Talk:Eugenio Lascorz/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 17:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will start reviewing shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Text

I wanted to review this because I find the article very intriguing, and the right mix of unusual and interesting. A few comments here:

"His older siblings were Lorenzo (1877–1900) and Josefina (1881–1956)." To help clarify for those unfamiliar with the names, I'd reword to say something like: "He had an older brother, Lorenzo (1877–1900), and sister Josefina (1881–1956))."

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lascorz believed his descent from the Laskarids could grant him a claim to the throne of the newly proclaimed Kingdom of Greece..." This refers to the pre-1924 Kingdom of Greece right? If so I don't think "newly proclaimed" is the right word choice here, as it had been around for nearly 80 years by this point (I'm inferring the actions in this section are dating to the 1920s or thereabouts). I would remove "newly proclaimed" as a result.

I was thinking "newly proclaimed" relative to old Byzantium, but yes I can see that this would be confusing. I've removed "newly proclaimed". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1946, he attempted to expand his "Sovereign and Imperial Order of Constantine the Great" and his own order of Saint Helena into international organisations." Is there any mention of when these "orders" were founded? Would be good to note that if possible.

I don't think there is; the New Byzantium site claims both orders were founded by Constantine the Great in the 4th century (1, 2), but that's obviously not true since the Romans and later Byzantines did not have knightly orders. The Constantinian order was founded in the 17th century by an older group of "Byzantine claimants", but it is unclear when Lascorz began to claim to be its head. The Helena order had to have been made up by Lascorz but since he claimed it was ancient, it would be difficult to determine when. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lascorz made no intellectual contributions to the legal world during his years as an attorney and lawyer." To me, this is contrasted with the later note that he served as a military judge, and indeed would seem to me to be something that should be mentioned earlier on. I'm not familiar with the Spanish legal system in the slightest, but would imagine that to get to that position he would either have to have been somewhat decent as a lawyer, or had the right connections to get there. The reference to Lascorz being a Francoist is also something I feel should be introduced there, and not first brought up in the "Hidalguía controversy" section."

Yeah, he probably was quite good at his job. The "no intellectual contributions" is to say, as is elaborated shortly after, that he spent his time working (rather than whatever else a lawyer might do); perhaps this could be rephrased or removed entirely, what do you think? I've moved the portions on Franco to this paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Because of the controversy, any texts discussing Eugenio Lascorz and his family in the 1950s were either for or, more commonly, against them." This sentence on its own stands out to me. I feel it could be moved to the end of the preceding paragraph (after the discussion of the interview with Teodoro), though it would have to be re-written to flow better. Something like: "Throughout the rest of the 1950s, any references to Lascorz and his family were split between supporting, or more commonly, opposing him."

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the above in mind, did the controversy over his claims die out in the 1950s, or did he continue to be mentioned in the press later on? I saw reference to a biography published in 1989, but was there anything else said about him after the 1954 events? Even if not it would be good to note that interest in him subsided by a certain point, or continued until wheneve.

There is not as much info on Lascorz after he was exposed, probably partly because of being exposed as a fake and partly because of his illness. I've added two short paragraphs previously left out information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...where Christian faith, Western thought, and Greek civilization will continue to survive." Change the "will" to "would". As Teodoro is dead now he can't really keep it going now, but as he wanted to it can work with that tense.

True; done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

For the Spanish language sources, it would be good to provide an English language translation of the titles. Use the "trans-title" within the citation for this.

Added. The title of the second one sounds a bit strange in English but it is what it means as far as I can tell. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes both "new-byzantium.org" and "European Royal Houses" reliable sources?

New-byzantium.org is definitely not a reliable source in general since it is the Lascorz family's own website. I've removed one of the references to it since it was unnecessary; the remaining four only cite information that actually can be reliably verified by this site (that Lascorz rendered his title as "Emperor of Constantinople" instead of "Byzantine Emperor", that he is Eugene "II" because of a supposed previous Eugene, as one of the sources for what Teodoro's New Byzantium idea was, and that Eugene "III" maintains his grandfather's claims). This info isn't really anywhere else and I feel that they are interesting to include. Since these specific instances are not affected by the inherent bias of the source perhaps it is passable to cite it where it is cited now? If not, I can remove it, but I will have to remove some of the info as well.

The article on European Royal Houses is written by Guy Stair Sainty, a prolific author on European nobility and heraldry, but now that you bring it up I am not sure that this source actually qualifies as reliable per WP:RS. It's a shame since it references quite a lot, so I suppose I'll have to look and see if I can justify it or search for an alternate source for what it cites. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the biography by Castro y Tosi is mentioned as "very favourable" to Lascorz, would it be of any use for adding information to the article?

I can't track down a copy online but I'm not sure it would be of a lot of use either way; whereas I think the New Byzantium site can be used to cite what it currently cites (per my attempt at a justification above), Castro's book suffers the same bias as that site with its title flat-out calling Eugenio a "prince of Byzantium". Not sure how reliable biographical information in it would be. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there was mention to some Spanish newspaper articles that exposed Lascorz, and his own family's response. Are you able to access any of those? It would be nice to have them if possible.

I agree that it would be nice; I've tried searching but have been unable to find them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I don't do a lot with image rights, but I will note that the one used here, which I see you uploaded, does have a copyright notice, albeit with a caveat. Just take caution on that to ensure it is a legitimate use.

Yes, the image is cropped and scaled down to a quite small size. As I understand it, it falls under fair use (applying the same logic as how Wikipedia deals with movie posters and such), since no free to use image exists of Lascorz. It could be removed but I think it is nice to have an actual image of the person when possible. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a really captivating article on a rather unusual person. Once the above are addressed the article should be ready for promotion. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the work here, and your justification for the sources and image, so will be happy to pass the article. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]