Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andreas Palaiologos/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2020 [1].

---

Andreas Palaiologos

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about one of my favourite historical figures, Andreas Palaiologos, nephew of the last Byzantine emperor and "emperor"-in-exile from the 1480s to 1502. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

Removed fixed px size for the Bessarion image. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• File:Σφραγίς_Ανδρέου_Παλαιολόγου.png: if the creator of the sketches is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?

Yeah, we don't. I've removed the 100 years ago template; since the image is from a Greek-language source maybe it would be good to point out that the image would be in the public domain in Greece as well? Since the creator of the image is unknown/anonymous, Greek copyright law states that it's the date of publication (1904) + 70 years. The Greek public domain template was deleted in 2011 though so I can't add that (if there isn't some other way). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If there's no Greece-specific tag on Commons you can just use a generic PD tag like PD-because and add the explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, true. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• File:Bessarion_1476.JPG needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Andreas_russia.png, File:Charles_VIII_Ecole_Francaise_16th_century_Musee_de_Conde_Chantilly.jpg, File:French_troops_and_artillery_entering_Naples_1495.jpg, File:Facial_Chronicle_-_b.17,_p._110.gif, File:Sketches_of_John_VIII_Palaiologos_during_his_visit_at_the_council_of_Florence_in_1438_by_Pisanello.jpg

Added US PD tags on all. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• File:OttomanEmpire1481.png: what source(s) verify the data presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added a source which presents the same borders. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Claiming my place here, glad to review this little gem... Constantine ✍ 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The article reads well and is quite comprehensive, the referencing is very good and includes, as far as I can tell, all the relevant scholarly works that deal with Andreas. From reading it, I couldn't immediately detect any significant omissions, so my comments will be on style and clarity:

• the daughter of Centurione II Zaccaria, the last Prince of Achaea. For context, perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce the Principality of Achaea a bit earlier, when you discuss how During their rule as despots, they managed to restore Byzantine control of the entire peninsula.

Yeah, true. I've reworked this bit in the background to introduce the principality. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• when preparations were being made for a crusade, which never took place, Thomas personally rode around Italy to drum up support. can you add the date for this?

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Despot of the Romans I suggest linking to Rhomaioi here, and perhaps adding a note that this is what the Byzantines called themselves; otherwise the uninitiated might think that this refers to Rome.

Added a link to Rhomaioi. I wonder what the popes made of his use of "Romeorum" and why Andreas went with "Romans" for his despot title and "Constantinople" for his imperial one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Venice had recently signed a treaty with the Ottomans link to Treaty of Constantinople (1479)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Demetrius and Manuel Rhalles may I suggest adding "the Greek brothers" and possibly link them to Raoul (Byzantine family)? It is of note that Moscow sent Greek exiles to Rome, rather than Russian boyars

Added, and linked "Rhalles" to Raoul (Byzantine family). Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• The French Cardinal uncapitalize the "C"

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• receive 4300 ducats (almost 360 ducats a month) the 4300 ducats were an annual pension rather than a one-time payment, correct? If so, then clarify it.

Yes, it's an annual pension. Clarified. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, what is a saddle horse? Is this a horse to be ridden, as opposed to one for carrying burden?

I'll admit I had no idea what it meant either, so had to look it up. Your guess seems to be correct (link). Should this be clarified in some way in the text or is it fine? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Plans around the projected crusade had often revolved around the part Cem was expected to play repetition of "around"

Rephrased and fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Mihailović" is an unusual transliteration for a Russian name, change to "Mikhailovich". Also, add that he was Prince of Vereya. He also has a Russian WP article (Василий Удалой), so perhaps add an interwiki link to it.

Changed to "Mikhailovich", added his principality and added interwiki link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• must have been considered threatened "precarious" perhaps?

Yeah, that works better. Changed to "precarious". Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• to travel Europe in hopes of employment and eventually travel to the Ottomans repetition of "travel"

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Theodore Spandugnino -> Theodore Spandounes

Changed last name used to Spandounes and linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• but had minimal basis this appears to be Harris' assessment/opinion, so make this explicit

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• 20th-century work Le despotat grec de Morée -> 1932 work Le despotat grec de Morée, precision

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• by writing of his deeds on the frescoes did he literally 'write' of his deeds, or did he portray his deeds in frescoes?

Harris 1995, the sources used, states that the deeds were "recorded", so maybe he didn't literally write of his deeds. I've changed the entire thing to "For instance, Sixtus IV recorded his generosity towards the Palaiologoi in the frescoes of the Ospedale di Santo Spirito in Sassia", so the article now just mentions that the deeds were recorded. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Some modern historians have gone so far name a couple

Harris 1995 mentions that it was Runciman who said this, so just added that it was Runciman. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise an excellent piece of work. Will have a look in my library to see if I can find anything that can be added, and once the above have been taken care of, will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried to incorporate everything I could find, but I only had access to what was online so I'd be happy to add anything if you find some missing info :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ichthyovenator, your changes look good. One suggestion would be to briefly mention that the Morea had been partially held by Venetian and local Greek/Albanian stradioti during the Ottoman-Venetian War, out of which Cladas' revolt grew. This is the reason Andreas could hope to find some support there: Ottoman power was still shaky in the peninsula. Otherwise I didn't find much, I still haven't had a look at my copy of Zakythinos though. Constantine ✍ 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that could absolutely be mentioned. What source should I use for this and where do you think it fits best? Early in the "attempted expedition ..." section before Clada's introduction maybe? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say Setton, he has more than enough material on the Ottoman-Venetian war. Perhaps after " in the late summer of 1481, Andreas planned to organize an expedition against the Ottomans." would be a good spot. Add "At the time, the Morea...." and explain why the moment was opportune. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I've posted a request at WP:REX for Zakythinos, as I can't seem to find the copy I had. Since this may take time, and since the article is fine as it is and my suggestions have been addressed, I move to support. Well done, once again! Constantine ✍ 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: since I got the chapter unexpectedly quickly, a few remarks: Zakythinos (p. 290) writes that Thomas called his sons over in spring 1465, which contradicts the statement that Thomas summoned the children to Rome shortly after that,[13] Andreas and his younger brother Manuel did not choose to rejoin their father until a few days before Thomas died in 1465. This actually makes sense, for how could an underage boy 'choose' not to heed his father's summons? Harris has copied most information that Zakythinos has to say, but there are a few details that are missing. I can add them over the next few days, if that's OK with you. Constantine ✍ 15:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Yes, that does make a lot more sense. Since I don't have the text (and don't know what publisher or OCLC/ISBN to put) you'd be more than welcome to add anything Zakythinos says that is currently missing, if you have the time! Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Done! Constantine ✍ 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for the additions! I guess that's everything we know of Andreas, then. He might not have been able to retake Constantinople or the Morea, but perhaps he can claim his place on Wikipedia's main page :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Borsoka

I also like the Palaiologi. :)

Consider adding a "Background" section. Few editors had information about 15th-century history. I think the short section should cover the Palaiologi and their European policy, the Despotate of Morea, the Venetian possessions in the Pelopponnese, the Ottoman expansion, the Church union and Bessarion. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added a background section. For the info on the European policy and the church union I just moved up some of the info on this that was already in the "Legacy" section, since this resulted in an awkwardly short "failure of Palaiologan policy" subsection, I had to restructure that a bit and removed the subsections there. I didn't bring up Bessarion in the background section since I felt that he was properly introduced without much confusion under "early life" but if you feel that something is missing there I could add more on him as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Background

Thank you for adding the section.

• ...the Ottoman Turks had conquered vast swaths of once Byzantine territories and by 1405, they ruled much of Bulgaria, Serbia, Thessaly, Macedonia and central Greece: most territories mentioned were not conquered from the Byzantines. What about deleting "once Byzantine" and adding Anatolia to the list?

Of course "once Byzantine" isn't wrong but yeah, I see what you mean. I've removed "once Byzantine" and added Anatolia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• During their rule as despots, they managed to restore Byzantine control of the entire peninsula, save for the scattered towns and port cities under the control of the Republic of Venice, holdovers from the Fourth Crusade. Consider changing one of the two terms "control".

Changed the second "control" to "authority". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• As their empire crumbled, the Palaiologan emperors pursued a policy of attempting to secure military aid from Western Europe. Hungary and Poland are Central European states, but the emperors sought the Hungarian and Polish kings' assistance several time. I think terms like "Orthodox Palaiologan emperors" and "Catholic Europe" could help.

That's true. Changed to emphasize religion rather than geography. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Consider changing the term "religious orthodoxy". I know it is a perfect term in the context, but it is also disturbing, because the Palaiologi adhered to the Orthodox Church.

I see what you mean and I agree, it's difficult to find a good replacement, though. Something like "adherance to Christianity" or "Christian faith" wouldn't really work since the popes were well aware that the Byzantines were Christian.

Terms, like "lack of heresy" or "willingness to put an end to East-West Schism"?

Went with "lack of heresy". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Consider linking "union of the churches" to church union.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Consider mentining that the church union was unpopular and was never fully introduced.

Not sure this is directly relevant to Andreas and the rest but it doesn't hurt to mention it. Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder your sources mention that a Catholic prince, sponsored by the popes had any hope to achieve popular support in the Morea.

I don't think this was mentioned, no, but I think we can surmise that Andreas himself did not know a whole lot about the social dynamics and religious history of the Byzantines; he was raised in Rome and thus probably had a quite western perspective on the whole thing. If he had succeeded with any of the at least 4 attempts/schemes to get control of some land in Greece his religion and backing would likely be hindrances, yes, but it might have worked out fine either way; after all some of the Catholic domains founded in the Fourth Crusade lasted for centuries. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Early life

• Consider mentining that Bessarion was one of the few Byzantine clerics supporting the union with Rome.

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Duke Ivan III of Moscow: he was Grand Prince of Moscow.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Andreas continued to stay in Rome by consent of the pope, who recognized him as the heir of Thomas and the rightful Despot of the Morea. Name the pope and consider deleting "the rightful".

Both done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Consider changing "eastern emperors" to "Byzantine emperors".

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Decide: Papacy or papacy?

Changed to consistent "papacy". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Andreas's upbringing in Rome may have left him unaware that the Byzantine emperors had been formally titled as Emperors of the Romans rather than Emperors of Constantinople. Consider rephrasing: the titles are repeated too many times. Maybe: "Andreas's upbringing in Rome may have left him unaware that his title differed from the Byzantine emperors' official style"?

Changed to something close to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Consider deleting until his death in 1472

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Financial troubles

• Introduce the Empire of Trebizond, possibly in the Background section.

Introduced it right after it's first mentioned in this section; I found it difficult to fit it into the background section in a non-awkward way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• So far his claim to Trebizond was not mentioned. Was this a "right" or he fabricated it to be able to sell it?

Yeah, it's a quite questionable claim. The sources don't say where he got the claim from and there were probably living Komnenoi descendants of the Trapezuntine emperors at this point. Maybe he just thought the Trapezuntine title was connected to the Constantinopolitan?

Did he actually have rights either to Constantinople or Trebizond? What about "claims"? Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The Byzantines did not have formal succession laws, but by the time Andreas claimed to be the Emperor of Constantinople (1483) he absolutely was the most senior "heir" of Constantine XI, so the Constantinople claim/right checks out. The Palaiologoi did intermarry with the ruling family of Trebizond a bit, but none of Andreas's immediate ancestors were Trapezuntine. The closest thing I found was that Andreas's step-grandmother was Eudokia of Trebizond but that doesn't give him a claim since she wasn't his ancestor. Constantinople wasn't a fabrication, but he might just have made up the Trebizond claim to squeeze some more money out of people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that the text suggests Andreas had actual right to rule Trapezunt (and Serbia). Could I claim to sell my neighbors' house? I am Hungarian and they are also Hungarians, moreover we live in the same village, and one of them is a cousin of mine. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooooooh, yeah I wasn't reading this properly. I missed that it said "rights" even with you pointing it out. I've changed "rights" to "claims", which would be correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Consider changing Euphrasina Palaeologina to Euphrasina Palaiologina. I know both forms are correct, but I would prefer a consistent usage.

Yeah, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I guess Sant'Andrea della Valle is the "local Church of Sant'Andrea".

Could be, but I'm not sure. Andreas lived on the Campo Marzio whereas Sant'Andrea della Valle is in Sant'Eustachio, the districts are right next to each other so might still be possible, I don't know. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point.

Attempted expedition against the Ottomans

• As it is quite obvious, I am not a native English speaker, so I am probably wrong, but the section title sounds artificial for me.

It's the longest section title so if there's something better I could change it, but I don't think it's wrong. It's an attempted expedition and it's against the Ottomans. Do you have another suggestion? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Like his father Thomas, Andreas actively attempted to organize expeditions to retake Constantinople and restore the empire. Is this true? If my understanding is correct, only one attempt is mentioned.

The 1481 expedition attempt is the only one where Andreas himself was to lead the thing, yes, but he was involved in other stuff as well. Notable, his sale of the imperial title to Charles VIII of France in return for the promise of being granted the Morea is another attempt at organizing an expedition to retake Constantinople and restore the empire, albeit not with himself as the leading figure. I've rephrased this a bit so that it's not only focused on expeditions as he was involved in other schemes of trying to secure Greek territory too. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Consider changing one of the two expressions "to organize an expedition" in the first three sentences.

Done for the first one at the same time as addressing the previous point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• several of his close companions - such as? I guess they or some of them could be mentioned in a separate sentence, or the reference to them could be deleted.

They are mentioned in the previous subsection ("Manuel Palaiologos (not the same person as his brother), George Pagumenos, Michael Aristoboulos (all recorded as accompanying Andreas to Brindisi in 1481)"). I've added them here as well.

• additional companions - mercenaries? officials?

Changed to mercenaries; Clada was definitely a mercenary at this point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• an unsuccessful revolt - against the Ottomans, I guess.

Yes. Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• ...the major Christian realms of Western Europe were too disunited to make use of their recent string of victories - no victory is mentioned. I doubt that any of the "major Christian realms of Western Europe" waged war against the Ottoman Empire in this period. Ferdinand I of Naples, Venice and Matthias Corvinus of Hungary clashed with the Ottomans.

I believe what was referred to with this was the Ottomans failing to take Rhodes. Changed to "the major Christian realms of Western Europe were too disunited to join together and wage war on the Ottomans". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is more likely... - according to whom?

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• becoming involved in a 1485 plot - some details of the plot?

The source used here, Harris 1995, just says that he became "involved in 1485 in a plot to seize Monemvasia from the Venetians". The source Harris uses for this statement is "ASV Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti reg. 22, f. 190v (orig. 154v)" but I can't find what that is supposed to be and it would probably be in Italian, which I can't read. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Travels and sale of the imperial title

• Is Lord Dynham identical with John Dynham, 1st Baron Dynham?

Has to be, linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Claim to the Despotate of Serbia? During this period a Despot of Serbia who lived in exile in Hungary was one of the wealthiest Hungarian nobles. Our Andreas was really creative to sell titles. :)

Don't hate the player hate the game 😎 Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No hate. He was like the Federal Reserve: created money ex nihilio. Joke.

• Consider All Saints' Day the following year (1 November 1495) instead of 1 November 1495 (All Saints' Day the following year).

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Legacy and analysis

• The financial situation of the Palaiologoi in the 1470s to 1490s must have been considered precarious for Andreas to sell his inherited titles... - as I understand he only offered to sell his titles and he did not inherit the titles that he offered to sell.

Again, arguably he inherited the right to Constantinople, but the rest of the titles seem to be made up, yes. I've changed "sell his inherited titles" to "sell his titular claims". He did sell his claims to Charles VIII, so wasn't just offering them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• The following two sentences are repetitions of previously mentioned facts: "The emperors had adopted this policy since their situation in the 14th and 15th centuries offered few other options. They clung to it even though little aid ever arrived, despite many promises.". Consider deleting them.

That little help ever arrived hasn't been stated previously in the article. I think the first sentence serves as a nice recap but I could remove/rephrase this bit if you feel it is necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

OK.

Lede

• Introduce his father as despot of Morea.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete "After his father's death in 1465, Andreas was recognized as the titular Despot of the Morea and from 1483 onwards, he also claimed the title Imperator Constantinopolitanus ("Emperor of Constantinople")." The same info is repeated and explained in the following sentences.

This was added as per Airborne84's comments on the lede below. I've removed the stuff on his claiming of the despot title in the following paragraph instead, see if that works out well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

OK.

• Delete ", the title held by his father until 1460 (and until 1465 in pretense)."

Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Consider changing "some source" to "some primary source"

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete "possibly sons named Constantine and Fernando and a daughter named Maria,"

I don't really see why, but done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We do not list actual childrens' names in lede. A list of the names of possible children is even less informative.

I finished my review. I had so far only read Runciman's remarks of him. Thank you for completing this nice and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking this over and reviewing! Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You addressed all my concerns, so I am gladly support the article. I enjoyed reviewing it. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84

Nice article. Reads well. Appreciate your work on this. Some notes below.

• The lede section is five paragraphs while criterion 2a is a concise lede section and WP:MOS provides a general guideline of no longer than four paragraphs. I'd revise to four or advise why you think five is needed. It may be possible to combine paras 3 and 5, for example, as the end of 3 and beginning of 5 are both about financial challenges.

Restructered lede slightly and removed some things; it's now 4 paragraphs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The first paragraph appears a bit misaligned with MOS:BEGIN in that it jumps into temporal activities fairly quickly. I think the MOS is looking for a first lede paragraph more along the lines of Neferefre, before getting into the biography itself (although it could be longer in this article). It should be an easy adjustment, I think.

I see what you mean, but I'm struggling a bit with this. Everything apart from the first sentence could be pushed down to join with the second paragraph and work well there but then the article would start with a one-sentence paragraph. Going by the Neferefre example I suppose the first paragraph should mention the titles he was a pretender to and why, but I feel like some context is needed (which is provided in how it looks now). Open to suggestions if you have any. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The titles is what I was thinking. I think if you very briefly summarized the titles after the first sentence, as in he "held x and claimed y titles", or just state what title he actually had, the first para would then adhere with MOS:BEGIN by "supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround [him]". Paragraph 2 would then provide the details. An alternative would be to combine paragraphs 1 and 2, although that might require trimming some material.

I've made an attempt. I split off the first sentence into its own thing and added more to it, combined most of paragraphs 1 and 2 and trimmed it a little bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• The infobox has an "Issue" entry with "Uncertain, see text" entry. Recommend striking that. It will likely be unclear to the average reader what it means.

This works, thanks.

Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I recommend providing some context/info on the Despotate of the Morea. I'm not an expert and it left me wondering about the location and scale of the empire Andreas has title over. Yes, there is a Wikilink, but the article itself should provide some of that basic context, IMO. Perhaps an image and a bit of description added somewhere or include it in Boroska's broader recommendation above.

I've created a background section per Borsoka's suggestion, with a map of the despotate's 1450 borders and some more context. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Nicely done. Only thing I wondered was whether you had a reason for the order in "Bulgaria, Serbia, Thessaly, Macedonia and central Greece" vs, say, alphabetical?

Also, you did fine at linking the sections together in the rest of the article to "tell a story". There is a rather abrupt transition between the end of this new section and the start of the bio. This wouldn't be easy for obvious reasons, but there are "scene setter" possibilities to smooth the transition. And, if properly done, it would impress readers—including FAC reviewers.... Something to consider only, not a requirement.

No reason for not using alphabetical, just put them in in a random order. Changed to alphabetical. I've changed it so that the first thing mentioned in the bio is Constantine XI's death at the Fall of Constantinople (since the last thing mentioned in the background is the Ottomans closing in on Constantinople), which might make for a smoother transition. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• In the "Financial troubles" section, you note about the sum of 500 ducats/month that “Although this seems a generous amount”. Seems to whom? An average reader won't know how meaningful that sum is (I don't). If you have a way to relate that in a way the average reader would understand (even if just in a footnote), I would do so. If not, I recommend just striking that part of the passage.

I've tried to find good conversion rates and whatnot but its nigh-impossible since the value of a ducat appears to have differed depending not only on time but also place. I've removed "although this seems a generous amount". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• In the “Travels and sale of the imperial title” section it says, “since Andreas was provided for by him”. Passive voice is fine, but this is rather awkward. Since passive voice isn't needed here, perhaps better would be "since he provided for Andreas".

Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• This sentence appears out of place in the paragraph it’s in, which is otherwise about Andreas’s abdication and its context. “Charles VIII's Italian campaign caused some concern in Constantinople, and Bayezid began building up his defenses, constructing new ships and artillery and redirecting his military forces to defensive positions throughout Greece and the lands surrounding Constantinople.”

I think it's worth noting that Charles was considered a serious threat by the Ottomans, but yes, it has little to do with the rest of the paragraph. I've split it off into its own short one-sentence paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's doable. But if others object, you could also leave it at the end and just find a smoother transition to it.

• In a "Negative portrayal by historians" section image caption, it says: “16th-century depiction in a Russian chronicle of Andreas's (the standing crowned figure in the center) visit to his sister.” It’s hard to read with the relatively long parenthetical interrupting in the middle of the sentence. I recommend: “16th-century depiction in a Russian chronicle of Andreas's visit to his sister. Andrea is the standing crowned figure in the center.” But this isn’t a show-stopper.

Went with your suggestion

• In the "Negative portrayal by historians" section, one sentence says that “Historian Steven Runciman famously described her as ‘a lady from the streets of Rome’", and provides two references, while the next sentence relates that "“She is known from only a single source, the Introitus et Exitus books of the Apostolic Camera”. Do you mean a single primary source? This seems to be conflicting as there are two secondary sources noting her in the previous sentence.

Yes, I meant a single primary source. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• In the references, when there are multiple pages cited, you'll need "pp". Some of the references have only one "p" in those cases.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• For the cited Bibliography, WP:MOS states that “English-language titles of compositions … are given in title case”. A few of the titles require revising. Airborne84 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Looks like we just need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Yeah, I saw you put up a request for one but I already did that a week ago. I guess all that can be done now is waiting and hoping that someone wants to do one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review – pass

Formatting and consistency

• Why the Greek text in ref #16? It isn't present in the long citation?

I can't remember whether it was me who added this ref or someone else, but the ref is to a lexicon/encyclopedia; "Παλαιολόγος Ἀνδρέας" (Palaiologos Andreas) is the word/article referenced. I don't know if there is a better way to cite this, but the PLP is cited in the same way in other articles: Demetrios Palaiologos, Helena Doukaina Angelina, Logothetes ton agelon, Ignatios Glabas. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #32, "Housley 2017" is missing a page number. I assume that is because the edition you are using doesn't have them. Check this version instead. The information seems to be around page 41.

Yeah, that was the reason for leaving out the page number. Changed the link to the version you provided here and added the page number (41 looks like it contains all the info mentioned). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #38 "pp. 551–550" Should this be 550–551, 551–552, or something else?

Reading through the pages in the source, just 551 should be correct. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent about whether to provide a location for book sources. Most do, but "Housley, Norman (2017)" does not.

Added location to Housley (2017). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• If possible, provide English translations for the titles of the foreign language sources.

Added translated titles to 2 out of 3 foreign language sources. Could not add it to the PLP source (which has a German title) since it has its own template instead of the "cite book" template. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Quality and coverage

• All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources. Academia.edu is noted as sometimes hosting unpublished material, but in this case Orientalia Christiana Periodica is not a problem at all.
• Searches on Google Books, Google Scholar and Amazon do not highlight any obvious missing sources.

Spotchecks

• Ref #24, which supports "The origin of the financial hardship experienced by Andreas and Manuel likely lies with reductions to the pension paid to them by the papacy." is cited to page 542, but it appears to be on page 543, or arguably, spread over 542 and 543.

Fixed this particular instance of the ref, just "542" should be correct for the other points where this reference is used. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• The same reference is used to support "During the time spent in Rome, the majority of his adult life, Andreas lived in a house on the Campo Marzio granted to him by Sixtus IV at the time of Zoe's marriage. His house was probably located next to the local Church of Sant'Andrea." All fine.
• And also "Seeking financial aid, Andreas traveled to Moscow in 1480, visiting his sister Zoe (now called Sophia) to beg for money. Sophia provided generously for him and would later complain that she had no jewels left as she had given them all to her brother." I am happy that the source says Russia; but the only reference to "Moscow" that I can see is in the title Ivan the Great of Moscow? Also, on what basis does the article say she "provided generously for him"?

Now that you mention it, the source does not explicitly say Moscow, no. I think it can be assumed since Moscow was the capital and Zoe was consort to Moscow's ruler, but "Russia" works just as well and is used in the source, so changed to that. I think that she "provided generously for him" can be deduced from that "she had no jewels left as she had given them all to her brother"; but it is not completely necessary. I've removed it, just saying that she complained about the jewels also works here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

More spotchecks to follow. Harrias ^talk 14:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #45, which supports "On 22 February, Charles triumphantly entered Naples (supposedly wearing an imperial crown),": From what I can see, the source talks about Charles entering Naples in May 1495, not the 22 February?

Ref #45 was intended to support the statement in paranthesis ("supposedly wearing an imperial crown"), not the 22 February date, which is supported by ref #46. I can see how the sources line up in a way which makes this seem erroneous, so added ref #46 to before the paranthesis as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #11, which supports "Thomas then left the rest of the family to go to Rome, where he was welcomed and provided for by Pope Pius II.": "welcomed and provided for by Pope Pius II" is a direct copy of the text in the source material; try to para-phrase to avoid any copyvio concerns.

Changed to "where he was welcomed and financially supported". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #21, which supports "but modern efforts to locate their graves within the Basilica have not succeeded." Is it reasonably to say "modern efforts", given the book is from 1921? The source also only appears to discuss efforts to locate Thomas's grave?

Technically speaking, 1921 is in the modern period and it is significantly closer to today than to 1502, but I see what you are saying. I don't know what would be a better word choice here. I don't think the source only discussing efforts to find Thomas grave is a problem since (as per ref #53), Andreas was buried right next to him (if you find one, you find the other). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that five of the six spotchecks I have completed have revealed issues, albeit generally minor ones. Rather than me continue to check each specific reference, I would ask that you go through each and every footnote and check that you are happy that each specifically references the material given in the article. Once you are happy that they are all accurate, I will complete another round of spotchecks. But, at the moment, I have to oppose this article on verifiability grounds. Harrias ^talk 09:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: I don't think any of the issues you found were major ones but I can see why you are concerned. I will take a look through everything in the coming days, might take a while but I will notify you once I am done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: I've gone through the citations in the article; there were some that I do not have access to; the refs to Zakythinos (1932) were added by another user during this FA review (the discussion regarding this is above) and I do not have access to Runciman (1969), Potter (1995), Enepekides (1960) or the PLP either (these citations having been added before I got to work on the article). In many cases where I did not have access to these sources I have now added citations to other sources that I could access as to corroborate and confirm the information. I revised a handful of citations and added some information that was previously left out, but overall I believe the citations are sufficient now if you want to do another round of spotchecks. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll look through as soon as I can, but be aware that I don't tend to be online as much Fri-Sun. Harrias ^talk 19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Further spotchecks

• Ref #1, where on page 3 of Grierson 1999 does it mention that they ruled from 1259? I only see 1261 on that page? The article also says "longest-ruling dynasty", while the source says "one of the two longest ruling dynasties", which are subtly different facts.

Looking at Grierson again, you're right. I've added a new citation to corroborate 1259. I think Grierson is mistaken with "one of the two longest ruling dynasties"; the Palaiologoi ruled for 194 years (1259) or 192 years (1261), beating the runner-up (the Macedonian dynasty, 189 years) by 3 or 5 years. The difference is small however and it might depend on how you count (John VI Kantakouzenos's reign 1347–1354 could arguably be subtracted from the Palaiologoi's time, which would make the Macedonians longer). Changed to "one of the longest ruling dynasties". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #3, all fine.
• Ref #9, it might be because I'm looking at a different edition, but although page 110 mentions the 29 May 1453, I can't see any mention of Constantine dying to defend Constantinople from the Ottomans?

Yeah, I don't know what happened here. I've changed the cited pages to page 70, which states that Constantine was killed in the fighting as the Ottomans entered the city and page 69, which gives the date as 29 May. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #14, all fine.
• As an aside, per MOS:LANG, don't use italics markup for foreign language words and phrases, use the {{lang}} template.

Changed all instances of italics for foreign languages to the lang template. The only foreign word kept in italics is "livres" since that seems to be italicized in its own article as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #23, all fine.
• Ref #31, all fine.
• Ref #53, all fine.
• Ref #63, all fine.
• Ref #65, all fine.

@Ichthyovenator: Overall, I'm much happier this time around. Only two of the nine checks I did revealed anything concerning, and both are very minor issues (at least, insofar as a couple of quick Google searches confirms both 1259 and 29 May 1453 as being correct, if just not apparent to me through the sources provided). Harrias ^talk 08:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thank you for taking the time to do another round. I've addressed the three concerns you raised. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy that this meets the sourcing criteria required for FA status. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.