# Talk:George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches)

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Modussiccandi (talk · contribs) 21:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this article. I'll start adding comments in a minute. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The prose is alright. I've changed some things I thought needed improvement. The following aspects should be addressed:
His secretary, Leo Megistos, wrote at least three monodies in his honour, emphasizing his qualities and his travels in a diplomatic role to foreign lands; according to Leo, these included not only Hungary and Jerusalem ... The expression foreign lands seems outdated and might be omitted. Also, "praising his travels" is not entirely clear; it could be changed to something like "praised the success of his travels". In the list of countries, the "land of the Danube" is in quotations marks, while the "lands of the Turks" is not. You might want to think about changing both to their appropriate common names.
Good suggestions all: omitted the "foreign lands", added the quotation marks (since there is no entirely clear common name for what is meant). I can't find "praising his travels", though.
For accessibility, it would be best to briefly explain all names and offices when they first appear. You have done this already in some places but I think it should be uniformly applied — especially to the offices.
Done, as far as possible without launching into a too-long explanation of each.
In the "Origin" and "Career and death" sections, there are two very brief paragraphs. I think think they could be integrated with the more substantial paragraphs. This should be easily done with the second one.
Hmmm, the paragraphs deal with specific topics (e.g., descent and approx. date of birth). Sure they can be merged, but somehow I prefer them separated.
Okay, that's fine by me. It was an aesthetic suggestion more than anything.
I've noticed the article has quite a lot of relative pronouns for its length. It's not absolutely necessary to change that, of course.
The lead section is too brief. Yes, the article is fairly short but it has enough content, I believe, to have a two-paragraph lead. You could include information about his death, his patronage of the arts and even the individual missions to Hungary and Jerusalem. The first sentences should also include his life dates in the bracket, even if it is just a verifiable estimate. Also, could there be an appropriate infobox for this article? Perhaps, Template:Infobox noble could work.
Done, I think.
Well done for the infobox. I'm conflicted about the lead: when I said two-paragraph, I meant a lead paragraph plus one. Now, I understand your rationale: §1 basic info, §2 career, §3 family. Can we somehow make this into two paragraphs? (Again, my problem is the short §s.) One idea could be to merge §3 with §1. I'll edit accordingly and you can let me know if you object/have comments.
Your edits are really good, thanks. Constantine   ✍  13:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Another small thing: the "Career and death" section could be given a sub-heading. I had in mind something like "diplomatic career", given that that's the most detailed aspect.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
The references and "sources" section are internally consistent. No copyvio  or OR detected. All content is generally well sourced but the following things need some more attention:
His secretary, Leo Megistos, wrote at least three monodies ... In this section, the referencing is too vague. For example, the list of places he visited is taken from Vannier (1986) and the general information about the monodies from Lampsidis (1970). As it is now, the references suggest that all the information comes from both sources. I recommend that the references be placed next to what they actually say. I've noticed a general tendency to reference clustering. That's okay as long as it's clear what content can be found where. In this case, it's not.
Not quite. Both Vannier and Lampsidis essentially provide the same information, esp. as Vannier relies on (and cites) Lampsidis' study. The reason I put Vannier there in addition to Lampsidis is because a) Vannier is accessible and b) because Vannier's study is perhaps the standard work on the prosopography of the lesser-known Palaiologoi.
Alexios' daughter Theodora married the megas domestikos Andronikos Palaiologos Again, I don't think the referencing here is precise enough. By making the references more precise, we avoid having footnotes like No. 23, where four different places in one publication are given.
Good point, fixed now.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article covers all the major aspects of the subject's life. Focus is also not an issue, given the scarcity of information on him.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Neutrally written, no puff language or such. No problems here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Uncontroversial topic, mainly edited by the creator. Unlikely to become unstable in the future.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The images are both in the  public domain, so that's all good. Captions are succinct. Here's a suggestion:
Might it be possible to find a second image for the main part of the article? It could be staggered left-right with the one already there. Let me know what you think.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Hi, Cplakidas! You'll find my comments above. The article is not far away, obviously. I'm putting this on hold for a week so that the remaining issues can be sorted out. Please do ask for clarification if needed. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Modussiccandi, thanks again for your edits. I think the remaining points have been addressed. Is there anything else, even if apart from GA criteria? Constantine   ✍  13:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: I think it's almost good to go. One thing regarding naming conventions: After the the full mention of his name in the lead, the article refers to him as George Palaiologos and, in one place, as just George. I generally prefer only the surname. But I see how that isn't suitable here. I presume you have edited more articles on comparable topics, so what should we go with George Palaiologos or George? (I'm guessing its the former.) Modussiccandi (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd also say the former. I've changed it now. Constantine   ✍  14:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant, Cplakidas, I'm going to let the article pass now. Thank you very much for dealing with my comments so swiftly. It was a pleasure working with you! Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time, Modussiccandi, for me too it was a very enjoyable experience having such a hands-on reviewer. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  15:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)