Jump to content

Talk:Nikephoros III Botaneiates/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like I have to compensate you for your stellar work of clearing up my GA backlog today, It's been a while since I've done a review so I might be a bit rusty but I think I will be able to offer some input here. Will begin soon :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial thoughts:

  • The article is lacking a bit in images. There is only one image besides the one in the infobox but there are more images in Nikephoros III's category at Commons. For example; 1 and 2. Is there a reason why these or other images (maybe maps, artefacts etc.) are not included? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done
For the coin image, maybe specify that Nikephoros is the figure on the right. A reader unfamiliar with the practice of putting Christ Pantocrator on the coins could easily confuse the right image (an enthroned figure) with the emperor. With that in mind, it could also be nice to state that it's Christ Pantocrator on the left. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Yeah, fair enough. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "History" should be split into a separate "Historiography and sources" section and a "Biography" section? Maybe there is a reason for keeping them in just one section but in other articles they seem to be separate.
  •  Done
  • You've linked the Pecheneg revolt in the lede but not the Pechengs themselves (in the sentence after the link to the revolt).
  •  Done
  • In the last paragraph under "Historiography and souces" you say "Nikephoros is also mentioned in the accounts of both Matthew of Edessa and Michael the Syrian, who wrote their chronicles several centuries after the events and are therefore quite objective in their treatment of Nikephoros" but then you go on to state that both of these authors used previous sources and seem to have carried with them the same (not necessarily entirely objective?) assessments of Nikephoros. Maybe I'm misreading this but doesn't that mean that the old biased views of him were carried over in the later works?
    I've explained it better; they are considered more objective because they themselves do not have political reasons to be against him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, okay, this works 👍 Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things are linked twice; Michael VII, Robert Guiscard and Maria of Alania.
  •  Done
  • Maybe you could offer some brief explanation of what the office of Magistros meant when you say that Nikephoros was awarded the title, something to the effect of a "high court rank" or whatever you feel is best.
  •  Done
  • "At an unknown date, Nikephoros married a woman named Vevdene, but he later would marry Maria of Alania" maybe just "but he later married Maria of Alania"?
  •  Done
  • "during this period the civil officials had increasingly become more powerful, until the reforms of Isaac I curbed the power of the civil officials so strongly as to leave a lasting impression" gonna suggest "during this period the civil officials had increasingly become more powerful, until the reforms of Isaac I curbed their power so strongly as to leave a lasting impression" or something to that effect, there is a lot of repetition of "civil officials" here.
  •  Done
  • You offer a quite detailed explanation of what kouropalates entails but nothing on what being a strategos means.
  •  Done
  • "Nikephoros warned John not to cross the Zompos Bridge and engage the forces of Roussel, however, John disregarded him and lead his troops to defeat at the Battle of the Zompos Bridge in 1074" nothing to change here, just wow.
    It really does feel like if you went back in time and shot like 10 Byzantine people the empire would still be standing today. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally. Their worst enemy really was themselves. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and turned against Nikephoros, forcing him to rebel against Michael to protect himself". There might be more explanation needed here as to what exactly the emperor "turning against you" entailed and thus why Nikephoros has to do something as drastic as rebel and declare himself emperor.
  •  Done
  • "Nikephoros, now too old to command armies, sent Alexios to defeat him", I assume the Alexios here (and in the rest of this paragraph and section) is Alexios Komnenos? Could be worth putting in his lastname either here or in the previous sentence.
  •  Done I've put it in both just to ensure its understood that Alexios the usurper and Alexios the general are one in the same. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of sending people into exile in monasteries in this article; might be worth pointing out at the earliest time it's mentioned that this was a somewhat common practice of dealing with usurpers (or those who had been usurped).
  •  Done
  • The article on Nikephoros's intended heir, Synadenus Botaniates, doesn't exist yet but shouldn't his name be spelled Synadenos (as Greek spellings seem to be preferred for Byzantine stuff)
  •  Done
  • "he also donated generously to charities" <- this is very interesting. Do we know what kind of charities he donated to and what charity looked like in his day?
    Unfortunately nothing much is known about which charities; presumably it was mostly monasteries, but none of the sources are willing to say such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate, it won't hold up a GA if it's not in any of the sources, though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first enacting a law regarding spousal insanity", what kind of law was this? Allowing people to divorce their spouse if their spouse was insane?
    Unfortunately "spousal insanity" is as far as reputable sources go in explaining what this means. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a shame since "spousal insanity" really catches you off-guard, but yeah I understand. Not an issue then if the sources don't explain it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they provide insight into Nikephoros's desire to relieve some of the issues plaguing the Byzantine empire and correct the rampant corruption of the Byzantine courts", "Byzantine Empire" should be capitalized, right?
  •  Done
  • "... and thus became nominally independent of the Byzantine Empire"; didn't they become the opposite of nominally independent? With their domains divided from the rest of their empire they would have become de facto independent but still remained de jure (and thus nominally) vassals of the emperor, right? Philaretos appears to have tried to become fully independent but as you say in the article, he soon submitted and was accorded titles by Nikephoros. I could be mistaken here.
    You are correct. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because of Philaretos's dislike of the corrupt Nikephoros the Logothete" maybe use "Nikephoritzes" instead of "Nikephoros the Logothete" since "Nikephoritzes" is used elsewhere in the article and "Nikephoros the Logothete" could be confused with Emperor Nikephoros I, who was also called "the Logothete". Unless this is yet another Nikephoros who was a Logothete.
  •  Done

That's everything I had to add. I think this is an excellent article and found it very interesting to read up on an emperor I knew almost nothing about. Will pass it once you're done with the stuff above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikephoros_III_Botaneiates/GA1&oldid=951586715"