| Revision as of 23:18, 15 October 2006 editVanished user (talk | contribs)15,602 edits →GA review← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:21, 25 November 2024 edit undoSadko (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers81,712 edits {{Talk header}}Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (193 intermediate revisions by 86 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{GA|oldid=81593501}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|
|action1date=19:52, 20 November 2006 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Sviatoslav I of Kiev/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=89069359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
Should the name be Sviatoslav or Svyatoslav? Whichever one, it needs to be consistent throughout the article. Right now they're both used: Sviatoslav in the title and very beginning and Svyatoslav throughout most of the text. |
|
|
|
|action2date=04:07, 25 November 2006 |
|
] 19:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sviatoslav I of Kiev |
|
:Never mind. Or chose the one you like and unify the spelling. It doesn't make so much difference, really. --] 20:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=89772633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3 = FAR |
|
== Map == |
|
|
|
|action3date = 2021-05-01 |
|
|
|action3link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Sviatoslav I/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result = demoted |
|
|
|action3oldid = 1015855593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
The map of Sviatoslav's state is a fiction. A self made map of unknown validity. The lands of derevlians on the nothern west from Kiev that were conquered by his mother Olga are not included into red space. They are presented even as the lands on the southern west?!?. On the contrary, the eastern and nothern boders of Rus (red and orange) are unreasonably enlareged (land of Polotsk was taken after his death by Volodymer, the land of Novgorod wasn't so big at that time). The boders signed by orange are nonsense, because nobody can prove that Sviatoslav had left his administartion there. Hazaria and Bulgaria were only plundered by the prince's armies but not conquered. Hazars were unable to stand after his blow but Bulgaria still to exist unntil the middle of 13 c. |
|
|
|
|maindate=February 26, 2007 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=n|listas=Sviatoslav 01 Of Kiev|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=high|royalty-work-group=y|royalty-priority=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|Medieval=y|Russian=y|Balkan=y|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|hist=yes|mil=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Belarus|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Romania|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Norse history and culture|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=|topic=history|byzantine-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article as it stands does not meet FA criteria due to lack of citations for content. The problem is worse than it appears because some footnotes are not in fact references, but themselves contain unverified information such as: "The exact date of Sviatoslav's Bulgarian campaign, which likely did not commence until the conclusion of his Khazar campaign, is unknown." If the article isn't consistently verifiable to high-quality reliable sources, it will need featured article reasssment. (] · ]) ''']''' 06:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
Therefore Sviatoslav expeditions should be shown on the map as arrows (directions of his campains) rather than as encircling of paticular areas. It should be deleted as POV or remade. The sourses listed in the image are either unreliable or the author who created the map used wrong data. --] 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
:OK, since you removed the map from the article again, I will place it here at talk for now, awaiting the response from the author. In the meanwhile, please '''make sure all your edits are done while you are logged in'''. You latest deletion again came from an IP. --] 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"conquests" do not mean occupation. Sviatoslav's armies moved through the general areas depicted. Historical maps are never intended to draw clear-cut and fully accurate boundaries because such boundaries are impossible to determine even at that time, let alone today. This user appears to object to user-made images for the sake of objecting to them. By the standards he would impose every historical map on Misplaced Pages should be removed. ] ] ] 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selfmade maps should not be removed. I just dont like this paticular map, which is full of factual mistakes . The territory of Rus (red)in the north is unreasonably enlarged, while the southern lands are depicted as a smal area along the Dniper river. The derevlians are not the tribe from steps on the south but woods on the west. Read Tolochko or Rybakov, or any other valuable historiography on the subject to learn the realms of Rus during the reign of Sviatoslav. You'll see that your map is wrong and it should be remade. If you want to show the wars of Sviatoslav on the east do it by arrows (es. in case of Khazaria and Bulgaria). Thats a ussual way of depicting war campaigns of those who invaded but not conquered (occupied) the lands of foes. For example, look at the maps of crusades. The crusaders took several castles and towns in Asia Minor on their way to the Holy Land, but in the cartography these castles and towns are not included (encircled) into the borders of the crusarers' kingdoms. |
|
|
Please remade your map in accordance to historical facts and rules of cartography. --] 05:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Silistria== |
|
|
I belive that the old name Durostor is more appropiate for accuracy, Silistra is the modern name.] 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the ] name was Dorystolon. ] ] ] 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Gibbon == |
|
|
|
|
|
How do we get the Gibbon text moved to Wikisource where it belongs? ] ] ] 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==GA review== |
|
|
First, let me say this is one of the best, most entertaining articles I've read for a GA review. Extremely interesting! The lead is somewhat weaker than the rest, and the Russian phrases could possibly also use a a Latin alphabet transliteration. "Kievan Rus'" is written both with and without the '. Some references have odd little underscores, such as "Primary Chronicle _____." - what do they mean? |
|
|
|
|
|
Still, none of these seem enough to withold GA. However, this article seems near-FA, so fixing them would probably get it the rest of the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{GAList|1a=aye|1b=aye|1c=aye|1d=aye|2a=wtf|2b=aye|2c=aye|2d=aye|3a=aye|3b=aye|4a=aye|4b=aye|5=aye|6a=aye}} |
|
|
|
|
|
2a has the weird underscores, so is only a mostly-pass. 6b is a get-out clause if there's no images, so it's not applicable. |
|
|
|
|
|
Still, it's a pretty clear pass. Great work! ] <sup>]</sup> 14:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The underscored references indicate that the writer of the reference (in this case, me) didn't have access to the actual document in question and couldn't cite to a specific section or page number at the time of writing. The facts referenced do come from the works cited and I am working on fixing them. ] ] ] 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Fair enough, it happens. Not ideal, but as it's getting fixed, no big problem ] <sup>]</sup> 23:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
The article as it stands does not meet FA criteria due to lack of citations for content. The problem is worse than it appears because some footnotes are not in fact references, but themselves contain unverified information such as: "The exact date of Sviatoslav's Bulgarian campaign, which likely did not commence until the conclusion of his Khazar campaign, is unknown." If the article isn't consistently verifiable to high-quality reliable sources, it will need featured article reasssment. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
