you put this information into this section? I'm not sure the best way to include that, because I know so little about it, but it seems like there should be a way to clearly present this. Perhaps the sentence "It included Oltenia and large portions of Banat, Transylvania, and Wallachia" could be concluded with "all regions that would later be included in Romania". I can't tell Moldova's status from this section; was it ever a part of Dacia? Perhaps a sentence could be added to say "Moldova, another region later included in Romania, was never conquored by Rome" (if that's true). By putting this information here, even a reader who knows very little about Romania will understand from the beginning of the article how the regions are related, which is important for understanding the article.
- Thanks. Wikilinks added in "Roman provinces and native tribes" section where their status (never occupied by the Romans) is also mentioned. A map of the historical regions of Romania added at the lead. Please note Moldavia and Moldova do not refer to the same territory: Moldavia is a historical region within Romania which once was a principality also encompassing Moldova which is now an independent republic bordering Romania. (I am sure that this explanation clarified everything :) :) :) ) Borsoka (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a New issue, from the fix above. When you say Dacia "was surrendered by native tribes", do you mean "was surrounded by native tribes", or "was forced to surrender by native tribes", or what?
- Thanks. Fixed. (Yes, English is not an easy language...) Borsoka (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Origin of the Romanians
1b Hatnotes: Jirecek Line should not be given a see-also-hatnote in "Origin of the Romanians", since a section should not list an article in a "see also" hatnote if that term is wikilinked in the text.
6b The haystack image has a two-sentence caption. Both sentences should end in periods.
1a When you first mention the Jireček Line, you should explain it, as in: "north of the 'Jireček Line', a conceptual boundary that divides the influence of Latin and Greek."
- Thanks. Text added. Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, your wording is much better than mine. – Quadell (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2a Most statements are cited using footnotes, and this is appropriate. For some direct quotes (such as "mixed with the Huns" or "of the Christians in the land of the Goths"), you similarly use footnotes to cite the source of the quote (Zosimus and Philostorgius, respectively). But for a few other direct quotes, you use a parenthetical inline citation method mixed with footnote citations. In this section, you follow the direct quote "evolution of Vulgar Latin into Proto-Romanian" with "(Vlad Georgescu)", and then use a footnote citation to further describe the source. The guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources says "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style", and lists "switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags" in its list of things to be avoided. If it is necessary to give the source of a quote in the text, you should do so via a textual rewording, instead of using a parenthetical citation style. So in this instance, the sentence could be reworded like so: "The 'evolution of Vulgar Latin into Proto-Romanian', as the scholar Vlad Georgescu termed it,[cite] is...". You may be able to word this better, and you might feel that it is not necessary to name Georgescu in the text. But either way, it's important to avoid mixing parenthetical and footnote citation styles. (This is also an issue in the "North of the limes" section, below.)
- Scythia Minor and the limes...
1b Hatnotes: Scythia Minor is listed as the main article. But the Scythia Minor article is actually shorter than the section, so it isn't really a place for the reader to find more thorough information on the topic of the section. Instead, the "Scythia Minor and the limes on the Lower Danube" should wikilink Scythia Minor on first mention, but should not refer to it as the main article.
6b The caption "Scythia Minor" should be improved. I'm honestly not sure that the map is useful in this article, since most colonies in the map are not mentioned and the map does not provide context for Scythia Minor's location in Europe.
- Thanks. New caption and a new map added.Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That new map is very useful! I rearranged a few images to keep the maps near the sections they refer to. Feel free to revert me if you think it looked better before. – Quadell (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4 The prose in this section is very good. But the wording at the end could be more neutral. Right now it displays the common classical bias of siding with Rome over outsiders. Instead of "the fortress fell to the enemy", you should reword this. Perhaps "The Avars overtook the fortress" would be appropriate?
- Thanks. New wording (I am not sure who took the fortress). Borsoka (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- North of the limes
1b Hatnotes: Carpians and Sarmatians should be wikilinked and briefly defined in the text of the "North of the limes" section, but those articles are not really "main articles" for the section.
- Thanks. Deleted, wikilinked. Carpians and Sarmatians are defined under the title "Roman provinces and native tribes". Borsoka (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a It would be clearer if you started this section with "The former Roman provinces of Transylvania and northern Banat", to introduce the regions. (They were former provinces, yes?)
- Thanks. New wording (Transylvania and Banat were not Roman provinces. They are regions which used to be part of the Roman province of Dacia Traiana).Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a By "Carpians", do you mean "Carpathians"?
- Thanks. No: Carpians was a people living in the region of the Carpathian Mountains. New wording. Borsoka (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is much clearer, thank you! – Quadell (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a I don't understand the "but" in the last sentence. Wouldn't being admitted into the empire make it more likely that they would survive?
2a As I mentioned above, you shouldn't mix parenthetical and footnote citation styles. Here, you follow "shadowy and poorly understood" with "(I. P. Haynes, W. S. Hanson)", and then use a footnote citation to further describe the Haynes and Hanson source. The sentence could be reworded like this:
- The existence of local Christian communities can be assumed in Porolissum, Potaissa and other settlements, due to evidence such as pottery with "Chi-rho" signs and other Christian symbols.[cite] However the scholars I. P. Haynes and W. S. Hanson judge this evidence to be "shadowy and poorly understood".[cite]
- You can probably reword it better yourself, if you prefer, and you may decide that it is not necessary to name the scholars in the text; I trust your judgment there.
- Gutthiuda
1b Hatnotes: I don't think Thervingi is properly speaking a main article. It's linked in the text, which is enough. Listing Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov culture as "see also" is inappropriate for two reasons: first, it's a redirect to Chernyakhov culture, and second, it's linked in the text instead. It's fine to list Gothic Christianity as a "see also", but I would prefer if it were linked in the text instead. (Perhaps following "Christian prisoners of war were the first missionaries among the Goths" with "and ushered in the developing tradition of Gothic Christianity". But use whatever wording is most appropriate.)
- Thanks. Actually, I think Thervingi is the proper "main article", because Gutthiuda was the land of the western Goths, that is Thervingi. Likewise, reference to the "Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov culture" is important, because (1) that was the archaeological culture which specified Gutthiuda (therefore the article describing its main features, also characterizes the territory of modern Romania in the same period). (2) "Chernyakov culture" is traditionally referred as "Sântana de Mureş" or "Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakov culture" in connection with the history of Romania (Sântana de Mureş/Marosszentanna is a village in Romania). Borsoka (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think Thervingi is the article that the "Gutthiuda" section summarizes, then that's fine. I agree that reference to Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov culture is important, and I'm glad it's linked in the text with that name, but it's not correct as a see-also hatnote. This is because "see also" hatnotes and sections should never include articles that are linked to in the text. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout says "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body".) – Quadell (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your undersanding and for the above clarification. "Santana de Mures" see also deleted. Borsoka (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6b The image File:Tezaur MNIR IMG 7326.JPG is not clearly relevant, since the Pietroasele Treasure is never mentioned in the article, and the caption does not describe the context. This could be fixed either by removing the image or expanding the text and caption.
- Gepidia
1a The prose in this section is generally very good, but there are a few places where an added explanation would help the reader. If this section started with "The Gepids were an East Germanic tribe closely related to the Goths", it would properly introduce the subject. And the first mention of Ardaric would be more clear if it were slightly expanded to say "...but the latter remained united under the rule of the Gepid king Ardaric".
1b Hatnotes: Gepids is a fine main-article hatnote here. The see-also Apahida necropolis is not needed, since it's linked in the text (as "sumptuous tombs"). The see-also Gepidia is problematic, since it's a redirect to Kingdom of the Gepids, and really it should be linked in the text instead of listed as a see-also. (Personally, I think the Kingdom of the Gepids article should be merged into the Gepids article anyway -- but that's not relevant to this article.) Similarly, it would be better if the Battle of Nedao were mentioned and wikilinked in the text, instead of listed as a see-also. Both of these could be handled, if you choose, by rewriting the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph as follows:
- The Gepids regained their independence in the Battle of Nedao and "ruled as victors over the extent of all Dacia", forming the Kingdom of the Gepids that same year.
- Thanks. Deleted. Battle of Nedao is not so important in this context: the Gepids regained their independence, full stop. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hunnic Empire
1b Hatnotes: Hunnic Empire is a fine main-article hatnote here. Battle of Nedao is not needed as a see-also, since it's wikilinked in the text. "Attila the Hun" isn't needed either, though Attila should be wikilinked and introduced in the text. (Perhaps "...an Eastern Roman envoy sent to Attila, the Huns' most famous ruler, in 448" or something similar.)
1a The direct quote in the first sentence feels awkward to me. I think it would be better to reword it in a way that's not a direct quote. The rest of the prose in this section is great.
- Dark Ages
4 There is a "Dark Ages" supersection, but the phrase "Dark Ages" is problematic. Looking at the disambiguation page for Dark Ages, I'm not sure what you mean by the term. If you mean the Early Middle Ages, the whole article is about that period. So consider revising the name for this supersection, and perhaps you might find it best to revise the division into "Late Roman Age", "Dark Ages", and "Last waves..."
- Thanks. I would prefer this expression. I refer to Britannica [1], the which states that the expression is "sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period", and this is the case: there is little information on these centuries. Borsoka (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I'm familiar with the Greek Dark Ages, which are probably comparable. Would "Romanian Dark Ages" be a better section title, to distinguish it from the European "Dark Ages"? – Quadell (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of "Romanian Dark Ages" could not be substantiated by reliable sources. I still suggest that this title should be preserved: it is clear, and can be substantiated by reliable sources cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Between Huns and Avars
1b Hatnotes: The main-article-hatnotes are fine, although "Sclavenes" should be Sclaveni (the actual article name). I don't know enough about the Early Slavs or Korchak culture to say for sure, but these see-also-hatnotes seem like they are appropriate.
- Thanks. "Sclaveni" added instead of "Sclavenes". "Antes" and "Sclavenes" are regarded by most scholars (I refer to the works by Barford, Fine, Heather cited in the article) as Early Slavs, but this view is criticised by Curta (his works are also referred to). In order to provide a NPOV I preferred to use the neutral "Antes" and "Sclaveni/Sclavenes" terms (used by all these reliable sources in accordance with the primary sources). Moreover, also in order to be neutral, the section refers to the fact that between c. 450 and 550 diverse local cultures existed in the region. The reference to the "Korchak culture" (whose existence is sharply criticised by Curta and Teodor 2005) is deleted. Borsoka (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a "Between" can refer to temporal relations or spacial relations. It seems to me that the "Between the Huns and Avars" section uses "between" in a temporal sense, describing the people of the Romanian region after the Huns had retreated but before the Avars came to dominate in western Romania. Is that correct? It's confusing because the Huns were at their peak in 450, but the "Between the Huns and Avars" section runs from c. 420 to c. 600. Or is the word "between" here meant spatially, referring to the region between the Hunnic Empire and the region controlled by the Avars? The section seems to be mostly about archaeological evidence regarding Sclavenes and Antes. Would "Antes and Sclavenes" be a better name for the section?
- Thanks. The date is corrected (it was a mistake). Text referring to Sclavenes from the "Avar period" transferred to the proper subsection. I would not change the subtitle's name, because it is neutral without suggesting any ethnic context. Borsoka (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a "All featuring objects... disappeared..." I don't know what this means. What are "featuring objects", and where did they go? Does this mean that all the characteristic objects of Hunnic culture ceased to be made? This could be clearer.
1a Related to the above issue, it seems like this section could use an introductory sentence. Something like "After the defeat of the Huns, the Romanian region settled into a long period of decline" or "After the defeat of the Huns, the Romanian region underwent a dramatic cultural shift" or whatever is most accurate. Some sort of sentence would certainly be useful to introduce the various evidences given in this section.
6a It looks like File:Slavic tribes in the Balkans.png is non-free, and will probably be deleted on Commons.
- Thanks. Let's wait: if it is deleted on Commons, this will not be an issue. Borsoka (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good. I've been talking with the map's creator, and it's possible he will recreate it at the same name, in a version that won't need to be deleted. If so, it will be good to keep it. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After 9 days, I deleted the map. Thanks for noticing the potential copyright issue. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's too bad. I have asked the map's creator to recreate it. If he does so, I'll add it back in. – Quadell (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6b The image File:Slavic fibula Crypta Balbi.jpg is not clearly relevant, since the "Slav fibula" is never mentioned in the article, and the caption does not describe the context. This could be fixed either by removing the image or expanding the caption and/or text.
1a Jordanes used the terms "Sclavenes" or "Antes", not the term.
1a "Ant leaders" feels odd. Should this be "Antes leaders" or "Antean leaders" instead? The Antes people article never uses "Ant" as an adjective.
- Thanks. (Although it was so nice. :) ) Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a "This story supports ancient authors' claims that Sclavenes and Antes lived 'under a democracy'". There are two issues here. First, I don't understand how proposing a Latin-speaking military commander supports the idea that they lived under a democracy. Second, calling it a "story" suggests that it might not be true. If historians believe it is likely to have happened, don't call it a story. (If historians think the event is apocryphal, the previous sentence should be clarified to say so.)
- Thanks. Restructured and new wording. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I fully understand this part now. – Quadell (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a In this section, I suspect "the Romans" refers to the Byzantines. I know the primary sources called them "Romans", but it would be less confusing to refer explicitly to the Byzantine Empire instead of the Roman Empire.
- Thanks. "Eastern Roman" instead of "Roman" (actually academic works also use the term "Roman" - I refer to Barford, Curta, etc.)Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Avar Empire
1b Hatnotes: Why is Eurasian Avars the main article, with Avar Khaganate as a see also? It seems to me that Avar Khaganate would be the main article, since it is about the confederacy in the Romanian region from 567 to 804. I would leave Eurasian Avars out of the hatnotes, but link it at first mention (in the first sentence). What do you think?
1a I don't understand the last sentence. Do you mean this? The last remnants of the Avar Empire were resettled in Pannonia by Charlemagne
- Between Avars and Hungarians
6b I don't believe File:Europe around 800.gif is useful in the article. None of it can be read without serious magnification, and little of the contents are discussed in the article.
1b Hatnotes: Gelou, Gesta Hungarorum, Glad (duke), and Menumorut should not be see-also-hatnotes, but should be linked in the text. History of the Székely people is a very appropriate see-also.
- Thanks. I am sure that the deletion of the "Romanian" Gelou, Glad and Menumorut would create a lasting edit war, especially if the reference to the history of the (Hungarian-speaking) Székely people would be left as the only article to be "see also". This is a sensitive issue in this part of the universe. Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I'm not very familiar with the political implications of emphasizing one group over another, and I understand it can be tricky. I know that it is usually discouraged to have "see also" hatnotes for articles that are linked in the text, and that we should strive to avoid that whenever possible. Currently there are four see-also hatnotes that are also linked in the text. Is there a way to reduce that without seeming biased? Would it be better to remove all see-also hatnotes in this section? I'm really not sure what the best balance is, but I suspect the current situation (with four duplicated see-alsos) is not it. – Quadell (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2a There's another instance where the author is cited with a parenthetical citation: "new cultural synthesis" (Coriolan H. Opreanu)
Question: Are "Dridu" settlements and huts here related to the Dridu commune? Is it worth linking, or would that just confuse the reader? I really don't understand how the word "Dridu" is used here at all.
- The article now fully and succinctly explains the topic. – Quadell (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a Similar to the question above regarding "Between the Huns and Avars", I have trouble understanding what the "Between Avars and Hungarians" section is primarily about. Is "between" meant temporaly, referring to the time period between Avar domination and the Hungarian conquest? Or does it mean the region between those areas? It's confusing because the Avar Empire was estimated to last from around 560 to 800, but the "between" section is designated 600-900, so the time periods mostly overlap. But the physical regions seem to overlap as well, with Aras dominating in the far west, and Hungarians presumably coming from the west as well... and the section is more about the far east of Hungary.
1a "Hungarian conquest of the territory" should link to Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, since it has not previously been mentioned. The text then says "but did not mention the conquerors' opponents known from contemporary sources." So... who were the conquerors' opponents? This section also mentions Vlachs for the first time in the article, and should link to Vlachs and explain the term.
- Thanks. Linked. Examples added. Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First Bulgarian Empire before conversion
1b Hatnotes: First Bulgarian Empire is a very appropriate main-article-hatnote. None of the see-also hatnotes are needed, since they are all linked in the text.
1a It seems to me that this section would be more natural after "Avar Empire" and before "Between Avars and Hungarians". It's a self-contained unit, referring to the Bulgars and Byzantines. The "Avar Empire" section ends with the Bulgar attacks, so it would be natural to immediately explain the Bulgars after that. And the "Between Avars and Hungarians" section ends with discussions of "the Hungarian conquest of the territory", which the image caption also mentions, so it would be natural for "Hungarians before conversion" to immediately follow it. What do you think?
- Thanks. Merged into a previous section ("Emergence of new powers"), together with parts of the "Hungarians before conversion section". Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hungarians before conversion
1b Hatnotes: The main-article-hatnote here is great, and the see-also hatnotes Hungarian prehistory and Simeon I of Bulgaria seem appropriate. But Gyula II and III are linked to in the body, so they should not be see-alsos.
- First Bulgarian Empire after conversion
1a It isn't immediately clear to the reader if the events of this section involve just a neighbor of Romania, or involves an empire that ruled a small part of what is now Romania, or involves an area that includes nearly all of modern Romania. Any little bits of orienting information you could add would be helpful. (For instance, when you say "Byzantine troops occupied large portions of Bulgaria", or when you say "the Byzantines conquered the whole territory of the Bulgarian Empire", these would be natural places to mention whether current Romanian territory is included.)
- Patzinakia
6b It would be better if the caption for the "runestone G134" explicitly said how it related to Pechenegs. For instance, it could say "The 11th-century runestone G134 from Gotland may describe Vlachs travelling with Pechenegs." (Or whatever's most accurate.) This is necessary because the caption uses very different language to identify the stone than the article does.
- Thanks. I opted deleting the picture, because it is difficult to describe. (Blakumen are mentioned in the runestone who might have been Vlachs who possibly lived in present-day Romania (which was the land of the Pechenegs around 1050). I added "Blakumen" as "main". Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a Just as was true in the "Between Avars and Hungarians" section, I don't really know what you mean by "Dridu" villages.
- Thanks. I guess, it is now solved. Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Byzantine revival
- Cumania
1b Hatnotes: Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania is linked in the text, so shouldn't be a see-also.
6a File:Baba 0084.JPG might be non-free. I nominated it for deletion on Commons. Then again, it may be free after all; we'll see what the author says. Anyway, hopefully we'll find out soon.
- Thanks. I wait one more day. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now reasonably sure it will be deemed a free image. – Quadell (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mongol invasion
1b When you mention "The Mongols", it should be linked... though I'm not sure whether Mongols or Mongol Empire would be more appropriate.
- Throughout the article
1b In order to avoid articles expanding forever and becoming unmanageably long, we use hatnotes in sections to say where more information can be found. "Main article" hatnotes direct the reader to an article which fully describes the content of the section in a more detailed way. "See also" hatnotes give related articles which obliquely refer to the content of the section, but which are not themselves wikilinked in the text of the section. Sometimes this article uses hatnotes correctly, but there are hatnote problems throughout. I have tried to list all hatnote problems in the sections above, but you should go through all the "See also" and "main article" designations and make sure they are truly appropriate, adding appropriate hatnotes when necessary. And in particular, I would say that Origin of the Romanians should not be disambiguated at the top of the article, since it is the main article of the "Origin of the Romanians" section of this article. Similarly, the "See also" section at the bottom of the article lists three articles, but I don't think a "See also" section is needed at all for this article. (Early Middle Ages is already linked in this article, and the other two aren't related enough to be included.) Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#See also section to see Wikipedia's official guidelines on "See also" sections.
- Thanks. "Origin of the Romanians" is not disambiguated any more. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Early Middle Ages should not be in the "see also" list at the bottom of the article. Consider removing the entire "See also" list at the bottom, though that's necessary for GA promotion.
- Thanks. Deleted all previous "see also"-s (they were not specific enough), and I added one article (History of the Székely people), which is closely connected to the early medieval history of Romania (and there are references to the Székelys in the article), but it is a separate topic. Borsoka (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1a The article first explicitly mentions the Byzantine Empire in the "First Bulgarian Empire before conversion (c. 670–864)" section, and there it is not Wikilinked... the Eastern Roman Empire is mentioned back in the "Scythia Minor and the limes on the Lower Danube (c. 270–c. 700)" section, and is not Wikilinked. The article should clearly mention the Byzantine Empire, with a Wikilink, the first time it is important in the history of Romania, and it should be clear even to someone with little knowledge of European history just who the major players are in any given section.
- Thanks. Wikilinks added. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that the article uses the term "Eastern Roman" 11 times, and also uses the term "Byzantine" 12 times. In my opinion, it would be an improvement to be as consistent as possible in how you refer to this empire. (This isn't necessary for GA status, but it's something to consider.) – Quadell (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I hope that the article is consequent (and is in line with reliable sources): the "Eastern Roman" term is only used for the years preceeding 610 and the "Byzantine" term is exclusively for the next period. Nevertheless, I added a text which may help to link the two terms: Constantine IV is now referred as "Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Emperor" (this is the first occasion, the "Byzantine" term is used in the text). Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
1b The lead is a little short. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should summarize every major section in the article. When I compare this to recently featured articles, the Ming Dynasty and Colorado River articles are about 20% longer than this one, but your lead is less than half as long. This lead is roughly the same length as the lead at All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes, a much shorter article. So make sure the lead covers all sections in a summary way, and make it a little longer.
1a The lead is very good. Almost everything in the lead is fully covered in the article body, and it effectively summarizes material found throughout the article. (It's a good lead; it just needs a little more.) But there is one fact in the lead which is not found in the body of the article: that Romanians were "also called Vlachs during this period". That fact should be mentioned in the body somewhere.
- Thanks. Referenced text added under the subtitle "Origin of the Romanians". Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingdom of Hungary
1b Hatnotes: This section does not list a main article, but I would have thought it would be Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1526). In addition, Székely Land is really the only valid see-also hatnote here. (Transylvanian Saxons should instead be linked where it is mentioned in the text, and the other articles are already linked in the text.)
- Thanks. Added. Deleted. "Transylvanian Saxons" are as important as the Székely people (in the middle ages the Hungarian noblemen, the Székely people and the Transylvanian Saxons together formed the "Three Nations of Transylvania" Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6b The article refers to "the Cistercian abbey at Cârţa", but the caption refers to "Ruins of the Cârţa Monastery". It would be clearer if both used the same descriptor (or if the caption was expanded to explain the significance).
1a Up until now, the article has not mentioned "Romanians" as a people (outside the lead). It's mentioned the Romanian region, and the Romanian language... and of course it has gone into depth about various groups such as Bulgarians, Vlachs, Avars, etc. But in this section, the article suddenly starts referring to the "Romanians", contrasting them with Pechenegs, Székelys, and Saxons. It isn't clear at all who they were, or where they came from.
- Thanks. The "Early history of the Romanians" section clarifies that the Romanians are descendants of the Romance speaking population of Southeastern Europe. The "Emergence of new powers" section also refers to their mention by a late source in connection with the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Otherwise, the origin of the Romanians is a highly debated and emotionally sensitive issue in this region. Accordingly, I assume, the best approach is if we follow the example set by Curta (Curta 2006): he only concentrates to the facts ("they are mentioned by this source and by that source....") without clearly taking sides in favor or against any theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis, or without mentioning that the Romanians' ethnogenesis is subject to debate. Furthermore, there is a separate article on the Romanians' origin, I suggest we should not repeat it here. Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aftermath
1b The Aftermath section seems very short to me. It simply deals with the aftermath of the Mongol attacks. It says that the main article is Romania in the Middle Ages, so this section should include a paragraph or two explaining in broad strokes how the Romania described in this article grew into the Romania we see in that article.
- Follow-up: Thinking about it further, it seems to me that all the text in "aftermath" would be more fitting in the "Mongol invasion" section. Then an "Aftermath" section would need to be written, of perhaps 2 paragraphs, describing briefly how the Romania of the Early Middle Ages fared in subsequent eras.
- Thanks. I am working on this. I need some time for working on the issues raised above. I think on Saturday I can finish. I appreciate your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about half more than half done. I'll continue reviewing, but this is a long process. Please don't be discouraged by the number of issues I'm raising! I'm very impressed with this article, and I think by the time the GA process is done it will be in incredible shape. Thanks for continuing to work on it. – Quadell (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Quadell, working with you is a privilege for me. I will be thinking on the proper way of dealing with the issues you raised in the next couple of hours. For the time being the lead and the aftermath section are my greatest concerns. Actually, I will not be concentrating on these issues, but I will let my "grey cells" work own their own. I will go on editing tomorrow. Have a nice day!Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am finally finished reviewing this article. If all these issues are addressed in a relatively quick amount of time, I'm sure this will achieve GA status. I'll keep watching this page to answer any questions, and to
strike through any issues that are resolved. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
