Talk:Helmichis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

There is an image of Monumenta Germaniae Historica, but appears to be no mention of this text in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Please replace if the text is a significant source for the story - though it would be helpful to mention it in the article as a source for this story. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the removal, it wasn't very important.Aldux (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear if this article is meant to be about Helmichis or about the murder of Alboin. The title and first sentence suggests it is about Helmichis, but the organisation and contents are about the murder. Some attention to the focus would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Helmichis life is impossible not to immediately put in relation with the assassination, because nothing is known of his acts before that. I wrote "In this town Alboin was assassinated in 572 and it is in these circumstances that Helmichis' name is first heard of." So this is an article which you can say is also an article on Alboin's assassination, as all we know about Helmichis is linked to it and the immediate chain of events it generated.Aldux (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a way of saying that without breaching original research. I thought about saying in the lead: "Helmichis is only known in connection with the assassination of Alboin, and is first mentioned by the contemporary chronicler Marius of Avenches....", but would like a source for such a view. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"chose Verona, as capital". Is this true? Sources I've looked at show Pavia as the capital, with Verona as secondary in importance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Paul the Deacon (and modern scholarship) doesn't leave any space for doubt. As for the sources you mention, they certainly mean Lombard history in general, as later on Pavia was to emerge as the seat of the court.Aldux (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to say that - to avoid confusion. I get the sense, then, that Verona's role as capital was very short. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"head of a personal armed following". This is not clear. Does it mean he had his own small army? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. To avoid confusion I'll use "retinue" instead.Aldux (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fiddling with it, but I think the lead still needs some work. Some more detailed mention of the sources would be useful, and more detail on the actual murder, including the lack of clarity regarding who killed the king, Helmichis or Peredeo; and a more detailed summary of the Failure section ("faced stiff opposition from his fellow Lombards" is not quite enough). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right, I'll work on this, just need to have some time to do it.Aldux (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Machiavelli's History Of Florence, which carries an account of the story, would likely have propelled the character of Helmichis into the minds of writers? It seems to have been the main source for Anna Kingsford's Rosamunda The Princess. It might be useful to have some discussion of Helmichis in the world of the romantic writers, and to mention some significant texts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first question, I'm pretty sure that the answer is probably no: it's simply that Machiavelli and the romantics have read the same source, which is Paul the Deacon's famous saga-like account of Alboin's demise. As for the last question, I'm very reluctant to treat the cultural references because they are both formidable in their sheer number and importance; but the uniform aspect is the fascination for Alboin and Rosamund, Helmichis is just a marginal side-figure, thus it will be extremely hard to find a good secondary literature on Helmichis in plays, folk-songs, music, poetry, novels and paintings. This would be something that would be best dealt in the article on Rosamund, but hear I'm afraid the risk of arbitrary selection is too great, so I'd prefer to avoid the issue.

I understand the nature of the problem. However, it might be helpful/worthwhile to make some mention of the later interest/texts, given that a number of readers may come to this article from those texts. It doesn't need to be extensive - simply the sort of summary you've given above. Though I do understand the difficulty of getting sources to say what we want, and it would be inappropriate to stray into original research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will permit me to make a small objection to one of your edits; I've noticed you've moved to the bottom the section on sources. In featured articles on medieval biographies when a section on primary sources is present it is common to put them near the beginning because this way the reader will know what the various sources are; otherwise for example, if the Origo is mentioned to support X, the puzzled reader will have to wait the last section to understand what the Origo is, and so on. At least, this I did also with Thurisind and no objections emerged on the position of the section on sources emerged neither at at the MILHIST A-class review nor at the FAC.Aldux (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fellow editor, so you can object and over-ride and amend any of my edits. No worries! Moving the section wasn't related to any GA criteria; I moved it as it seemed more logical to have the sources discussed at the end, where the sources are listed. I see the sense in mentioning sources within the article as each point arises, and if the sources themselves are worth mentioning to have a section devoted to them, but am unclear as to why an article in a general encyclopaedia about an historical figure and an historical event should be prefaced by such a detailed source analysis. A scholarly text, which is intended for academic researchers and historians, may well start with a discussion on sources, but we are not such a publication, so our approach and aims are slightly different. The audience for Wikipedia is the general public - people who have read the name Helmichis and wish to know a little more about who this person was, what he did, and why he is notable. When that curiosity has been satisfied, a reader may then wish to know a little bit more about the sources, but that, logically, would come after their first questions have been answered. That is my rationale for the move, it is not an argument for keeping the section at the end if by consensus the section should come first, but simply giving you the reasons so you can consider them yourself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

This is an interesting story of a minor historical figure. There appear to be some aspects not quite developed, such as the story's appeal to later, particularly Romantic, writers, and there is a lack of clarity regarding the focus of the article - is it an account of an historical person or an historical event? Or perhaps a bit of both? I haven't quite finished checking sources; while I do that I'm putting the GAN on hold to allow contributors time to look at the aspects I've raised for discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC) First of all, let me thank you for reviewing this. As you say it's a minor character that serves as a pendant for my previous work on Alboin. Returning to your question on what the focus is here, you're seccond suggestion is the correct one, this article is both on the person and the event as it's simply impossible to treat the individual out of the event due to any backgroud on him previous to it available. As for the appeal of the story, as mentioned before this is not the right article to treat it.Aldux (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away this weekend. I'll take a closer look at the article when I get back next week. In the meantime can you provide an English source for Verona being the capital. As the sources I've look at - including Gibbon - say that Pavia was the capital. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

This is an enjoyable and interesting story. Questions about coverage in later literature can be taken up as part of the ongoing development of the article; I don't think they are enough to hold this back from GA listing. The coverage is broad enough as it stands. Also the question about focus is an editing quibble which is beyond the scope of GA. Sources I've looked at support the article, and I'm happy with the adjustment of Verona as headquarters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]