Talk:Heraclius (son of Constans II)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Iazyges in topic GA Review

Merge discussion edit

This article's text is almost identical to Tiberius (son of Constans II). Therefore, per WP:Merging, I think merging into one article should be seriously considered, with appropriate redirects from the individial articles to catch searches. DavidWard talk 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I leaning towards support, but only just. It is true that the brothers are treated together, and no more information is available for the one than the other. That being said, they were emperors, and I do consider it more "fitting" to have separate articles, as far as possible. Anyhow, what should the proposed merged article be named like? Heraclius and Tiberius (Byzantine co-emperors) or Heraclius and Tiberius (sons of Constans II)? Constantine 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heraclius (son of Constans II)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 15:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review edit

  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass

Result edit

Result Notes
  Pass Short, detailed, well referenced.

Discussion edit

Images.

  • "Reverse of a solidus of Constantine IV, displaying Heraclius and his brother Tiberius." Do we know which is Heraclius?

  Done

Prose. I have made a few minor changes. Let me know if you find any of them problematic.

  • "After the death of Constans II, Constantine IV ascended the throne as senior emperor" I think that at this point in the lead you need to explain who Constantine IV is in relation to Heraclius. (And possibly in relation to Constans.)
  •   Done
  • "in 659, prior to his departure for Italy, Constans II also elevated Heraclius to the rank of co-emperor" Possibly "shortly before" or "immediately before"?
  •   Done
  • "He attempted to demote his brothers from" IMO it would be worth stressing just before here that Heraclius had ruled as co-emperor to his brother for 13 years. As it reads it gives the impression that Constans made this move immediately after burying their father.
  •   Done
  • "Confronted by this situation, Constantine kept a close eye on his brothers, and sent across a trusted officer, Theodore, the captain of Koloneia, giving him the delicate task of praising the soldiers for their devotion and agreeing with their reasoning, with the objective of persuading them to return to their barracks in Anatolia." This is too long and needs splitting. Perhaps after "Koloneia"?
  •   Done
  • "the army departed back into the interior of Anatolia" Earlier in the sentence Anatolia is used to refer just to the theme. The change of context is potentially confusing. Consider "the army departed back to Anatolia".
  •   Done
  • When people are executed by hanging then, strictly, they are "hanged", not "hung".

  Done References.

  • The Dumbarton Oaks OCLC is for the 1992 edition, not the 1968 edition in the bibliography. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  •   Done

Additional notes edit

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.