Talk:Andronikos Angelos Doukas/GA1

GA Review

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

Intial comments:

I assume this is an error (r. 1081–1118– )

This is a result of a change in the {{reign}} template, done after I wrote the article. Fixed now. --Constantine ✍ 09:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered writing the second section as prose?

Yes, but I consider that the fates of the children, in so far as not being directly involved in their father's life story, are best presented like this. This is essentially additional information included for completeness, particularly for some of his children who are not notable enough to ever have articles of their own. AFAIK, this is also a standard way of presenting family members, not only in Wikipedia. --Constantine ✍ 09:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more current sources that could be added? This might help with rewriting the family section also.

By "more current" you mean more recent? The sources listed are pretty much the standard works on the subject, and cover everything as far as I am aware. The elementary facts about his life have been known for some time, and unless some new primary source emerges (doubtful, and I am not aware of any such development), this will remain so.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 21:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Seraphim System for taking the time to do the review! Any further comments or issues, especially regarding prose, readability, comprehensibility? The topic is somewhat obscure for the average reader, and making it more accessible is always an area where suggestions are welcome. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding prose, I think the lede has some issues, and could use some work especially near the end. For example switching pronouns here: "Following Manuel's death, in 1182 he was sent to stop the rebellion of Andronikos I Komnenos, but was defeated and eventually joined him"

This sentence is a bit clunky: "Andronikos is first recorded in the sources during the court and ecclesiastical synod convened in March 1166 over the interpretation of Christ's statement "My Father is greater than I", where he participated along with his brothers"

Rewritten, hopefully better now. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is likewise a bit too dense and places too much emphasis on John who is a minor figure in the sentence: "In 1176 he participated, along with his older brother John, as a unit commander of the vanguard in the campaign against the Seljuk Sultanate of Iconium that led to the Byzantine defeat in the Battle of Myriokephalon"

I would recommend something like "In 1176 Andronikos and his older brother John commanded the vanguard of the Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriokephalon, where they were defeated by the Seljuk Sultanate of Iconium.

Well, not exactly. The campaign that culminated in the battle is not the same as the battle. The brothers commanded units in the vanguard in the lead-up, but were not commanders "of" the vanguard, and their role in the battle itself is unclear. I have partly rewritten that, though, to make it a bit easier to read. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sources, this looks like it is following very closely a primary account: "In 1179, Emperor Manuel entrusted Andronikos...he threatened to have him publicly paraded through the streets of Constantinople dressed as a woman; in the end, however, he relented and did not carry out his threat." This sounds more like a chronicle account then an encyclopedia article. Based on the citations, it seems to be from the Annals of Niketas Choniatēs, and I think this should be mentioned in the article, "according to the Annals". The Annals don't have their own article but Choniates does and this would be valuable to add to the article.

Good point. Done. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have some things to do but I will finish my comments in a bit. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: Thanks for the comments, take your time. I'll deal with them over the next few days. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: just a small reminder, and best wishes for the new year! Constantine ✍ 12:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can pass this round because of criteria 1a and 3c:

There is still an issue with the primary sources, adding the wikilink before only the example I highlighted is not going to be enough to resolve this. Please try to confirm the details of the primary account in multiple secondary sources, and if you can't, then leave it out. Try to find a good source that is grounded to help sort out the major details of the primary account (more recent sources, in my experience, are usually less indulgent). The current version includes excessive detail from a primary source, and I think it will need significant work with additional current secondary sources to help summarize the account. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: I am sorry, but what? I am not using a single primary source, except via secondary sources that form the available literature on the subject. I have "confirmed the details of the primary account in multiple secondary sources", the sources I am using are the standard secondary sources on Byzantine biographies of the period. Where am I supposed to find *additional* *current* secondary sources? I also can't understand what you mean by "indulgent" or "summarize the account" further. You obviously mean something by this, and want the article to take a different direction in some areas, but I can't follow without concrete examples. The review is supposed to help in that, and right now it feels as if you simply want to be rid of it, because until a few moments ago I thought I had addressed or answered the points you raised... Constantine ✍ 21:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have left this review open long enough that it was not unfair to fail it. It still reads more like a primary account then an encyclopedia article. Here are some examples:

"However, during the night, some Turks got to the rear of the imperial army and raised loud voices. Fearing that he was encircled, Andronikos mounted his horse and fled headlong"
"only the intervention of another imperial relative, Manuel Kantakouzenos, who sword in hand confronted the fleeing soldiers"

The following paragraph beginning "In spring 1182" is much better - For example something like this:

"Andronikos was defeated by the rebel's army, even though that was a hastily assembled force consisting, according to Choniates, only of "farmers unfit for warfare and a contingent of Paphlagonian soldiers", led not even by a military experienced commander, but by "a certain eunuch"." - this is better but it still needs some improvement for prose.
"Andronikos Angelos and Andronikos Kontostephanos, along with their numerous sons, and the logothetes tou dromou Basil Doukas Kamateros were the leaders of the plot, but it was quickly discovered by the Emperor's agents." - the prose here needs to be improved as well. It helps to think about what the main point of the sentence is and what is emphasized by the way it is written. Consider WP:ASTONISH - I would rewrite this "The leaders of the plot were ... It was discovered by ... and so and so were seized."

I don't think it is too far from passing - my suggestion would be to go over the article for encyclopedic tone (like "Sword in hand confront the fleeing soldiers") and then run it by GOCE so they can go over the prose before resubmitting. GOCE won't really want to make source-based corrections so it is probably better to go over it before submitting to them.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better, although I don't really agree that "encyclopaedic tone" is incompatible with a less-than-bone-dry narrative. If the article is not too far from passing, why don't you wait until the remaining points are addressed? It is your right to close this off, of course, but there is no time limit on the reviews, and usually in GA if the candidate article does not fail outright from the outset, it takes "as long as it takes". All reviews are collaborative efforts; a review that merely fails or passes without pointing out the deficiencies and makes concrete suggestions to improve them serves no-one. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]