Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

Hello! I have just finished writing this article, on one of the most crucial albeit somewhat forgotten conflicts in Byzantine history. I would like to take a shot at A or even FA status eventually, but before, I would like to have some opinions on its present quality, both in terms of prose quality and comprehensibility of the narrative, as well as on whether the coverage of the subject is comprehensive enough. Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 08:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

"During the ensuing winter, heavy snowfall rendered campaign was impossible." Does this sentence have two verbs or is it just my bad English?
"Kantakouzenos set out into Macedonia, hoping to break through to his wife, who was holding out at Demotika against the forces of the regency." Wasn't she in prison?
Check the copyright status of File:Byzantine empire 1355.jpg.
"To a lesser extent, the conflict acquired confessional overtones as well, as the supporters of Hesychasm were usually equated with the supporters of Kantakouzenos." I don't see any elaboration on that in the main article.
Check the sources of the article's images. For instance, I cannot access the link of the source of File:John V Palaiologos.jpg.

I liked a lot the article. It flows very well; it is well-referenced; I think it will be soon FA!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the review. I fixed the first one, and clarified that Kantakouzenos' wife and children were actually at Didymoteicho, which was his base and residence. I also fixed the info & sources on the images. They are indeed PD, I hope it's OK now. As for the Hesychasm, traditionally, there was the equation pro-Hesychast=Kantakouzenist, which the later Byzantine writers themselves espoused. However this is more polemics and less fact: the actual record shows that the sides chosen during the conflict had little to do with one's preferences towards Hesychasm. True, the victory of Kantakouzenos also led to the adoption of Hesychasm by the Church, but that was not why the war was actually fought. I am still uncertain as to how exactly include this in the article, which is why I only mentioned it in the lead, with the "to a lesser extent" qualifier. It will be elaborated upon, but I need some time to think it over, and it is either way not crucial to the understanding and development of the conflict. Constantine ✍ 05:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnai

This is generally a good article. Good work! There are still some problems though. First with the lead.

The second paragraph seems a bit too detailed for a lead, particularly the second half. I realize the need to explain circumstances, but a lead is suppose to be a summary explaining the main points.
The last paragraph also seems to have some information unreferenced and not supported fully by the rest of the article, particularly the last 2 sentences.
A few problematic statements that might be close to violating WP:NPOV. FE:
- its strength was allowed to wane under his successor Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282–1328)
- It was a good choice: Angelos was loyal and effective, and soon managed to bring Epirus into the Kantakouzenist camp as well.
- On 11 July 1345, Alexios Apokaukos, perhaps the main instigator of the civil war, had been murdered.
- "In spite of the this, his subsequent reign saw numerous of successes that shored up the tottering empire."
  This statement is fine, the statement later, "Several towns in Macedonia were lost in 1334 to the Serbs, led by the renegade Syrgiannes Palaiologos, but the murder of Syrgiannes led to a negotiated settlement that limited Serbian gains." Does not appear to support the notion that it was a success. The Serbians still, according to the text, made some gains.
There are a couple of statements I added ^{[according to whom?]} to. If they are by the author lated cited, then say so in the text as those statements are otherwise WP:OR (this is because those statements are attributing what the state of mind of a particular person was).
I have also done some additional copyediting. I would have this looked over by a copyeditor before proposing for a GAN, especially on comma usage.陣内 _Jinnai 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review & the copyedits. Now, on the lead: I have shortened the opening sentences of the second paragraph, but I cannot reduce them further except to the effect that "the civil war broke out in early autumn 1341.", which I won't do, since the process by which the war came about is important. As for the last paragraph: the disruption of trade and devastation of the countryside are mentioned and cited in the Aftermath section, while the gains made by Dushan and Bulgaria are so throughout the text. I have however added a citation just in case. For the POV statements: I have revised the first three. On the fourth, well, the successes followed before that (Thessaly and Epirus) and after. I have repositioned and rephrased the sentence on the war of 1334, it should be OK now. As for the ^{[according to whom?]} tags, I edited the sentences accordingly, except in one case: "In July, he left the capital at the head of the army leaving Apokaukos, whom he believed to be still loyal, in charge." The source here is Nicol, cited later. I don't see OR here, it's common sense: if Kantakouzenos had not held Apokaukos to be a reliable servant, he would certainly not have let him running the capital. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, aside from the style issues, what do you think of the article as a history? Are there any sections that ought to be covered in more/less detail? Any issues left unclarified (aside from Hesychasm)? Constantine ✍ 08:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, and as I told you above, the story flows very well. You have an excellent structure in your history, and you narrative style is nice (σε κρατάει as we say in Greek!); unfortunately, and this is a strictly personal opinion, the WP NPOV policy and the way it is applied leads to dry and boring articles; this one is an exception to the rule!

Although I am not a history expert, I can't find anything missing. The article looks comprehensive. The only thing I could think about, from a strictly military point of view, is this: is there anything worth mentioning in terms of military tactics and strategies? Something innovative? Any more details about the (pathetic?) status of the Byzantine army after the end of the disastrous civil war?

As regards the economic impacts, I see that you cover them quite satisfactory in "Consequences" (where you cite Laiou, maybe the best expert on the field). Maybe, if there is availability in terms of material, you could expand on the social (-class structure) impacts. You say that Ioannis VI was supported by the aristocracy. So, what were the repercussions for the middle and lower classes (if there were any) after his victory? And what do we mean exactly with middle and lower classes? For instance, merchants (Byzantine and even non-Byzantine if the latter had a say or a means of influence) supported whom?--Yannismarou (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, although your good grasp of the English language is more than obvious, I would agree with Jinnai that it would be nice to have a native speaker check the prose. But I would also advise you to go straight for FAC (after all your preparation is done), and forget GAC!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a map from 1350 rather than 1355, that would be preferable, but if not its not a big deal. Other than that, I have to agree with Yannismarou.陣内 _Jinnai 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regarding the military aspect, the war didn't really result in anything new. The methods employed were those common throughout the Palaiologan era, so there isn't anything noteworthy, except of course for the great reliance on foreign forces, but that is noted throughout the text. I don't feel that going into details of the Byzantine military system of the time is advisable here. Ideally, at some point the Palaiologan army article will be brought up to a satisfactory standard. I also clarified (hopefully) a bit the distinction between classes in the "Outbreak of the war" section. As for repercussions, there were few: it was business as usual, except that the state's authority was weakened, and that large parts of the Empire were under Serbian control (where Dushan largely retained the pre-existing social and administrative order). The only truly radical social change of the period were the Zealots, but the nature of their movement is poorly understood - echoing the (usually aristocratic) Byzantine historians' own incomprehension of it - and the subject of considerable controversy, so that conclusions differ according to each scholar. I'll contact some copyeditors, and await further comments by other users. Thanks again to both of you for your time and comments. Regards, Constantine ✍ 06:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

Passes my checklist of "looking good at first glance" :) In other words, it has good layout, appropriate categories, ilinks and map/pictures. If I were to nitpick, I'd say - add a picture to the lead/infobox :) Not being a specialist in the relevant history, I cannot tell you more - but keep up the good work! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. :) I'll keep the review open until Friday, if no one else comments, I'll close it and probably next week I'll submit it for A-class. Constantine ✍ 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

WP:WIAFA needs WP:ALT nowadays, so it might be useful to get it out of the way now. It's quite straightforward YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, this will be interesting... Thanks for the notice, I had not noticed that requirement. Constantine ✍ 06:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added these descriptions, except for the maps, where I do not see how a "short" text can be added. As I am very unlikely to be in front of a PC for the next few days, I'll keep this review open until next week. Constantine ✍ 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexikoua

Very interesting and detailed job. I believe we can add something more (1 or 2 paragraphs) in the end as an 'aftermath section', talking about the Ottoman expansion in Balkans until the Fall of Constantinople.Alexikoua (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]