Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2007

Contents

Kept status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 15:49, July 31, 2007.

Belgrade

Review commentary

Messages left at WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Belgrade. Todor→Bozhinov 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed tags and largely unreferenced sections, images are too big and too many (they disrupt the text flow), formatting issues (particularly with references, as most don't seem to use cite templates or a unified style of reference formatting), too great reliance on web references (needs way more published sources). I'm pretty sure Geography can be expanded (I'd call it a stub section), and History may have to be summarized a bit more. Although it hasn't been tagged, Names through history is also unreferenced. Todor→Bozhinov 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • My goodness — look at those footnotes (I was traveling when this was promoted). No publishers identified, so we need to click on or mouse over 100 sources to see if they're reliable. No dates, no authors, no last access dates. Lots of WP:UNITS fixes needed also. Apparently promoted on fan support, without serious review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
What? "Citation needed tags" as in a single citation needed tag added last week (now removed)? "Unreferenced sections" as in a single unreferenced section, also since last week? (The other tagged section was referenced.)
When the article was promoted, concern was raised about the images, and it was decided that one image per section should be fine; images have not been changed since.
There are no formatting issues with references. Yes, they don't use cite templates, but that is not a FA requirement. Cite templates could be added easily if they are needed. No, there is no overreliance on web references. All the references are either on-line editions of printed material or official sites, mostly official site of Belgrade, both of which is perfectly acceptable. Publishers are almost always identified.
Geography could perhaps be expanded but I really don't see how could the history section be trimmed.
As for accusations of "fan support", how about actually looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgrade? I never saw most of those people, and most of them have never edited the article. Nikola 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • When this article was in FAC, I mentioned the problem with the citations - I insisted on the fact that there were no printed sources, and all the emphasis was on inline sources, something not enough for such an important topic with historical and cultural parameters. Aren't there any printed sources talking about the history of Belgrade? Why are the editors occupied just with the Internet. Anyway, even if such sources are not added, I hope that the current citations will be properly and uniformly formatted, indicating publisher, work etc. Make proper use of Template:cite web or Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to blow my own trumpet, but I did the vast majority of the work to get the article to featured status. Given my current location, books about the history of Belgrade weren't readily available. And like Nikola says, it's not like I used Geocities - the official sites of the city and various musuems etc should be reliable, wouldn't you agree?--Hadžija 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Misunderstanding above: there is no request to use citation templates, which are not required. Publishers and last access dates are needed on all websources, and authors and publication dates should be specified when available. See WP:CITE/ES, and I made several sample edits. Also, on one of my sample edits, the text claimed something about the Financial Times, but the citation was to the City of Belgrade, and I was not able to find any confirmation with the Financial Times. This is an example of why complete citations should be given, to help readers verify validity of sources without having to click on each one. Completely formatting references does not mean that cite templates must be used; it just means the necessary info should be provided for a complete reference, by whatever means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I worked hard in last two days to address the major concerns raised here (citing style, English-language references where possible, architecture and timeline citing); maybe I made some errors in the hurry, but I hope the article is better now. Duja► 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It starts looking better already, keep up the good work! Todor→Bozhinov 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List:

  • Miscellaneous is not an encyclopedic heading.
  • References are still not formattted; blue links without publishers identified and without last access dates or language icons, author and publication date when available. See citation examples. The references are not presented in any consistent, recognizable or professional citation format.
  • I fixed them with Gimmetrow's script, but regular editors should become familiar with footnote placement and punctuation per WP:FN.**
  • WP:UNITS still unaddressed (non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement).
  • Wikilinking needs attention; per WP:CONTEXT, common words like "protest" do not need to be linked.
  • WP:DASH attention needed, as well as copyedit needs; sample — Besides to its native born population, Belgrade is home to many Serbs from all over the former Yugoslavia, who either came seeking a better life, or fled as refugees from war and ethnic cleansing. Unofficially - taking into account the large number of Serb refugees from Croatia, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Miscellaneous: acknowledged supposedly fixed
    • WP:UNITS, WP:DASH: acknowledged supposedly fixed
    • References not formatted? I've just fixed 3-4 obvious typos in cite web, and 95% references does have publisher indicated. 99% references are from cite web and/or cite book templates.
    • The "protest" is not linked to protest, but introduced by myself yesterday.
    • Copyediting: acknowledged, but I prefer to leave it with someone with better command of English.
  • Duja► 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes are still not formatted. Have you looked at WP:CITE/ES? I would make some more sample edits to help get you started, but the ones I made days ago were removed. I'm not sure how else to get across the work that needs to be done on the footnotes, as Yannis also mentioned it above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Another example of sourcing issues, which I raised above and has not been addressed. There is a statement about Belgrade winning an award from the Financial Times, but sourced to the City of Belgrade website. It should be sourced to the Financial Times, which I couldn't find. But I did find that it was sourced to a magazine, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) owned by the Financial Times. The source should be the fdimagazine article. The article referencing needs work still; too many primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), images (3), comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 10:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixes Needed - 1 (a)- Prose: in terms of content I feel looks ok; I'll muse on this with a copyedit. The main problems are two: it needs a thorough copyedit. I'll make a few soon. It is unfortunate that the books mentioned in Further Reading aren't used as references rather than loads of websites. I'll let someone else look at the image status.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

First para of lead is listy.
Layout - first para of History section badly needs expanding. A few more lines on Celts and Romans should do it.
If I have to vote today, I'd say Remove on the basis of 1(a) Prose and 1(c) referencing. All websites and EB - with all these nice books listed in further reading but not cited? However I will have a look tomorrow to see what else can be done if there is any time left.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As an update, I did add a bit to the history but ultimately am unable (ok, let's face it unwilling) to address teh crux of it which is the referencing. I note there has been little movement since the 18th. This is frustrating as there is not a huge amount to do for someone familiar with it or with a good book or two...
Thanks for your edits. Well, there's been "little movement since the 18th", because there's no one else active around and familiar with the subject and in possession of a "good book or two" (Well, that might lead us to FA concern of maintainability :-) ). The concern of heavy relying on web sources is acknowledged, but 1) it wasn't an obstacle for the article to pass the original FA nomination, even with far worse sourcing than now and 2) why fix if ain't broken, i.e. why artificially introduce book references when there are fine online ones? I do agree it would be nice if the article had it from the outset, but it didn't.
To briefly address Sandy's footnote formatting issues: all the references do use {{cite web}} now (except a few using cite paper or cite book). A large portion of it are city's or companies official sites, where the article author and publication date are not indicated; in those cases, the publisher=Official site of... rather than author=Official site of... is used (a small effort can be done to replace that, but I don't think it's a big deal). Thus, they might not appear identically formatted, but that's what {{cite web}} gives.
While I acknowledge my mild COI on the topic (although I didn't actively develop it to the FA status), I'd say that the article's shortcomings are not such that they justify FA removal. YMMV of course. Duja► 08:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, this is very frustrating; weeks have gone by, the article has improved, and yet each time I look at the article there are still MOS and copyedit issues (someone should run through with an eye for redundancy), and refs still aren't formatted. PLEASE see WP:CITE/ES, and note that all websources need a last access date. {{convert}} might be used to standardize and provide equivalents on measurements. The level of sourcing is still frustrating, for example In 2006 the Financial Times of London awarded Belgrade the title of City of the Future of Southern Europe.[117] should be sourced to the Financial Times, not to the City of Belgrade. I seem to recall trying to find the source myself weeks ago, and it's not the Financial Times; it's a magazine associated with the FT. A few more days to finish up, or I'll be a Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    I've done an iteration of reference reviewing and formatting diff. I also did some copyediting, WP:$ fixes etc. Maybe a pair of fresh eyes could help regarding copyediting.
    As for access dates—D'oh! I did place them in most {{cite web}}s at the previous pass, but just now I realized that the argument name is accessdate=, not retrieved=. That probably explains why they didn't appear :-D. Should be reasonably complete now. I'll take a look at {{convert}} later... hopefully. Duja► 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The prose is a big problem. Take the opening para:
    • largest city OF the Republic (unidiomatic)
    • settlements emerged (unidiomatic)
    • "3rd"—see MOS.
    • Remove "literally".
    • First recorded ... where? Reference?
    • First became the capital in 1284. I presume that it lost and rewon this status later.
    • "as well as" x 2 in the same sentence, hello?

Remove it. Tony 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack, but there's still work going on from Duja. I'll ask Cas to look again at the prose. Marskell 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've changed some things Tony has highlighted and found some more. I feel a bit at sea with some sentences as I'm not sure of the underlying 'truth' as it were as I am not familiar with the topic, but will try when I have time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Aargh, I'm wading though the swamp of prose - dilemma "The hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest ever recorded in the world, also decimated the city's economy" - active tense but 3 clauses, or "The city's economy was also decimated by the hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest ever recorded in the world." - neater clauses but passive (infact 2nd passive in a row in the article....)......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And then we have this incomprehensible sentence in the first paragraph: "the Serbian Despotate was governed from the city from 1403 to 1427, while in modern times it was the capital of the Principality of Serbia, which became the Kingdom in 1882, and of the various incarnations of Yugoslavia from 1918 until 2006." I'm tempted to remove, but Duja is still plugging away. I'll ask him/her. Marskell 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Him. It would be a shame that the article is removed only on the basis of prose. Like I said before, I don't feel my English skills are adequate for FA-quality prose; even if they were (well, I can rise along the normal level on occasion, but only in the moments of concentration and inspiration), I waded through that text so many times that I cannot even notice clumsiness and redundance. I've asked a friend for a pair of fresh eyes.
I replaced the sentence in question with a more universal one, but it still didn't turn out right even for myself. I'm sure there are more within the text, but like I said, I can't really see them. As always, any help is welcome :-). Duja► 08:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Not done yet, but here's what I've noticed so far. All things considered, the prose really isn't that bad, just a few "a"'s and "the"'s that need adding/removing, and some rearranging of phrases within sentences to help it all flow better. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Specific issues

  • The first settlements in the Belgrade area emerged from the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC.
    OR
    The first settlement of the Belgrade area was by the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC.
    • I'm not sure which version I prefer, I think I remember someone complaining about "emerged" farther up this page, though I'm not sure why. But there's an alternative. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How about "Some of the oldest settlements in the Belgrade area are those of the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC."? Vinca itself emerged from Starčevo-Körös culture and lived in the same area (I'm not sure if there are Starcevo settlements found in Belgrade) but is much more known and that is why it is mentioned. Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Why make it sound more uncertain than it is, especially in an FA? "Some of the" is too reminiscent of "some people say this, others say that", but it looks pretty certain to me (now that I've gone and looked at the source) that the Starčevo culture was the first one, so that's the one that should be mentioned, lesser known or otherwise, and especially since there's a link. Starčevo is also the only one mentioned with the 4800 BC date, not Vinča, so that crisscrossing should be fixed as well. ("The oldest/first settlement of the Belgrade area was by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC." Minor grammatical nitpicks for sticking with the singular, too.) Perhaps something like "predecessor to the Vinča culture" should be added to the history section, though, if that will help people. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, there are two things: 1) which settlements are found to have existed and 2) which settlements could be conjectured to have existed. As I said, there are discoveries of Neanderthal remains in Belgrade but I can't find a source. So, it could be "Among the oldest settlement of the Belgrade area were those by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC, followed by Vinča culture later on." Vinca should still be mentioned as it is more known. Or perhaps simply "4800 BC old settlements of Starčevo culture were found in Belgrade; they were followed by followed by Vinča culture". This states facts without using veasely words. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
            • New edit, how's that work? -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Factually, it's perfect. Note that Starcevo culture probably didn't settle from somewhere but also emerged from an earlier culture. I also don't like how the intro goes from the first sentence to Starcevo without any interruption. Nikola 08:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (Undent) I don't doubt that in the least, every culture comes from something earlier, but if there's no known earlier culture, then it doesn't matter (until found). As for the abruptness, that sentence could be switched around a little to read "The area was settled by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC, and later by the Vinča culture." which makes the paragraph a little better, but the sentence doesn't flow as well then. I'm not sure what else could be done to give it some more lead-in, unless the entire intro is rearranged and/or more information is added. I do agree with you that it could be improved, but (at least given the sentence rearranging) I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. -Bbik★ 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The terrain of Belgrade proper is hilly, and the highest point of the metropolitan area (303 m) is Torlak hill.
    • This sentence feels awkward, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Belgrade proper as in the actual city, and metropolitan area as in the city and surrounding city-like area? Why is a differentiation made? It sounds like the two areas have the same general terrain. Perhaps "The terrain of the Belgrade metropolitan area is hilly, with the highest point (303 m) at Torlak hill."? Or, if both phrases are meant to refer to the same area, depending on which area that is, leave out "metropolitan" and either stop there, or substitute "area" for "proper" (and delete "the"). -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Uh; "Belgrade proper" is meant to denote the "old" city (but the "old" is not a proper adjective either, as it also significantly expanded in the last 50 years), on the right bank of Sava. I'll try to add a clarification. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Metropolitan area is roughly divided in two parts: one that is hilly and one that is not; the city center is in the hilly area, but also most of the rest of the city. Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • So... is how it is now ok, or what are you suggesting? The last sentence could be shifted into the middle of the first to make it that much clearer that both sides of the rviers are part of Belgrade, but that makes the entire paragraph incredibly choppy and not fun to read. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd say it's OK. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For about four centuries, the city remained a battleground between Byzantium, the Kingdom of Hungary and the First Bulgarian Empire.
    • Byzantium the city (what the link is about), or the Byzantine Empire? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The north, however, resisted in the form of the Serbian Despotate, which had Belgrade as its capital.
    • Can I say "The north, however, resisted by forming the Serbian Despotate, which had/with Belgrade as its capital."? It flows better, but is it technically incorrect as far as history is concerned? Was the Despotate formed, or just a renaming of what remained from the Empire? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd say, the latter. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Its ancient walls, castles, harbours and churches were refortified...
    • Its? What's its? Belgrade's? Does Belgrade have multiple castles? The Despotate's? If the Despotate's, the sentence should just be deleted (and somewhere around there it should be broken into two paragraphs, I can't decide where). -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps we could simply say "Belgrade fortress was refortified". Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Why add a red link when it's unnecessary? As it is, there are already a lot of them (see my note at the bottom). I'm also not entirely certain what you're responding to or suggesting. Your sentence would make the most sense in response to the original bulletted version, but that's since been changed. So are you suggesting the entire current sentence be replaced with yours, or just part of it, or? -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • On the other hand, there is a link for Kalemegdan, which obviously covers the "ancient walls" part. It sounds like there was already a fortress there, though... Or multiple that kept being destroyed and rebuilt. Did Lazarević actually (re)build one himself, or just repair the latest version already there? -Bbik★ 18:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, there is slight difference between Kalemegdan and Belgrade fortress, in that, roughly, the former refers to today's park as well as to the fortress in its last stadium of use, while latter refers to the fortress during its entire existence. For now, the simplest solution could be to make a redirect from Belgrade fortress to Kalemegdan. Or, what you did. Per his famous quote, Stefan Lazarevic says that he found the city in ruins when he rebuilt it. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oriental influence increased, with Ottoman architecture and many new mosques.
    • Bleh. Sentence fragment with no easy way to fix it without getting wordy or redundant. "Oriental influence (also) increased with the greater availability of Ottoman architecture and many new mosques." perhaps? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • "Greater availability" - as if people had a choice of architecture, and Ottoman became available. How about "Introduction of Ottoman architecture and building of many mosques led to the city becoming increasingly Oriental."? Or perhaps drop "Oriental" and simply write "Turkish rule introduced Ottoman architecture to Belgrade and built many mosques in the city."? (Note that it should not be said that the mosques were new, since that would imply that there existed some old mosques). Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Fixed, I hope. Nikola 08:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I've reworded it a bit to keep "influence(s)" in there, simply because I don't imagine the city turned into a mini-Asia, though it probably picked up many of the aspects. But now, any way to connect the next sentence a bit better, beyond the tenuous "Turkish/Muslim influence needs to override Christian influence, so Christian items were destroyed"? -Bbik★ 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In 1817, it became the capital of the autonomous Principality of Serbia, and again in 1841, after a period with Kragujevac as the capital.
    After independence
    The capital was moved from Kragujevac to Belgrade by Prince Mihailo Obrenović, following the departure of the town's Turkish garrison in 1867.
    • Er... When/why did it move back to Kragujevac? The sentences themselves are fine, but there's a rather jarring jump between them. Any chance of a few words or a sentence explaining the switch this time? (For that matter, {{Historical capitals of Serbia}} doesn't even show Kragujevac as being the capital in 1866/67, though it shows Timisoara rather than Belgrade 1849-1860...) -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Pančevo Bridge, which crossed the Danube, was opened in 1935.
    • Has it fallen since? If not, that should be changed to "which crosses the Danube". -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • OK. Or, better, "the first that crossed..."? Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
        • "the first to cross the Danube (at Belgrade)", in that case, but unless it's the first bridge ever to cross the Danube, and that can be sourced (the one you've added is unclear whether it means first ever or first in Belgrade[/Serbia?]), it'll either cause disputes or require those last couple extra words to clarify. Same thing for the "and only one" bit. The Danube's a long river, I'd be hard-pressed to believe a single bridge in Serbia is the only bridge over the river. -Bbik★ 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The bridge has not fallen, but has since been replaced with another bridge of the same name, built at the same place. So it is not completely correct to say that it was "the first (and still the only one) over the Danube". Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok. I'm going to go put it back to "crosses", then, and this can all be explained in the bridge's page. If the stretch of the Danube included when calling the (original) bridge the first can be clarified, that could be worth readding. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
            • From the tansportation section, "...Belgrade has many bridges—the two main ones are Branko's bridge and Gazela..." Now I'm really confused how small an area there is around the Pančevo Bridge for it to be labelled the only one. -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Gazela, Branko's bridge and others are bridges over Sava. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yugoslavia was invaded by German, Italian, Hungarian and Bulgarian forces, and the western suburbs were incorporated into a Nazi puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia.
    • I deleted this sentence. Part of the history of Serbia, sure, but not Belgrade, unless it means the western suburbs of Belgrade, rather than of Yugoslavia as a whole, which is the implication. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Zemun, actually; but it wasn't really part of Belgrade until 1950s. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Your choice on whether to readd it or not, then, but perhaps a note indicating it means Zemun would be good, if you do readd. -Bbik★ 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I would readd it. Zemun was a part of the City of Belgrade in the Kingdom of yugoslavia (similar to Washington DC in USA today), see Kingdom of Yugoslavia#Banovinas. Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, that says that Belgrade and Zemun were under the same administration, not considered to be the same city. However, intended to be right after the bombing sentence, how's this work? "Yugoslavia was then invaded by German, Italian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian forces, and suburbs as far east as Zemun were incorporated into a Nazi puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. Belgrade became the seat of another puppet government, headed by General Milan Nedić." Though it still doesn't tie in the relation of Zemun to Belgrade for those who don't already know, and an entire explanation of "later a part of Belgrade" or some such seems a bit silly. Not to mention that the sentence is already bordering too long as it is, and two sentences for a loosely related event is too much. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, what today we would call "methropolitan area". What you suggest is mostly fine with me. It certainly wouldn't hurt to add a sentence about Belgrade's status in KoY as well. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Readded. And there's a whole paragraph about in in KoY, end of the WWI section. Anything else? -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • Yes, but the status isn't mentioned. Nikola 08:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • I'm calling this done, but if the rearranging doesn't sound right to you, unstrike it. Oh, and I unlinked Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenes because it's just a redirect to Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and it's silly to link the same article in a single sentence. -Bbik★ 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Both this and the earlier Luftwaffe bombing fell on the Orthodox Christian Easter.
    • Ok, and? Coincidentally? Intentionally? Interesting bit of trivia, but... it's just that. Trivia. It's not tied in at all. I'm reluctant to delete it, but the section would flow better without it, unless it can be worked in somehow. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Trivia. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It is claimed that the bombings were intentionally conducted on Christmas in order to increase number of civilian victims and instill greater fear in civilian population. I would return it if a source would be found. Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • You mean Easter, yes? It hasn't been removed. But if you can find a source saying that it was intentional, that would help greatly with tying it in. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, Easter of course. I don't think I can find a source right now. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In 1946, Colonel Draža Mihailović was tried for war crimes and executed in Belgrade.
    • His article says near Belgrade. Should this read "near (the city)" or "just outside (the city)" as well? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe it should be deleted; not so interesting piece of history as far as Belgrade is concerned. AFAIK, until recently, it wasn't even known where he's executed and/or burried (and I'm not sure what is know today).Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It could be removed. But a few sentences detailing the immediate post-war period could well be added. Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • What sort of details are you suggesting, then? It shouldn't be too terribly specific, this is only meant to be a summary; the specifics and other details should be in a main History of Belgrade page. Not to discourage you from adding more information, but the whole section is already rather long, and the main page would be more than justified. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
            • This is still somewhat of a contentious issue in Serbian history. Pay no attention to it. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Ok, striking it out, then. Unstrike if you come up with something. -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Later that day, tanks were deployed onto the streets to restore order. According to various media outlets, there were between 100,000 and 150,000 people on the streets that day.
    • "Later that day...that day." I can't think of a decent rephrasing, but it needs to be fixed. Also, what are these "various media outlets"? Any specific sources, beyond the one linked right after which claims 100,000? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • ...later "that day" is redundant.Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • <!--|-
    | Biograd na Dunavu
    | Old [[Croatian language|Croatian]] name, means White City on Danube-->
    • Why is it commented out? For being similar enough to the current name, or? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Unsourced, AFAICT, and not really relevant; Croats have never been in city's possession.Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I vote it be removed entirely, then, no need for it to be there and cause confusion to anyone else who notices it. -Bbik★ 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Could be. Perhaps it could be mentioned that original Slavic name was Бѣоград, with yat, that's where Biograd comes from (not sure if it was ever actually used). Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Beligrad is the name currently mentioned as being the original, though the source doesn't actually back that up, all it says is Beograd. Have any sources to support either original name claim? Here's one for Beligrad, though I don't know how reliable it's considered. Here's another, "Adapted from: "Treasures from Yugoslavia" An Encyclopedic touring guide"; perhaps someone could get ahold of that so we have a definitely reliable source? I don't imagine I'd be able to read anything that could support the other one, especially doing it as a Cyrillic search. -Bbik★
  • The first democratically elected mayor of Belgrade in modern times...
    • Were mayors democratically elected in Belgrade sometime in the past, too? -Bbik★ 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Before 1941. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah. Well, good I asked that, I was thinking there might've been elections in the Middle Ages or something. As far as I've ever seen, "modern times" typically means at least the 1900s, if not a little earlier. I'll go reword that. -Bbik★ 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The population has been estimated at 1,588,381 as of June 2007.
    • According to who? -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Can't find any reference. Remove it. Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Removed, see note in General comments. -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Taking into account the large number of refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, displaced persons from the province of Kosovo, students, and people counted in censuses in their hometowns, the population may surpass 2 million.
    • This follows a sentence talking about specifically Serbs coming to Belgrade from elsewhere, so is it also referring specifically to Serb refugees, Serb students, etc? The population estimate at the end and the following sentences would imply otherwise, but the setup of the paragraph confuses the situation. -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Problem gone, sentence removed. The list isn't much use without the (unsourced) population estimate, and was just a more specific version of the previous sentence, anyhow. Any complaints about the new version of the paragraph? I shifted info, so moved the references some too, but I think I matched it up right. -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • refugees from Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and displaced persons from the province of Kosovo...
    • Can this be simplified to just "refugees from Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and (the province of) Kosovo..." or will it cause some kind of uproar? It looks like there is in fact a difference between "refugee" and "displaced person", but it also seems like it's a fairly minor difference, and I'm not so sure this is really the sort of place that it matters. Discussing the specific people, or their situation, sure, but just listing who's included in a population estimate? In any case, the sentence is fixed for now, but if shorter is ok, it would be much better. -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ...the population may surpass 2 million.
    • Again, according to who? The next sentence is sourced, but it looks like the last census, rather than something that would back up the 2 million figure. -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • 2 million is figure which Belgraders often talk about when bragging about the size of their city but without any solid background. See, for example, [1] (site of the Tourist Organisation of Serbia!). If you ask me, it could be removed altogether. Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Removed, see note in General comments. -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Economy section
    • It's frustrating me. It feels stunted, or something, and refuses to flow well. I've done some significant rearranging, and it now follows a timeline of sorts, but I'm not sure how much of an improvement it is. (Any chance the National Bank is in Belgrade because it's the most economically developed? That would make the first sentence work a whole lot better.) -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Belgrade has an extensive public transport system based on buses (118 urban lines and more than 300 suburban lines), trams (12 lines), and trolleybuses (8 lines).
    • Should the specific numbers really be there? That seems like something that should be left to the main article, but I'm a bit biased by having absolutely no interest in transportation, which is why I'm asking rather than outright deleting. -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Travel by coach is more popular, however, and the capital is well-served with daily connections to all major and minor towns in the country.
    • First, I assume the link I added is in fact the type of coach the sentence is talking about, right? Since trains were the sentence prior? Second, do one of those sources say it's more popular, rather than just also popular? Third, "to all major and minor towns"? Do these coaches really go to all locations that are bigger than a village? (It's also redundant and I've removed it, but left it here for the sake of confirmation.) -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I don't think that there exists a detailed comparison, yes, there are bus connections to anywhere. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Following renewed growth in 2000, the number of passengers reached approximately 2 million in 2004 and 2005. In 2006, 2 million passengers passed through the airport by mid-November.
    • Growth of the economic variety, presumably? Or is some other type of growth meant? And should it be "nearly 2 million in 2004 and 2005"? Otherwise, what difference does it make pointing out that there were again 2 million in 2006, or, perhaps, even a passenger drop again, since approximately could mean both more or fewer than the given number? -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

  • The last part of the Middle Ages section is still a bit clunky, but without de-summarizing, I'm not sure what to do about that. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The history section should probably be given its own page (and then be expanded significantly, obviously. I imagine there's plenty more information around, especially on the World Wars). The short bits for each subsection currently aren't bad, but there's a decent amount of information (mostly an overabundance of specific dates) that could be removed and would greatly help flow and readability. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • References should be checked, perhaps duplicated, now that I've split parts into paragraphs -- as it is now, much of the more recent history appears unsourced. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • According to MOS:NUM, units of measurement should be spelled out. I did for most, but spelling out km² seems far more unintuitive than any of the other units, so I left it alone. And besides, "square kilometers" or "kilometers squared"? The first just sounds weird to me. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like the article is in British English, though some things seemed to be a bit mixed. I'm not sure if I helped that out any or not, as I speak American English. I tried to look out for the differences, but I doubt I know all of them, and I wouldn't be surprised if I quite simply didn't notice a few because I'm so used to one spelling over another that it wouldn't stick out as wrong. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the policy on redirects in FAs? Should the actual links be piped, or is it not a big deal? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see why would that be a concern. Nikola 08:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I shifted a few pictures, and though some are now at the very end of the wrong section from an editting perspective, from a reading perspective at least they don't split the header from the main text or leave odd-looking single lines between images, and there's less overlapping of pictures at each end of the same line(s) of text. Despite that people say they've deleted pictures, there may still be a few too many. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember a discussion about COAs being covered by fair use guidelines, and as such they could not be used in the list of cities in Serbia. Since I imagine municipality COAs are much the same as city COAs, should the municipality ones also be removed from that section of this article? -Bbik★ 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Added only recently and removed by myself, even before I saw your comment. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • On the other hand, an awful lot of the partner city ones sound like they're handmade replicas, though not all of them. Should they all be removed, or keep some (more colors, but uneven), or? -Bbik★ 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of red links, especially in the Culture section. I got an awful lot of grief for that going for GA, was that just unusual, or should something be done to at least stub (the majority of) the links? -Bbik★ 03:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this is good: as a featured article, it is more visible, and red links will entice people to fill them in. Nikola 08:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is the Culture section longer than the main Culture of Belgrade page? Not to mention how big a difference there is. I don't know that the entire thing should be cut and moved, but certainly a large part of it. I'll see if I can come up with a shortened alternate version, but that could be a while. -Bbik★ 03:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Should Education really be a subsection of Culture? -Bbik★ 03:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Taking a look on articles about other cities, perhaps not. Nikola 08:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • More recent population estimates would be nice, if they can be sourced. Come across anything while you were formatting all the references, Duja? -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

More later, I need a break (and food!) now. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's been two and a half weeks since my last comment, and the references still aren't complete. If others are satisfied with the prose, I will do the reference work myself. If others aren't satisfied with the prose, that wouldn't be a good use of my time. Unless the prose is approved by Casliber, Tony and others (per objects above), I'm a Remove. If the prose is now good, let me know, and I'll correct the refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also just added a cite tag to this, so a new review for citation may be needed: The hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest inflation ever recorded in the world,[citation needed] also decimated the city's economy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • References added; I don't know how many should be added, but there are plenty more out there ([2] for one). I'm not sure what you're seeing wrong with the current reference formatting, though. Admittedly, I haven't looked too closely at them in my prose copyeditting, but even looking through the history to find your example repair edits, I'm not sure what you changed, except for a couple that I could see you moved the punctuation before the citation or removed the space between punctuation and citation. Are there more misplaced punctuation marks/spaces that I missed or something? If you could explain in a bit more detail what the problem is, we could do something about it. -Bbik★ 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the formatting is fine. Just check to add author, date, and retrieval date to those where it is absent. Marskell 09:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, there is still missing information (last access date on all websources, publisher on all sources, and publication date and author when available). I can finish this work if needed, but since some of the sources aren't English language, it won't be easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing: This has hit the two month mark, and I'm going to default keep it. An enormous amount has been done and the page has improved significantly. I gave the prose a slight brush-up and didn't notice any of the clunkers I saw previously. Page editors should watch for repeated blue links. I also think there's a bit of a gap in the history from 1970 to 1990. Marskell 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 09:18, July 29, 2007.

Byzantine Empire

Review commentary

Messages left at History, Classical Greece and Rome, History of Greece, Middle Ages and MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire is a brilliant prose promotion, which has grown dramatically from the version that was promoted more than three years ago. It has several deficiencies relative to current FA standards, and a review is warranted.

  • 4, It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. The article has 78KB or prose, making it one of the four or five longest FAs. Better use of summary style might be necessary.
  • 2, WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, etc. See also is massive and needs attention, and External links may need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. WP:DASHes need fixing, but since another editor is testing a script which automatically fixes them, that can be left for later in the review. Wikilinking seems uneven and may need attention.
  • 1c, a review of citation is in order. There are multiple, entire sections with no citations whatsoever. There are direct quotes with no citations, page numbers.
  • 1a prose, there is some capitalization I'm not sure on, and since I saw minor punctuation issues (The Angeloi dynasty has had an extremely poor reputation historically, with more than one historian finding them directly responsible for the collapse of Byzantine power[5]), a ce might be in order, given the amount of growth this article has seen since its promotion.

I suspect knowledgeable editors will be able to adequately trim, tweak, and tune up this article during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope knowledgeable editors will do their best. Has User:Bigdaddy1204 who is maintaining the page the page for some time been informed?--Yannismarou 06:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Now he has :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has been hijacked by Greek nationalists with their own agenda (see the numerous talk pages). It is definitely not deserving of FA status (although there may be some segments that are - they are not enough to compensate for the skewed opinions presented in other parts of the article). Roydosan 11:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Be specific please. Sending us to "the numerous talk pages" is not helpful. Oh, and by the way, I repeat to you that the main maintainer of the article during all these years is not Greek.--Yannismarou 14:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this. Sorry I have not responded until now - I have been very busy for the last few months, and this has left me with very little time to spare for wikipedia. And thankyou, Yannismarou - I very much appreciate your hard work at Manuel I Komnenos, and I am grateful for the respect you have shown to myself and other editors.

I believe that there are several specific and very serious problems with Byzantine Empire:

1. The sections concerning events after 1204 are in extremely bad condition, and need to be removed and replaced by new material.

2. There needs to be a clear decision on what this article is supposed to be - is it going to be long and detailed (as I would personally prefer), or short and concise? I have added some 9,000 words to the article in my time, but most of it has been removed by other editors, who are unwilling to consider compromise and who seem determined to shape the article to their own desires. This needs to be resolved. Personally, I find recent edits made by User:Lacrimosus, among others, to be little better than vandalism - he removes large sections of text (sometimes 1000s of words) without consultation, doesn't bother to find a new home for that text, and reverts any edits he doesn't like. This has got to be dealt with. As it stands now, I feel very disheartened, and at times I feel like giving up on wikipedia entirely.

3. We need to decide if another article, History of the Byzantine Empire, should be created, as has been suggested, so that the history of the empire could be treated in more detail there. I would support such an article, if it would end the current conflict; however, we need to discuss whether or not this is the best course of action to take. Some of my text has been relocated to new articles, but I do wonder if the material would be better placed in a general Byzantine Empire article than in an obscure related page that nobody is going to read (for example, Byzantine civilisation in the twelfth century, which by the way needs attention itself...).

Roydosan, you sound pretty disillusioned yourself. This I understand. But ultimately editors like us should stand up for this article, if we feel it is being taken in the wrong direction - together, we can make wikipedia a better place, whereas if we allow ourselves to just give up, wikipedia will be the worse for it. As Yannismarou has said, it would help us all if you would be a little more specific, though I think I know what you were referring to. Bigdaddy1204 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned I try for the time being to properly cite the article, fix some obvious prose deficiencies and keep it in a total length of about 105 kbs. The years after 1204 are my next priority in rewriting. I did not remove material from the Justinian, Heracleian and Isaurian period. I did some removals from the Komnenian period, which was the most detailed in the article, but, using WP:SS, I send the reader to Alexios' or Manuel's article, where he can find all the relevant details. As a matter of fact, after starting my rewriting, the article has become longer in terms of total length (from 104 kbs to 107 kbs) due to citations and additions in the Isaurian and Heracleian periods, which had serious flaws. Nevertheless, I do not worry much about that. My only priority now is quality, and then we'll see if there are worries about the length. After all, personally, I have a personal opinnion differing a bit from Sandy's views as far as FA's length is concerned.
In any case, I'll continue to gradually work on the article, and I believe that through discussion and exchange of ideas, we'll find the best solutions for one of the most important topics in Wikipedia. This article could be a model one. Of course, I do not know if my rewriting will be done within FAR's or FARC's time limits. I'll do my best, but I can guarantee nothing here. Unfrotunately, the article's problems are not limited to adding citations, but I have at the same time to research, re-structure, copy-edit (though not a native English speaker!) etc. It is a tough and extended job. And it is a pleasure, because during this rewriting I do learn things, and I improve myself, and my knowledge of an empire I love! So, even if I do not manage to save the article, I'll be happy just for the fact that I had the chance to follow once again the lives and the achievements of some of my heros of my childhood: Heracleius, Leo III, Justinian, Basil II, Alexios and Manuel, Constantine the Great and Constantine the Palaiologos. That is ok with me!--Yannismarou 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we should not be constrained by arbitrary size limits that are in any case long out-dated and no longer relevant. We should concentrate on returning Byzantine Empire to its former glory. I look at the article now and I feel despair - it has been ruined, a travesty of its former self. Yannismarou, I think it is going to take a lot of work from both of us if we are going to save the article from its present terrible condition! Bigdaddy1204 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. This is an incredibly large subject with several periods of history which, even if summarized themselves, would still create a large article. Size paranoia is dying out of Wikipedia; let's not resurrect it here. As for those unsavory editors, perhaps you can begin arbitration. I'm unfamiliar with the process, but invoking some kind of administrative help or ruling may settle the issues. Zeality 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Attention spans have not grown just because certain technical limitations have become irrelevant. One should generally assume that the general readership has something like half the patience of the aficionados that write articles. 20-something printed pages is pretty unreasonable unless one is actually intent on writing for one's peers. "Because we can" is really not a good argument...
Peter Isotalo 10:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Peter is right. There's no need to give a blow-by-blow of every military campaign or administrative reform in the main article, especially as it is already structured according to intelligent and well-considered chronological divisions: each subheading can easily become a more detailed article in its own right (and many already have), so that none of the hard work of the various editors need be lost. Next to this overdeveloped, if impressively accurate, political history stands a rather underdeveloped, and largely out-of-date, section of thematic entries on "legacy and importance": the "cultural elements of Byzantine literature," for example, are carried over from a 1913 Catholic Encylopedia article, and the section on Byzantine art is carried over from Brittanica. None of this is to suggest that the article does not constitute an excellent resource; merely that its excessive length is the product of an inordinate concentration on political history, which forms a very small part of any given state or society. --Javits2000 09:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are focus (4), MoS issues (2), citations (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd clarify an issue with criteria with 2(a) - the LEAD does not summarise the article but is mainly concerned with when the Byzantine Empire is supposed to have begun.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to inform the reviewers here that my rewriting is still on the way, and hopefully I will need until one more week to get it over.--Yannismarou 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please let us know when it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I inform everybody here that I am obliged to be on a extensive break until June 20. I am sorry I cannot go on with my rewriting for the time being.--Yannismarou 16:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
        • A lot of progress had been made before Yannis had to take a break; do we know if anyone else can work on this article, and can we possibly hold the review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • All those article series templates, quote boxes, timelines and whathaveyou combined with so many images make the article look rather cluttered. For example, do we really need 15 maps? I also question the relevance of an infobox that is intended for modern nations. Most of the facts included in that infobox are pretty arbitrary choices. Peter Isotalo 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove Rather than being summarized and shortened, the article has been expanded to 83k of prose since the last comment here and there are now 16 maps. Yannis is still not back from his vacation and it doesn't seem like anyone else is going to rein in this colossus any time soon. Peter Isotalo 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The prose size has come down; it's currently at 66KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how the figure of 66KB has been reached (my calculation puts it at around 80), but it's still massive. Haggling about what constitutes actual article material isn't going to amend the problem either. Peter Isotalo 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If such a massive amount of text-based information (we're talking some 20% in this case) is so irrelevant to the total size of the article that it's not be considered prose, one really wonders why it should be included in the article in the first place. Peter Isotalo 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Length isn't a criteria, though is it? I do agree that the "history" section of the article should essentially be composed of the leads of daughter articles, each of which covers a specific period. But then someone has to write those daughter articles! The only problem I see with the maps is a spelling mistake, "Constantinopel", in the 1400 one. "Early history" is under-cited. "None of this was of any comfort to the farmers in Asia Minor, suffering raids from fanatical ghazis." Hmmn, I suppose not, but still a source would be nice. Paragraphs from 1391 to the end of history are under-cited. Despite these problems, I'm not keen on removing FA status from a well-researched and illustrated article. So…Default keep, but please try to address my comments DrKiernan 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Focus is a criteria. As an article gets longer it gets less focused, even if the limits aren't set in stone. 20+-pages and 83k of prose, however, isn't what I'd call a borderline case. Peter Isotalo 07:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Would be a pity to lose this one. Tony 15:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I cannot agree more with you, Tony. Gradually, I will be back to Wikipedia more focused and eager to work. I already work on the article, but I cannot guarantee that at this or this moment I will have completed my work and the article will be ready. Any assistance is welcomed here. Unfortunately, this article came here during the most complicated period of my life ...--Yannismarou 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing on what language people spoke in the Byzantine Empire. I have browsed thru it - main thing would be to (fairly aggressively) summarise historical segments for which there are subarticles - starting with Justinian I think...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Greek-speaking" is in the first line of the introduction. Slac speak up! 00:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove. As I remarked long time ago, a major problem of this article is that the 'history' section comprises most of the article. This has not been addressed since then. I would consider supporting a history of Byzantine Empire, using a slightly improved version of the current history section, for a FA - but as an overview of the entire Empire this is not adequate.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Earlier, someone said that " the article should essentially be composed of the leads of daughter articles, each of which covers a specific period. But then someone has to write those daughter articles!". Well, a start has been made on that process. New articles on the Komnenoi and Palaiologoi are being linked into Byzantine Empire. Hopefully, this is the start of a process that will eventually give rise to a series of articles on, for example, the Heraclian line, the Isaurians, etc, allowing the main BE article to remain as a featured article whilst the real detail is contained in these smaller, more detailed sub articles. Bigdaddy1204 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment on the "history section" issue: Recognizing the article's current deficiencies, I must however point out that I disagree with the view of some of the reviewers (e.g. Piotrus, a reviewer I highly esteem) that it is a problem "that the 'history' section comprises most of the article". An article about a no more existing empire is normal to speak mainly about history. First of all, the article does not (at least not any more!) just speak about history - it treats religion, diplomacy, economy, culture etc. linking to the proper relevant articles per WP:SS, but it is IMO inevitable most of the article to be history. If we create a sub-article History of the Byzantine Empire, keeping here just a section of this article, I am afraid we will deprive Byzantine Empire from its essence, from its wealth. Yes, I support the creation of sub-articles in parts of the history, yes, maybe the WP:SS could be even better utilized, but I do not honestly see the reason for the creation of a History of the Byzantine Empire sub-article. The history of the Byzantine Empire is the Byzantine Empire itself! And I do not say that in Britannica everything is perfect, but, if you check the respective article, you'll see that it is nothing more than history!--Yannismarou 13:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. When I nominated this article, it was in dismal shape from almost every aspect; that it has come so far is a joy to behold. The article is now cited, has a nice lead, conforms with the MOS, and is deserving of featured status. The only outstanding concern is length, and that has me between a rock and a hard place. I have never supported an article that passes the upper guideline of 50KB prose. This article started at 78KB of prose, and has been reduced to 65KB during the FAR. Many reviewers argued at FAR that B movie—at the same size (63KB prose)—was not too large. I disagreed; B movie passed FAR with 63KB prose. I submit that if a topic like B movie is not too large at 63KB prose, then the Byzantine Empire—a weighty topic—would not be considered oversized if the same standards are used. I echo Tony's statement: it would be a pity for this article to lose status based on size alone, while the same FAR process passes B movie at the same prose size. All of my other concerns have been addressed, but there is an unequal standard at play here wrt size, as that has never been sufficiently resolved at WP:WIAFA. I'm afraid I can't support or oppose because the standard has not been clearly defined, and the closing admin will have to make the call. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Further clarification, which may muddy the waters or make closing decisions easier. I fought the Extra Long Article Committee (ELAC) because they were applying extreme and un-Wikilike measures to reducing article size, without consideration for overall and prose vs. reference size; in other words, they penalized well referenced articles. I sort out prose size from references with Dr pda's page size script, and I have opposed any FA that passes WP:SIZE by a large amount. I believe our longest FAs currently are B movie (63KB of prose), Byzantine Empire (65KB of prose), Campaign history of the Roman military (74KB of prose) and Ketuanan Melayu (a whopping 82KB of prose). IMO, WP:WIAFA 2 and 4 (complies with MOS and stays tightly focused) are no less important than other measures. But, Ketuanan and Roman military passed FAC, and B movie passed FAR. If Byzantine Empire fails, Ketuanan and Roman military should be revisited. If Byzantine empire passes, the requirement that featured articles comply with WP:MOS, including WP:SIZE, is weakened. The size issue should be settled at the level of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Another: History of Russia, 72KB prose, currently at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Çlosing: Precisely because a size rule has not been sufficiently resolved, I think this should go keep. Until we decide on a specific criterion, that must be the default. Now, if an article is bloated and wanders (4) that's a different thing, but I think this is great read. I agree with Yanni about the history issue—comments on religion, the arts, bureaucracy, etc. are woven throughout the article, and then get their own small sections at the end. Plus the nominator is pleased with various criteria concerns. (Though note that the Early history needs sources.) Marskell 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept (22:24, July 26, 2007).

Barack Obama

previous FAR
Messages left at Columbia Univ. Project, Hawaii, Illinois, U.S. Congress, and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Also Gdo01 and Meelar.
In the future notify WP:CHICAGO as well. He is currently one of only 20 top priority articles for our project (out of nearly 11000).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
notified (used tool as instructed by sandygeorgia): Barack Obama talk page, Maximusveritas, Jersyko (knows and already commented), Bobblehead, SandyGeorgia (knows and already commented), Dereks1x, HailFire, Steve Dufour, MPS, Italiavivi, Manic Hispanic, Jogurney.
Feddhicks, I have notified the Projects that you failed to notify, and partially cleaned up and completed the notificatoins of relevant parties; pls complete the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is of good quality and I think it would pass a good article nomination, but it is not of featured article quality anymore.

;Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable

  • The article is not stable and subject to an ongoing edit war. While I AGF and do not accuse the editors of being campaign workers, the edits of some editors (not named to prevent accusations) is trying to hide information, place some information in small print, deleting relevant information, etc. Some editors give up but this doesn't mean there is a concensus.
  • Article is prone to vandalism and reverts possibly due to frustration of the edit warring.
  • There are other contentious issues that no censensus has been reached. These can be found in the archives of the talk page. Essentially, many editors left wikipedia because a small group of editors kept insisting on doing it their way, even if it wasn't right.

::Examples include the controv