Talk:Skanderbeg/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DeVerm (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to quick-fail this article because of WP:NPOV. I am not going to repeat all the arguments that have been made before but will just give some clear examples for the editors of this article to work from. Also, there's much more that needs attention in this article and I will list those too; even without the NPOV issue, this article would still have failed for GA status.

NPOV

I was very hesitant to pick this article for review because of the heated discussions in the talk page and during the first GA review; but I'm 100% neutral on the subject and immune to anything that can be said to me here so why not :) I will try a different approach to this than the one chosen during the previous preview because it obviously didn't work.

Controversy

Editors of this page must understand that there does not need to be a single true version of history for this article. When contradicting information is available from different, but all reputable, sources, you have a controversy. Wikipedia guidelines then state that all those views must be put into the article, each with a weight that relates to the number of sources and/or their credibility.

This means:

• that if there are sources that state that his mother was a Serbian princess and other sources that state she was Albanian, both those views must be included. I checked some sources and can indeed find reputable sources for both the Albanian (http://knol.google.com/k/clirim-uskana/skanderbeg/2otjrx4q7edtc/6#) and the Serbian (http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SAR_SCY/SCANDERBEG_or_ISKENDER_BEY_14o3.html) princess.
• While I don't think it is important to include the ethnic background of his grandfather, if you decide to do that and if there are sources that state he was Serbian or Greek, this should be included in the article. But make sure that those sources are solid or just leave this part (or all about grand-parents) out of the article.

Bias

Nobody will deny that for the Albanians, Skanderbeg is their #1 hero. But that doesn't mean the article can be biased towards the Albanian view of him. There is enough documentation (from multiple reputable sources) that shows that Albanian nationalists have taken Skanderbeg and transformed his story into what they believed was needed to make him an inspiration for Albanian statehood. I will list two such sources: http://books.google.com/books?id=oRASDq3rc-YC&pg=PA43&dq=skanderbeg&hl=en&ei=o_BCTf_DGYL98AbpqM3AAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=skanderbeg&f=false and http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts21/AH2008_2.html However, nothing about this is found in the article. And that is not conform any Wikipedia guidelines and must be resolved before this article can be taken serious. It is not very difficult to do this right: just make a section called "Skanderbeg and Albanian Nationalism" and record all "controversial" or Albanian-POV parts in that section.

Another point that needs clearing up is about his defeat. For example, this is the text as I found it in a source:

The first real test between the armies of the new sultan and Skanderbeg came in 1455 during the Siege of Berat, and would end in the most disastrous defeat Skanderbeg would suffer.

and this is how it ended up in the article:

The Siege of Berat was the first real test between the armies of the new sultan and Skanderbeg. That siege would end up in a defeat for the League of Lezhë forces.

This is a prime example of bias. Name Skanderbeg, tell the story where Berat was taken and Skanderbeg failed to capture it back and that the Ottomans ruled it and shortly later all of Albania for centuries. Include the defeat, betrayal, the tragedy. Only then will a neutral point of view be possible.

Other issues

I did not perform a full review because I choose to quick fail this article as explained above. However, I did spend 3 hours of reading and checking and researching and will give some comments here that also need to be addressed for GA status:

Summary Style

The article is not focused enough; it has too much detail (GA criteria 3b). It needs compress-edits. I will give an example for the lead:

Skanderbeg's military skills and strength of resistance presented a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion and delayed their attack on Italy, and he was considered by many in western Europe to be a model of Christian resistance against the Ottoman Muslims.

The 2nd part (after the comma, starting with "and he was considered by many") does not belong in the lead.

Skanderbeg is Albania's greatest hero, a core figure of Albanian identity and the inspiration for the revival of Albanian statehood which occurred in 1912 with the Albanian Declaration of Independence.

Here the last part that starts with "which occurred" should be removed.

Too long

This article is too long. I think it will still be too long after compress edits have been done. Content should be moved to sub pages, especially when those already exist! For example, there is a long paragraph about the Siege of Berat while an article about that already exists: Siege of Berat (1455). This means that details from that article should not be repeated in this article; only the significance of it for Skanderbeg and his reign should be the subject in this article.

Copyright violations

I found articles in other publications that have (almost) the same wording as parts of this article, clearly indicating that those parts were copied. For example, the Siege of Berat is the same as what I found here: http://knol.google.com/k/clirim-uskana/skanderbeg/2otjrx4q7edtc/6# but I didn't even find an attribution for that. Contributing content is not copying it !

Images

Images that have no direct link to Skanderbeg should be removed (Alfonso V, Ferdinand I, Pope Pius II)

Sources

I have the idea that not all sources are used by the references. Also, in case you find multiple sources, select the best one (like from most reputable writer, prefer English if possible etc.) instead of listing any you could find.

Good luck with the article :) --DeVerm (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC).