Talk:John VII Palaiologos/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 10:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Ichthyovenator: I've gone through the article a couple of times, and made some copyedits (feel free to revert/discuss). As usual, a thorough and qualitative job. My comments follow:

Thank you. Copy edits look good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~escaped in 1376...took Constantinople in 1376 can we have more precise dates, or rephrase the second to something like "later in the same year"?~~

Added dates. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Be consistent between Asia Minor and Anatolia.~~

Changed to consistent usage of "Anatolia". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~and together they managed to persuade John VII together with whom?~~

Reworded this, should be more clear now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~forced him to become a courtier in the Ottoman court, acting as a submissive vassal if this means that Manuel had to be physically present at the Ottoman court, I suggest stating this explicitly~~

Britannica says he was forced to physically be there, made this explicit in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Add locations to those publications missing them (Gregory & Necipoğlu)~~

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the reason for resentment again brewing up between John and Manuel after Manuel's return could be that Manuel felt that he had been ignored and left out of these important negotiations this is an opinion, so please name the one who gives it.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~... almost give the impression that a cult of John VII was developing. this stops rather abruptly.~~

It stops rather abruptly in the source itself as well, Dennis just says that "It almost seems as though a cult of John was developing". I've changed the last few words to "was beginning to develop in Thessalonica", not sure if more could be added here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Figured that it would reflect the source, but now it at least is less abrupt.

The phrasing and tone of the article tend to skew somewhat towards favoring John in his dispute with Manuel II, e.g. Manuel's excuse were rumours.... I suggest going over it one more time with a view to that.

I think it is pretty clear that Manuel screwed over John VII several times (not that John didn't do the same to Manuel a few times). Obviously Manuel II was not purely a douchebag but the specific details of his life relevant in regards to John VII's biography are easy to interpret that way. I've changed some things around a bit, if there are more clear examples you're welcome to point them out. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on Manuel, but we need to be extra careful not to let the tone of our sources, or our own subconscious, influence our writing. Your changes look fine, and I can't find anything else.

~~...may even have withdrawn the Byzantine claims to Thessalonica secured through John VII's treaty I can't find this in the source referenced.~~

Looking through the source I can't find this either and I can't remember where I got it from. I've removed the passage entirely; seems strange that Manuel would give up the claims to the city. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Supposedly, John and Bayezid had agreed name who 'supposes' this.~~

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...not other matters normally handled by the emperor such as? Because if, for example, this included the right to nominate the patriarch, then it should be made clear that John VII in fact overstepped his authority in doing so, and Manuel reversing this decision was not just an act of spite.

"not other matters..." is my own addition, the source specifies that he was explicitly put in charge only of the city's defense. It seems clear that Manuel did not make John the senior emperor while he was away, though as the article has explained by this point, John VIII was the most senior co-emperor in the empire (which I think makes his constitutional position during Manuel's absence somewhat unclear?). Obviously, only the emperor was allowed to appoint patriarchs but I think this becomes a bit of a grey area (but Manuel did of course not intend for John to do this). I've added "In the Byzantine Empire, ultimate authority to appoint patriarchs rested with the emperor alone" after the rest of this stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~...the aristocracies in the two empires were close. can you elaborate just a bit on this? What does 'close' mean? Were they connected by familial ties, for example?~~

The source only says that "relations between the Byzantine and Ottoman aristocracies were close". I assume this means that despite the empires often being hostile towards each other (and historiography painting them as mortal enemies), Byzantine aristocrats and Ottoman aristocrats were in close contact with each other (the source then goes on to examplify this with the coordinated revolt of Andronikos IV and Savcı). Not sure how to best write this in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Byzantine and Ottoman aristocrats were in close contact with each other" or "maintained close personal relations" would suffice.

Went with your first suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some mention of the ivory pyxis that is the object of Oikonomides' study?

It is briefly alluded to in the final paragraph under "Emperor in Thessalonica" ("This can be gathered from contemporary artwork from Thessalonica...") but I agree more could definitely be added. I had trouble figuring out where it would fit best in the article, maybe you have some idea? Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the pyxis depicts John's entry into the city. I would mention it there.

I've added two sentences on the pyxis. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used and the detail are more than sufficient for GA, but if you intend to push this for A-class or FA, I strongly recommend getting Barker's truly monumental biography of Manuel II (Manuel II Palaeologus (1391-1425): A study in late Byzantine statesmanship). I have a copy, but be aware that in the index, John VII takes up about half as much space as Manuel himself...

I just used the sources I had access to for this version, but if I push it further I will definitely consult Barker's work (though the book looks to be massive, such a project will definitely have to wait). Thanks for the recommendation! Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't done a detailed source checkup/copyvio search, but will do so as soon as possible. Constantine ✍ 18:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's tool shows a few positives with Kapsalis' thesis, but nothing that is really copyvio, and my own spotchecking resulted in no problems. I haven't done an exhaustive source checkup, but other than the one issue flagged up above, I couldn't find any discrepancies, and the article content corresponds to my own knowledge of the period. Constantine ✍ 14:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]