Talk:Byzantine North Africa

Byzantine North Africa was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 21, 2023). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated .

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

Middle Ages Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A lot of this article seems redundant to existing articles. I have removed the infoboxes and the table of exarchs. Srnec (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existing articles do not cover as much as this one. It may make more sense to delete them. 2A01:C23:69D0:4D00:74BC:8CE5:F8DF:86BE (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lest I forget, the existing articles lack sufficient citation. 2A01:C23:69D0:4D00:74BC:8CE5:F8DF:86BE (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Byzantine North Africa/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 12:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning

The work that has been done to the article to this point has definitely improved it, but there is still a ways to go. If you would like more specific guidance as you continue to edit, please don't hesitate to drop a message at my talk page. Fritzmann (message me) 12:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will see how I can add citations. I do, however not known what Wikification means. Another thing: is there a nomination possible for B-class as well?Antisyntagmatarchos (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the jargon, in this case wikification means adding markup, especially links to other articles. The first time something notable is mentioned it needs to have a link, and a lot of more specialist topics are written here that don't have links. As for B-class, there is no nomination, but it indicates that the article is pretty close to ready for GAN. Most of the time it is applied by an editor who isn't the primary author, but if you feel it is a B-class article there is nothing wrong with changing it. Before that, though, all of the claims definitely do need to be cited. Fritzmann (message me) 13:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. I will definitely build up Wikification, then. And if you find that more citation is needed, I will step up to that as well. I have most of the literature in my shelf. Antisyntagmatarchos (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is overarching, I suggest merging of the articles Praetorian prefecture of Africa and Exarchate of Africa into this new article, along migrating any information from the two latter into the first. Antisyntagmatarchos (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Antisyntagmatarchos: not sure this is necessary. My preference would be to keep all three, with this one as the overarching article on Byzantine rule in the Maghreb and its culture, religion, demography, etc, and the others covering the two specific political manifestations of that rule in more detail. The topic is certainly broad enough that it requires more than one article, or, put another way, if we crammed everything into one article it would be too large and almost unreadable. And certainly the Exarchate of Africa at least is a recognized topic on its own, part of the same phenomenon of decentralized rule as the Exarchate of Ravenna, and it would not be appropriate to subsume it here entirely. Constantine ✍ 09:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cplakidas. I think the articles on the praetorian prefecture of Africa and exarchate of Africa should be limited to administrative, political and military history, while this article can cover social, religious, economic etc. history. This probably requires some trimming or migrating of content in all three places. Srnec (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are different topics, on the lines outlined by Cplakidas. Overlap is no problem for WP and already, this article is probably too long (see Wikipedia:Splitting). Furius (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all above, it is not necessary to merge the articles, and keeping them separate is better. --Glennznl (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]