Talk:Battle of the Olive Grove of Kountouras

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force. Military history: Balkan / European / Roman & Byzantine / Medieval / Crusades This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Crusades task force Crusades Low‑importance

Criteria:

1. Well written
   1. Compelling prose: The opening paragraph should end with a sentence on the outcome of the battle (Franks/Crusaders won, Greek resistance collapsed). The first sentence of "Background" is a run-on sentence and should be revised. The spelling of "Geoffrey" is inconsistent in the quotation from Villehardouin, as is "Kountoura" in the final section. "Peloponnese" is generally referred to with the definite article in English: "the Peloponnese". I've made some emendations to the English translation to make it more grammatical; please revert me if I've erred.
   2. Logical structure: The duplicate "Sources" section is rather confusing. Perhaps it would be best to move the latter section into "References", or rename the first section "Chroniclers", or both.
   3. MoS: Seems fine.
   4. Jargon explained: Such little as there is, yes.
2. Accurate and verifiable
   1. Referenced: Yes
   2. Inline citations: Yes
   3. Sources reliable: Yes
   4. Original research: not apparent.
3. Broad coverage
   1. Addresses all major aspects: As far as I can tell (it's a rather limited topic).
   2. Trivia: None.
4. NPOV
   1. Viewpoints unbiased: Yes.
   2. All significant POVs present: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes. (Most activity from author's and my recent upgrades to GAC status).
6. Images: Single suitably-tagged image of a typical olive grove in Greece. Pass.

Please address my concerns in re. point 1 and I would be happy to pass this as a Good Article. Choess 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes about items mentioned in the quite diligent review:

• Images: Please note that there is also the geographic location image.
• Logical structure: Reasonable comment. We should find a way to amend this. DONE
• Compelling prose:
  • The opening paragraph should end with a sentence on the outcome of the battle: Very reasonable comment.DONE
  • The first sentence of "Background" is a run-on sentence and should be revised: This is correct. DONE
  • The spelling of "Geoffrey" is inconsistent in the quotation from Villehardouin, as is "Kountoura" in the final section: Reasonable comment but variant spellings are fact of life.
    • Geoffroi is translated today as Geoffrey. T. Smith 1829, translated it as Geoffry. As a quotation, it should stay as it is, so should the current translation.
    • Various spellings of "Kountoura/Koundouras/Koundouros" are used in the bibliography, due to facts such as: (i) in Greek words are inflected, (ii) "nt" sounds like "nd" and (iii) names in "-as" can also be used with the suffix "-os". Variant spellings are clearly indicated in the beginning of this article though.
  • "Peloponnese" is generally referred to with the definite article in English: "the Peloponnese":
    • "Messinia, Peloponnese" I guess is OK
    • "the Theme of Peloponnese" I also guess is OK
    • "all the castles and cities of Peloponnese" Any problem here?
    • "the conquest of Peloponnese" Or here? If yes, please change accordingly
  • I've made some emendations to the English translation to make it more grammatical; please revert me if I've erred.: I translated word to word to maintain the original text as much as possible. In the case of "That and only war the Romans did", the form "That was the only war the Romans made" is grammatically better, while the former version is more accurate, closer to the poetic style of the original text (and unfortunately reminding Yoda-speak). I will not revert this, but I present it here. Someone else (Yoda himself probably...) might prefer the crude version so much that he or she will make the change.

--FocalPoint 07:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I changed it to "the Peloponnese" in the last two instances and changed the verb for what William did in establishing the principality of Achaea. I've promoted this to Good Article. Congratulations! Choess 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The addition was OK, but it implies that

There also seem to be another contemporary text by "Nicetas" (probably Niketas Choniates) mentioned by Finlay.^[1]

I had a quick look through the actual text, at B.G. Niebuhr/Immanuel Bekker, 1835, Niketae Choniatae Historia, but I could not find a direct reference. I will look again. If someone wants to try, do not waste your time in the first pages, this should be after pages 700 or so.--FocalPoint (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about the Greek soldiers being «drawn from the garrisons of Nikli, Veligosti, Lacedaemon, as well as infantry provided by the Slavic Melingoi tribe of Taygetus» is an estimate of Bon 1969, pp. 61–62, however, it is his own personal conclusion. There is no such reference in the only sources we have and therefore I removed it from the text. As it was written, it was misleading, being presented as a fact, while it is the hypothesis of one author. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]