# Talk:Blasius Mataranga

SilkPyjamas (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blasius Mataranga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Arberian2444 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Arberian2444! I'll be your GA reviewer. Since this is my very first review, I'll be receiving help from my far more experienced mentor, It is a wonderful world. I already have a background in researching medieval history, but I've never researched Albanian medieval history, so this article piqued my interest. On my first quick read, this article was very well structured and illuminated, so I have high hopes for this review. I'll be beginning my in-depth review now. Reverosie (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Congrats on your first review and thank you for choosing mine to review! Arberian2444 (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I've finished up my review for two sections of the article, but not the entire thing. Would you like me to post these now, or wait until my analysis of the entire article is done? Reverosie (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Reverosie, feel free to post your comments as you go along. I'm looking forward to helping with this, it's certainly a very interesting topic. I would guess this area is probably undercovered on Wikipedia. Just two tips that I have noticed new reviewers sometimes struggle with:
It's a good idea to structure your review based on the criteria. Different reviewers do this in different ways. Some use the templates linked in the "GA toolbox" on the right, others just create section headings based on the criteria. I personally think the clearest way to do it is with this (feel free to copy+paste) or a similar structure, but you are of course free to use if you would like.
It's a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write "The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas".
IAWW (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'll post the beginning part now; feel free to tweak anything I've said. Reverosie (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I've added it. Please make changes where those are needed + tell me what I can do better Reverosie (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Reverosie, nice work on this review so far. You have clearly done a very in depth evaluation of the prose. Some of your points go beyond the GA criteria (e.g. the nuanced grammar and flow points, and the English variety), but the ones relating to clarity are very relevant (GA criterion 1a). Generally you want to separate the GA-irrelevant points with a heading like "Suggestions (not required for GA)", but I wouldn't worry about it for this review. It's much better to be going into too much detail than not enough!
I would like to see some brief comments about the non-prose criteria, even if you evaluate them to be good. It can be as simple as "All sources are books from reliable publishers or articles from reliable journals". Good luck with the spot check! IAWW (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello! Reverosie and It is a wonderful world I think I have finished all the comments I needed to do. I just wanted to thank you again for choosing my article! Arberian2444 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, thank you so much! I personally think it’s ready now, but my mentor will have the final say on that :) As long as we agree, congratulations on the good article! Thank you again for being so understanding and efficient during my first review! Reverosie (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Amazing! Also, I wanna say congrats on doing your first ever GA review! I hope im a good first review to start you off! Arberian2444 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much! As long as I get the green light from IAWW, congratulations on the pass! Reverosie (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes! Thank you again lol! I also had one more question in the infobox where it says-
Lord of Karavasta
Reign
1358–1367
Successor
Gjon Mataranga
Should I leave it as Lord of Karavasta or should I put in Sevastokrator instead? Arberian2444 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
That’s honestly up to you since you know far more about this topic than me :) Reverosie (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Ok great! Thank you again :) Arberian2444 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Arberian2444 and @Reverosie, I think this review is almost there. It's just missing a source spot check, as required by GA criterion 2: "It is verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check." You want to check that around 10% of the references support the text (indicate which ones you check). IAWW (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Alright. I was quite busy today and didn't have time to start a spot-check earlier, but it will begin the spot-check now. Reverosie (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Initial review:

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Here is the beginning of my in-depth comments. This does not cover the entire article, as I'm still working on those notes. Please use the  Done template or strikethrough to indicate that a problem has been fixed, and add any comments/questions after the points that you have. 
I'll be abbreviating the paragraph and sentence I'm referring to in my suggestions to P and S. For example, paragraph 2, sentence 3 would be P2S3. The paragraph counter also resets with each new section. This does not apply to the lead, since it is only one paragraph long.

Since this article is nearly entirely your work (via article statistics), some of the problems listed may seem redundant. That being said, I commend you for your dedication to the subject, and the article itself is highly impressive in its current state; it just needs a bit of work to qualify for GA status.  
I will also warn you in advance that many of these suggestions will require you to make the article longer.


### English Variety
Please add the article's English variety under the short description
 Done


### Infobox
Instead of his mother and father being listed as "unknown" in the infobox, they can simply be removed. That being said, the unknown spouse can stay, since removing this might imply that he didn't have one.
 Done

The infobox states that Blasius Mataranga died in 1367, but the "Death and Decline" section of his article suggests that he could have died in 1369. You should add that he died in c. 1367 to the infobox instead to specify this.
 Done


### Lead
This article's lead is very well-written (keep up the great work!), but I'd recommend making it longer and covering more of the article. As stated in WP:Lead Length, few leads with under 100 words will suffice, and this article hinges on that, with 169.
 Done

Third sentence says: Blasius ruled over a principality.... However, his infobox calls him the Lord of Karavasta. As a principality should be ruled by a prince, not a lord, the discrepancy here should be specified.
 Done

I'd also recommend making the second sentence a bit longer, maybe adding how he played a key role.
 Done

I'd recommend simply explaining that "Sebastokrator" is a Byzantine title rather than simply linking it.
 Done 

Fourth sentence says: ...and was recognized by Simeon Uroš, asserting semi-autonomous rule after the death of Stefan Dušan.. I'd recommend specifying what Blasius Mataranga's relationship with these men was or what their roles were in the lead, where context is important (especially considering just how incredibly powerful Dušan was)
 Done

The lead neglects to mention how Blasius could have died, simply mentioning the aftermath of his death. Mataranga's capture is far too significant to be omitted from the lead.
 Done


### Life
#### Citation Overkill
It is here that I'd like to point out a recurring issue in this article: Citation overkill. Sources only need to be cited once or twice in a paragraph; if a source supports an entire section or paragraph, you only need to add it at the end of what it refers to. I used to suffer from citation overkill myself, so please know that it's a common and easily fixable issue. I'll point out some instances in this section, for example, here. 
 Done

P2S2: Following the death of Stefan Dušan on 20 December 1355, Blasius, who first emerged onto the political scene in the late 1350s, established himself as a semi-autonomous ruler north of Vlorë, in the Myzeqe region, situated between the Shkumbin and Devoll rivers.[1][8] He declared his independence and formed a short-lived principality that lasted from 1358 to 1367.[1][6] Blasius held the title of sevastokrator, which was granted to him by Simeon Uroš, recognizing his authority over the territory.[1][6][4][9][10] Source 1 doesn't need to be mentioned after all three sentences, just the last one. I'd also like to point out the large number of citations after the final sentence in this example. This is highly unnecessary. Only two would be needed at the absolute most.
 Done

P2S5: He also held the title of Lord of Karavasta, a region situated between the mouths of the Shkumbin and Seman rivers.[11][12][5][13][14][15]. For such a factual and uncontroversial claim, the sheer number of citations following it is unnecessary; just one or two is enough. As some of these citations are used again in the paragraph later, they can be removed from right after this sentence, too.
 Done - For this one I hope its okay if I kept 3 cause 2 of these sources were only used once and that was for this sentence.

P2S8: However, other sources suggest that Bashtovë castle, historically known as Vrego or Briego, may have been his primary stronghold.[16][17] While under Blasius's control, the area developed as a key trade center, particularly for grain exports.[16] Again, source 16 only needs to be at the end of the last sentence of this example, not both of them.
These issues occur throughout the article, but I chose to point them out in this section where they seem to be the most severe. But again, let me remind you, they're very easy to fix! 
But don't delete any of your sources! One of the things that impressed me the most when I first read this article was the incredibly high number of high-quality sources. These sources can stay; they just don't need to be referenced so much when this isn't necessary!
 Done


#### Life section
I'd recommend renaming this section to "Rise to power", since it is more about his emergence as a powerful politician than his entire biography.
 Done

P1S1: the coastal region between Durrës and Vlorë.. I'd recommend specifying that Durrës and Vlorë are large and powerful cities. This will not only give the reader more background but also help them to understand how powerful Blasius + The Mataranga family was. I'd also recommend adding how long the Mataranga family has been in power.
 Done

P1S3: Under Blasius Mataranga, the Mataranga family flourished, reaching the peak of its prosperity. Following NPOV, I'd recommend adding some sort of sources or proof of this (or perhaps a bit more explaining).
 Done

P2S1 + P2S2: Dušan's military campaigns in Albania.[7] Following the death of Stefan Dušan. I'd recommend a minor swap, writing "Stefan Dušan's military campaigns" and "Following the death of Dušan" instead; that way, his full name is mentioned first.
 Done

P2S2: established himself as a semi-autonomous ruler. I'd recommend specifying why Mataranga was semi-autonomous instead of entirely autonomous for the reader who might not know. I'd also suggest expanding upon how Blasius established himself as a ruler instead of merely saying that he did.
 Done

P2S2: situated between the Shkumbin and Devoll rivers.. You should specify the locations of these rivers in current-day Albania, since there isn't a map until the next section.
 Done

I'd recommend merging P2S3 and P2S4 with a semicolon instead of dividing them with a period.
 Done

P2S5: He also held the title of Lord of Karavasta, I'd recommend specifying that "he" is Blasius, not Simeon.
 Done

P2S6: His Latin title was sebastokrator, dominus ad ostium fluminis Vregi I'd suggest adding only italics to this instead of bolded italics.
 Done

P2S7 His administrative center was likely located at Pirgu or the strategic Breg castle, potentially the same as Bashtovë Castle, also known as Vrego or Briego, which may have served as his main stronghold. I'd suggest specifying where all of these places are/what they are, and adding red links instead of bolded text where there is no article about something. I'd also suggest putting that Breg castle may be the same as Bashtovë castle in parentheses.
 Done

I'd recommend merging P2S7 and P2S8 with a semicolon instead of dividing them with a period.
 Done

P2S9: particularly for grain exports. I'd recommend specifying who the grain was being exported to.
 Done


### Territory & Conflicts
P1S1: I'd suggest adding more context to these three families. Maybe how long the conflict has been going on, who has the most power, shifting opinions, etc (especially since P3 states that the Matarangas had a dispute with the Thopias before). Since you know far more about this topic than me, I'll leave this up to you.
 Done

P1S3 + P1S4: I'd recommend re-structuring this sentence to flow better, per the prose guideline. Perhaps something a bit like "Since parts of the land included grazing areas for various tribes, the borders were not fixed."
 Done

P1S5: I'd suggest specifying Alexander Komnenos Asen's role as the Lord of Berat here; The name "Komnenos" could suggest to the reader that he is associated more tightly with the Byzantine Empire.
 Done

P1: Clarifying Blasius Mataranga's relationship with Alexander Komnenos Asen and how it impacted his leadership could help provide more context/understanding for the reader.
 Done

P2: A direct quote could help out here (if there is one), since the paragraph is dedicated to contrasting historical opinions.
 Done - I already paraphrased so im not sure if a quote will be needed?

P3S1: During the 1363–64 Balsha-Thopia war, the Mataranga family allied with the Balsha. More background on the Balsha-Thopia war would be very helpful here, especially since the war lacks a Wikipedia article of its own. Perhaps just a sentence or two of context.
 Done

P3: The aftermath of the Balsha-Thopia war for Blasius himself would be nice to have here, especially since Gjergj I Balsha was captured, implying a loss for Blasius.
 Done


### Images
It is here that I will briefly split off from the textual elements of this article and point out that I noticed no issues regarding the images in terms of copyright. My mentor can correct me if I am wrong here. The article is very well illuminated, and the images you've picked are high-quality and represent the content of the article well. I commend you on that.
 Done - Thank you :)


### Relations with Ragusa
Immediately, this section is extremely long, so I've split it into four subsections of my own for the sake of reviewing it. I would strongly recommend adding subsections identical to or similar to these to the article, but I will not require it (Though, I'm not sure what my mentor will say): 
1. Establishment (Paragraphs 1 - 4) 
2. Mediation (Paragraphs 5 - 7) 
3. Conflicts (Paragraphs 8 & 9) 
4. Final Years (Paragraphs 10 - 13) 
 Done

One important suggestion before we break into parts: It should be specified somewhere in the article that Dubrovnik is a very important city in Ragusa. This fact is only mentioned in an image caption well into the first subsection. I'd suggest adding it to the end of P3S5 of the Territory & Conflicts section, where Dubrovnik is first mentioned: ...holding him until 1366 when peace was brokered by Dubrovnik.
 Done- I added it at the very start I felt like it would make more sense 


#### Establishment
P1: The section immediately delves into Blasius Mataranga's relationship with the Republic of Ragusa with no context before it. A bit of context behind this relationship would be nice, especially since the beginning of P3 states that Mataranga's relationship with Ragusa started in 1360, not 1358. Moving most of P2's content before P1 could help to provide this missing context to the reader instead of leaving them confused. Moving the first sentence of P3 to the beginning of P1 could also help to provide some simple information. I'll leave what to do up to you since you know far more about the subject than me.
 Done

P1S2: letters that were to be given to Blasius Mataranga, Stepe de Giorgo, and Niko de Mlaskanjas.. Stepe de Giorgo and Niko de Mlaskanjas were never mentioned in the article before this point, and their roles aren't explained until the next sentence. I'd recommend a bit of restructuring to define that Stepe and Niko are two Ragusan men (and their role as potential agents) in P1S2 instead of waiting until P1S3.
 Done

P1: The sentence structuring here may be confusing for the reader. It is said that letters are given to Blasius Mataranga, Stepe de Giorgo, and Niko de Mlaskanjas, before immediately saying that these letters left instructions for Stepe and Niko. The fact that Stepe and Niko are likely agents would imply that Blasius was not intended to see these instructions, so why did the three of them receive letters together (as the sentence would suggest)? Also, what news from Blasius would have been revoked, and why was this important? More clarification here would be much appreciated.
 Done

Image: The image here is very good, and I do not have any complaints about it. However, if we know when this image was made, adding that to the caption would be ideal.
 Done

P1: The outcome of Stepe and Niko's mission is never mentioned. Having that context would be nice.
 Done

P2S1: it became known that one of the reasons for their presence in the region. There should be a specification that this refers to the Ragusans in Blasius Mataranga's territory.
 Done

I'd suggest merging P2S2 and P2S3 with a semicolon instead of separating them with a period.
 Done

P2 is generally very well written, so if you move it above P1 as I suggested, I'd suggest that you don't make many significant changes to it. It provides important context, explains the motive behind the entire section, and flows very nicely (If you choose not to move it, mark this suggestion as done or use a strikethrough and let me know).
 Done- I didnt move it but I like rearranged a few things around it so I hope that works. 

I have no suggestions for P3 aside from addressing the citation overkill and mentioning that these attempts at communication were mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Overall, it is very well written.
 Done - Thank you! 

P4S1: The commercial agreements between Blasius and the Ragusan merchants, concluded around 1360, were primarily centered on the trade of grain.. I'd recommend saying "which concluded around 1360" instead.
 Done

I'd recommend merging P4S2 and P4S3 with a semicolon instead of dividing them with a period.
 Done

P4S4: ...accompanied by a gift of 55 ducats.... It should be specified that Ducats are a form of currency
 Done

I'd recommend merging P4S6 and P4S7 with a semicolon instead of dividing them with a period. It should also be specified that perper is also a form of currency.
 Done

To improve flow, I'd recommend merging P4S9 and P4S10 with the word "and" instead of dividing them with a period.
 Done


#### Mediation
This section in particular is practically GA status aside from a few things (in my opinion), and doesn't have nearly as many suggestions as a result.

P5S3: To negotiate peace and understanding between Blasius and the people of Durrës (at tractandum pacem et concordiam inter Duracenos et Blasium Mataragno). I'd recommend putting the Latin text in a footnote instead of leaving it in parentheses.
 Done

P6S2: Why was Dobre de Mençe replaced? How does it relate to increased diplomatic efforts?
 Done

P6S6: ...which had been previously stolen by the lord of Slanica from a Durrës citizen.. Who is the lord of Slanica? Do we know his name? This is especially important since he's mentioned again in P10S4.
 Done

P7: I have no suggestions regarding this paragraph due to its high quality, but thanks to its short length, it could be merged with P6. This is not a requirement, and if you choose not to take this suggestion, please mark it as done or use a strikethrough and let me know.
 Done - I just kept it how it was


#### Conflicts
This section is also practically GA status in my opinion. Since I (once again) don't have much to say, I encourage my mentor to leave any suggestions I might have missed.

P8S2: ...was sent to protest the capture of Ragusan merchants... It should be specified that Blasius was the one who did this; why he did it is explained later, though, so you won't need to change that.
 Done

P9S2: Nico Mlaskonjić, was now, in September 1363, preparing to export meat and grain from Blasius's territory. "In September 1363" is not needed, since it says "In late 1363" earlier in the paragraph.
 Done


#### Final years
Same thing I said before the last two sections. The article has a massive uptick in quality near the end.

P10S2: ...for millet he had sold.... You should add the link to the article for millet here, where it is first mentioned, instead of the next paragraph. I would also move where it says mileum here as well.
 Done

P10S4: See P6S6
 Done

P13: Since this paragraph as a whole details events after the death of the subject, I'd recommend moving it to the "Death and Decline" section of the article.
 Done


### Death and Decline
P1S3: ...suggest that the Muzaka or Balsha families may have acquired Blasius Mataranga's lands. The link to the Balsha family should be in S1, not S3.
 Done

P1S4: ...indicates that Andrea II Muzaka seized lands... should say "he" or simply "Andrea" instead of mentioning his full name a second time
 Done

P2S1: A portion of the Mataranga holdings appears.... Should say "holdings appear", not "appears"
 Done


### Historiographical Debate
A brief note before the next paragraph: Each person's article only needs to be linked to once, not multiple times throughout the article.

P1S3: With Blasius's capture and marriage to the noblewoman Comita Muzaka around 1370, Balsha II likely annexed Mataranga's lands to his newly acquired territories in the south,. This paragraph makes it seem like Blasius married Comita Muzaka, not Balsha II. It should be rearranged, perhaps to say "With his marriage to the noblewoman Comita Muzaka and Blasius's capture around 1370..." to fix this.
 Done

P2S1 and P2S2: I'd recommend rearranging and/or combining these into one sentence instead of two. Splitting them doesn't make sense when the information could easily fit into one sentence of its own.
 Done

P2S4: Blasius fell victim to the Balsha family's treachery, marking his downfall around 1369. This sentence should be merged with P2S2, where it is mentioned that Blasius was captured and died in prison. Standing alone, it feels redundant.
 Done

I'd recommend merging P2S5 and P2S6 with a semicolon instead of dividing them with a period.
 Done


### Family
Blasius Mataranga's wife is not known but the couple had one child. I'd suggest adding a comma between "known" and "but" 
This is it for what I have to add for now; the article is very well written, and was close to GA status to begin with. However, my mentor may add more suggestions and comments, so please keep that in mind.
 Done


### Comments from IAWW
On a quick scan of the article and check of the images I found a few points:
Could you break up the lead into paragraphs? It's rather monolithic. IAWW (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
 Done

File:Mercante Raguseo.jpg is missing a date, author and source. It also needs a tag explaining why it is public domain in the US. IAWW (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
 Done - I have added a date, author and source. 
The sfn Elsie (2003) doesn't link properly to it's entry in the bibliography section. These errors can be picked up automatically with this extremely useful script which marks them: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors IAWW (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
 Done


### Spot Check
I will begin the spot check now. If everything is clear, the article can be passed with haste. - Reverosie  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverosie (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC) 


#### Spot #1
I will check source 17, which is cited in the article twice:

Page 170: Blasius controlled a significant portion of land on the coast, including the port of Karavasta, the Shkumbi River to the north, the Seman River to the south, and the Devoll River to the east and After his death, Karl Thopia was able to seize much of his lands, most likely those south of the Shkumbi River.: The source says, "This did not stop him from taking Durrës, which he entered after two years. Thopias will also extend to the South, annexing the vows of the Sebastocrate Vlash Matrënga, stretching between the Shkumbin and Seman spills." I believe that this is referring to Blasius and works.


#### Spot #2
I will check source 12, which is cited in the article once:

Page 61: His administrative center was likely located at Pirgu (also known as Pirgo or Dies Carvastri), a coastal area situated between the Shkumbin and Seman rivers, historically described as a sandy beach with abundant trees and vines; or at the strategic Breg castle, potentially the same as Bashtovë Castle (also known as Vrego or Briego), located near the mouth of the Shkumbin River, which may have served as his main stronghold. This is confirmed within the first paragraph of the source very directly. Pass.


#### Spot #3
I will check source 1. I will check its first instance since page 357 is in the preview:

Page 357: Blasius was a member of the noble Mataranga family, which controlled territory in the coastal region between the powerful cities of Durrës and Vlorë, two of the most important urban and trade centers in medieval Albania. The source directly references Blasius and some of this information. Since two different pages are cited, and I can only access one, this is a pass.


### Spot check complete
It is a pass. I'll give my mentor the final say since this is my first time doing this, but in my opinion, we should pass the article as soon as we can.

Side note: While I did my best to randomize what sources I checked, I had to skip a few that weren't in English. Sorry!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverosie (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
(To my mentor, It is a wonderful world, did I do the right thing in this situation?) Reverosie (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes you did, I'm happy for this to pass. Nice work everyone! IAWW (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both! Arberian2444 talk 11:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm passing the article right now! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 12:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)