Talk:Byzantium under the Heraclians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Byzantium under the Heraclians was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 13, 2007
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
A fact from Byzantium under the Heraclians appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 20 September 2007.
Wikipedia


Contents

[edit] Hold the move there.

I protest the move. The reason being is that the name does not conform with the other similar articles:

Byzantium under the Komnenoi
Byzantium under the Angeloi
Byzantium under the Palaiologoi

When a move is proposed a concensus is needed which has not been obtained here. Tourskin 00:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Em, Tourskin, the names "Komnenoi", "Angeloi" and "Palaiologoi" are the plural form of these families' surnames in Greek. "Heraclian" alone means nothing, it is an adjective. It can only have sense in the full term "Heraclian dynasty", i.e. the dynasty founded by Heraclius, which is the only term appropriate to the era the article is describing (no surnames being used at that time). It would be like saying "Britain during the Victorian" or "Rome under the Julio-Claudian". I thought it was merely an oversight on your part, and, it being quite apparent (at least to me) that the term was faulty, I changed it. I did not think there was a need to discuss it. My mistake, noted for the future... Best regards and, BTW, cheers on your good work in Byzantium-related articles! Cplakidas 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One source

Why has this article been written using only one source? I worry that we may not be representing all of the major scholarly opinions on this subject (forget about the minor ones) by drawing just on that one source. I was going to review this article for GA, but when I saw the sourcing, I became concerned. Copying one author's version of the history is not good enough in my opinion - that is not research. What other sources are available? Awadewit | talk 11:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres also the following:
  • Madden, Thomas (2005). Crusades The Illustrated History. Ann Arbor: University of Michiga P. 
  • Haldon, John (2000). Byzantium at War 600 - 1453. New York: Osprey. 
  • Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP. 
  • Sherrard, Philip (1975). Great Ages of Man, Byzantium. New Jersey: Time-Life Books. 
  • Parker, Geoffrey (2005). Compact History ofthe World. London: Times Books. 
I can assure you that Norwich is an excellent overall source and his work is said to be a generalization of Rumicans. Also, the Oxford History of Byzantium, written by varous authors on the different periods of Byzantium state a very similar story to Norwich's, though not out of copying him. There is nothing wrong with using one very good source to cite facts.Tourskin (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dude, the references section shows other books as well. Besides scholars can't disagree on factual information. Tourskin (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to your footnotes, which refer almost exclusively to Norwich. Presumably, then, the article is based on Norwich. Using one very good source is always a good starting point - but that is all it is - a starting point. Scholars very much disagree on the "facts", as you call them, in history and, most importantly, on the interpretation of those facts. That is why we need more than one set of facts and their interpretation in this article. Awadewit | talk 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You have an academic point there. However, it is not in my opinion, practical to switch between two or more sources, trying to keeping track of what page was used so that the references can be "wikified" only to report the same information when they can be reported by the same one source. All I can do is give you my word that Norwich says nothing that is not agreed upon by academics, and to be honest there aren't many Byzantine academics out there when compared to other histories. Nothing in the article is using Norwich to put forward controversial ideas such as how Byzantium fell, for example. As for your point about interpretations of the "facts". Well, I have included all possibilities of how Byzantium fell during this period so that the reader can decide for themselves what was the death knell, as all non-biased histories trully should. Finally, Norwich is the most detailed source I have, with the Oxford dictionary, Philip's "Great ages of Man" and other sources that I have listed being abbreviations. So in response, I say that these sources agree with Norwich. Tourskin (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you be opposed to other editors adding citations from additional sources? --Lini (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. You do not have to ask me for permission, I don't own this article or any article. Please contribute and improve in any way you see fit. Tourskin (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some GA notes

I'm not formally reviewing this for GA, though if its still here after finals I'll come back. But two quick things, both involve the headers.

There are a few instances of both issues that need to be addressed. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Lol I have finals comming up too Tourskin (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA quick fail

Per the GA quick fail criteria, I have failed this article as there is a clean-up tag at the top of the article. I do not know the exact reason why someone placed that tag, but I agree it does need some wikification.

  • The introductory paragraph does not conform to WP:LEAD. The title is not bolded, and there are not any wikilinks to relevant topics. In fact see, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), as there are less than 10 wikilinks in the article total, only the Background section appears to be properly linked. Be careful not to over do it, but try to think of yourself as the average reader and what additional info might be available via a wikilink to learn more about something in a sentence. The "see also" headers at the beginning of some of the sections are good, but wikilinks are still needed in the summary paragraph(s).
  • "it is little wonder how smaller but well-determined and zealous soldiers can defeat numerous and divided opponents" comes across as commentary, thus WP:POV. If that is someone's opinion, it needs to be sourced. If it is your opinion, then it is original research and needs to be removed.
  • "Justinian II (restored)" section: Years in Exile needs to be Years in exile and Do not use "&" in article titles or section headers unless it is part of a formal name, such as "Tiffany & Co.", instead spell it out. Also relating to section titles, "The" as the first would is to be avoided. For both see WP:MOS#Article titles, headings and sections.
  • Under "Rise and Fall" why is Tiberius bolded?
  • In "Heraclius the elder arrives" and "Respite" and "The decline" sections there are issues with the placement of footnotes in relation to punctuation (no space between, and footnote goes after the punctuation mark).
  • Lastly, and not so much as a GA issue, but for balance you might want to introduce some other sources as it appears only two sources are used for this entire article. This helps to ensure the accuracy of what the authors have put forth, and it also helps to avoid POV issues if sources from only one side are used. In this instance Muslims and Christians and Greeks may have differing points of view on this time period.

Otherwise, this looks like a well sourced, and comprehensive article on the topic. With some manual of style work this can make it through GA next time. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)