Talk:Leontius/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will start this in a few days. Constantine ✍ 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

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):
Is there no coin of Leontios to use rather than a fanciful 17th-century reconstruction?
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Detailed comments

In 686, Emperor Justinian II sent Leontios to invade the Umayyads, who were distracted by a war with the Zubayrids, in Armenia and Georgia, where he campaigned successfully before leading troops in Azerbaijan and Caucasian Albania over-long, split up. Also, who were the Umayyads and the Zubayrids? Introduce the threat posed by the Arab caliphate, the context of the Second Fitna and link it. Leontios' entire life is shaped by the consequences of the Muslim conquests, but this is nowhere mentioned for the uninitiated reader.
- Done
  - Now there's the reverse problem, in that there is too much information: "Husayn ibn Ali the Alid declared himself a caliph in early 680, revolting against the Umayyad Caliph Yazid I, but was defeated in October 680 and executed" is redundant and can be removed entirely. "Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr declared himself ... to defeat the Zubayrids until 692" can be summarized much more effectively along the lines of "Umayyad authority was challenged even in their metropolitan province of Syria, while most of the Caliphate recognized Abdallah ibn al-Zubayr instead. Under Marwan I and his son Abd al-Malik however, the Umayyads gained the upper hand, although the Zubayrids were not finally defeated until 692.
  - Done
garnered a reputation for cruelty -> "earned a reputation". Any examples where this reputation was founded on?
- Done None of the sources mention it.
  - Either justify it or remove it.
  - Done
Standardize use of "Iberia" instead of "Georgia"
- Done
After defeating the Byzantines, the Umayyads proceeded to invade North Africa and Anatolia", not quite: the Umayyads had already invaded North Africa decades before (perhaps "renew their invasions of North Africa")
- Done
Other sources which other sources?
- Done
  - The PmbZ are not the writers of the Prosopography of the Byzantine World. And this is obviously not their opinion, but a statement from the primary sources. Also, the PmbZ notes that it is possible but unknown whether Leontios was at Sebastopolis: the passage reads "Probably in 692, L. was imprisoned at the orders of the emperor, since he was suspected to aim at the imperil title. It is conceivable tha a connection exists with the heave defeat of the Byzantine troops in the same year against the Arabs at Sebastopolis. It is not unlikely that L., as strategos of the Anatolics, took part in this battle and possibly functioned as commander-in-chief".
  - Done
appointed him strategos of Hellas, because Justinian feared losing the city of Carthage in the Exarchate of Africa explain how exactly is this appointment connected with keeping Carthage in Africa. Also, it would be a good idea to introduce the Exarchate when you first mention the Umayyad invasion of North Africa, e.g. "renew their invasions of North Africa, aimed at Byzantine Exarchate of Africa around Carthage" or something similar
- Done
who opposed Justinian's land policies a few details on what these were and why they aroused opposition are necessary for context
- Done
Blue faction and Green faction, given that there is no link, please add a brief explanation, e.g. "(one of the Hippodrome factions)"
- Done
  - Unlink the factions as well.
in order to remove threats to the throne, this implies that the nose was a threat. Be specific, and explain that mutilated people were barred from the throne.
- Done
exiled him to Cherson add "a Byzantine exclave in the Crimea" for context.
- Done
took the name link to regnal name
- Done
He restricted the movement of the Byzantine army, "movement" is not the right word here. Perhaps "activity"?
- Done
by Leontios perceived weakness, Leontios'
- Done
to retake Byzantine Africa, who was able to seize Carthage, avoid repeating "Byzantine Africa", it is unnecessary. "...to retake the city. John was able to..."
- Done
fearing the emperor's capitalize Emperor
- Done
the droungarios of Cibyrrhaeot, who was of German origins, First, explain droungarios. Second "of the Cibyrrhaeots". Third, "of Germanic origin".
- Done
  - Not quite, but fixed it myself. Where does whereas the aristocracy of the Byzantine empire was usually Greek come from? The "Greekness" of the Byzantines is a major topic of discussion, and Germanic officers were certainly not uncommon during this time, so why is now highlighted? And which reference does it come from?
    - It appears to have slipped through the crack when I was purging sources. Major whoops. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
dragged to the Hippodrome, and publicly humiliated no need for the comma
- Done
strategos of the Anatolic Theme explain the particular importance of this appointment
- Done
The exact date of the executions are unknown, is unknown
- Done
The PmbZ article has some info on his domestic activities (or rather, the relative lack of information on them) that should be incorporated here. Generally this source has been under-utilized, as it offers a very good critical view on the commonly stated 'facts' on his career.
- Done
  - Not really. The PmbZ article also says, for example, that Leontios refrained from killing Justinian out of his reverence for Constantine IV, or that his rise to the throne was prophesied during his captivity by two monks, who encouaged him to move against Justinian after his release. If you need help with the German text, feel free to ask, but don't just tick it off as done when it is not ;)
    - Done
Consider splitting up the "History" section in to smaller ones, at least one dealing with his reign and one with his earlier career.
- Done
In the lede, "He was given the title of patrikios, and made strategos of the Anatolic Theme under Emperor Justinian II." whereas in the article, this is attributed to Constantine IV
- Done
"Necipoğlu & Leal 2010" is an incorrect citation. Muqarnas is an annual journal, please find the proper author, article title, and attribution
- Done
I am not convinced that the "Primary sources" list offers anything to the reader in this manner. It makes sense to list them separately if they are used in the article, but they are not. The list might be of value still if the passages dealing with Leontios were mentioned, but this is not the case. So if you are not prepared to do that, I would recommend removing the list altogether.
- Done
I see rather heavy similarities with Moore's text, which IMO are enough to violate 2d. This needs additional work to be rectified.
- Done

Overall the article has the right content, but is still rough around the edges, and needs some work to be a good, stand-alone piece of information. The one referencing issue and the copyvio concerns especially should be dealt with before this can progress any further. Will put on hold for now, pending the nominator's response. Constantine ✍ 09:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I believe I have fixed all issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better Iazyges. I've made some comments above. A few other things and we're done:

leading troops in Azerbaijan I suggest changing Azerbaijan to Adharbayjan. They both link to the same, but they won't confuse the casual reader.
John the Patrician I wager there were at least half a dozen "John the Patrician"s in each century of the Byzantine Empire from the 5th to the 11th century, as botht he name and the title were *very* common. Find some other way to disambiguate John, and change to "the patrikios John".

Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: in case you missed it, I also left a few comments above on the points I initially raised. Constantine ✍ 17:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Believe I have corrected them all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Re-pinging. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Iazyges, passing now. Constantine ✍ 08:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]