# Talk:Dejan (despot)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dejan (magnate)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Madalibi (talk · contribs) 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This article has been sitting here for a long time! I will take care of the review this week. Madalibi (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


### Round 1
General assessment
This is a very solid and well-referenced article. The information is reliable, verifiable, neutral, and stable, so this will make a fine GA once the minor issues I raised are addressed. The main issues for me are clarity (because of the density of details and a few awkward formulations), language access (because most of the references are in Serbian), and the format of references, but this is nothing insurmountable. Let me put the article on hold for now to give you time to make the necessary improvements. Please let me know when you're ready for a second round! Madalibi (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


### Round 2
Ready for phase 2. Maybe you could strike out the fixed issues and add new issues to the appropriate section.--Zoupan 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Zoupan – You expanded the article so much that it's almost a new article! I will a bit busy for the rest of the week, but I will take care of this next week at latest. Madalibi (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Zoupan! I'm really sorry it took me so long to get back to this review. As my contributions will show you, I have suddenly stopped all my activities on WP to devote myself to real-life pursuits. But I haven't forgotten about Dejan! Here is my second round of comments. Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Text

Could you italicize "despot" and "sevastokrator" in the infobox? 
Earlier scholars believed that the Dejanović family were relatives of Jovan Oliver, but this is no longer accepted: an almost identical sentence appears in the "Aftermath" section. It shouldn't be deleted from there, because it's relevant to the issue of why Dejan's sons inherited Jovan Oliver's lands, but you should probably rephrase it. 
The first paragraph of the section on "Stefan Dušan's reign" has three footnotes to the same sentence. Not all claims have to be referenced for GA, so this is ok, but the sentence "A further increase in the Byzantinization of the Serbian court followed" seems like an interpretation, so it needs a specific reference. 
@Zoupan: (Just in case you missed it...) Not solved. Madalibi (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
What is the source for the list of magnates? 
For consistency, you should italicize vojvoda in the list of magnates. 
The court, chancellery and administration were rough copies of those of Constantinople: reference? 
"chrysobull" should be linked or glossed.  (charter)
few hamlets should be "a few hamlets". 
The fact that Dejan built Arhiljevica rather than renovated it is evidence of his economic strength: the first sentence of this paragraph only said that this church "was built", implying that it was built from scratch and for him, not by him. Could you clarify that first sentence? 
Apart from Dejan's granted villages, Dušan also granted, on his behalf...: the difference between "Dejan's granted villages" and the villages granted by Dušan on his behalf is not clear. 
between the South Morava...: just "between South Morava..."? 
the Serbian nobiles in the Greek lands: "Serbian nobles"? 
župan of Prilep: what is a "župan"? Does it have anything to do with župe? Gloss briefly in the text. 
You refer to many historians in the text, which is a great way of presenting different points of view, but you sometimes use the past tense and sometimes the present. "Blagojević supports the view", "Mandić said", "Ćorović puts it", "Rajičić concluded", etc. Could you use one or the other consistently? 
In image caption: Zemen Monastery, one of the endowments of Dejan: "one of Dejan's endowments" would flow better. 
his province, besides the župe of Žegligovo and Upper Struma: does "besides" here mean "except for" or "in addition to"? Clarify. 
Serbian historian V. Ćorović believed some turmoil and disorder the case: an awkward turn of phrase. Try perhaps "attributes this to turmoil and disorder"? 
in December 2/4 1371: "on December 2/4, 1371. 
Battle of Maritsa: link? You should also mention the Ottomans here! 
"the once powerful Empire": specify "the once powerful Serbian Empire"? 
the brothers despot Jovan and gospodin Konstantin: you should italicize "despot" and "gospodin" as you do with official titles in the rest of the text. 
not only recreating their father's province, but also at least doubled: "doubling" to match "recreating".  (recreated)
Although vassals, they had their own government,[32] and their state symbol was the white double-headed eagle and they minted coins according to the Nemanjić style. Should probably split into two sentences (after note 32) to avoid the "and... and..." structure. 
In the "Family" section, Jovan is marked as "vassal of the Ottoman Empire (1373–1378)" and Konstantin as "vassal of the Ottoman Empire (1378–95)". The last paragraph of "Aftermath" does make clear that it was Jovan who received the title of despot from Emperor Uroš and that Jovan alone was compelled to recognize Ottoman sovereignty in 1373, but otherwise the text gives the impression that they received Jovan Oliver's lands (together), "ruled a spacious province" (together), "remained loyal to Uroš" (together), "greatly expanded their province" (together), and "recognized Ottoman sovereignty" (together). In light of this, is it still accurate to imply that they were successive vassals of the Ottoman Empire, Jovan from 1373 to 1378, and Konstantin only after Jovan's death? 
References

Three new HarvErrors have to be corrected. The Jireček, Novaković, and Rajičić (1954) entries do not connect to any footnote. If you want to see HarvErrors automatically, please install this simple and invaluable script!  (unused, removed)
Notes 15 to "Ferjančić" (not in the bibliography) and 30 to "Ćorović 2001" should be linked like the other ones. 
I don't understand what "Petković 1924, (odlomak)" in footnote 28 means. 
Notes 32 and 33 are in Serbian Cyrillic and point to no entry in the bibliography. 
Note 34 says "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (1986). Balkan studies, vol. 22. p. 38"). "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences" is perhaps the author, but it's not clear what work is being cited. 
Not solved. We need an article title or something. Madalibi (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Removed the source altogether as the use of "Saruyar" is only found once in sources (his Ottoman vassalage is still mentioned), and should instead be moved to the Jovan Dragaš article.--Zoupan 00:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
After all this we should be good to go! Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I have adressed all the issues, please review the article and hit me up!--Zoupan 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the concerns are addressed and the reviewer hasn't returned, I'll step in and pass this. Wizardman 15:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.--Zoupan 22:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Zoupan: a ping or a message on my talk page (or simply a non-empty edit summary) would have helped me to notice that you were done! I have reviewed all the issues, and two still need to be addressed. It's two references, so I can't do them myself. Wizardman: thanks for helping out! I will pass the article myself when the issues have been solved. Madalibi (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems you've already passed the article, Wizardman. Some kind of notice from you or Zoupan would have been nice. Anyway, the two issues mentioned should still be resolved. Madalibi (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed issues.--Zoupan 21:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Поседи деспота Дејана (према Миодрагу Рајичићу)". Деспот Дејан и задужбине Дејановића.
File:Serbia 1360 en.png by PANONIAN
A map of Dejan's possessions needs to be created.--Zoupan 09:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)