Talk:Leo IV the Khazar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(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.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	This article was in need of a copy edit before submission for GA. See comments below. It may be worth running similar articles through the GOCE request process before submission in future.	Pass
(b) (MoS)		Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)		Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)		Pass
(c) (original research)		Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)		Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)		Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)		Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)		Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A fine and informative article.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here. In no particular order of importance:

• "He was born to Emperor Constantine V, and empress Tzitzak, in 750." Empress should be capitalised. The first comma is unnecessary. The second could probably also be dispensed with.
•  Done
• "He was elevated to caesar the next year, in 751." Caesar is "common in everyday English" and so should not be italicised.
•  Done
• "He was succeeded by his son Constantine VI, who was eventually overthrown by his wife Irene, who installed herself as empress." A reader is likely to assume that "his wife" refers to Constantine's wife.
•  Done
• "which, combined with the infancy of his son, Constantine VI". I think that plain "Constantine" would be appropriate at this (chronological) point.
•  Done
• "gave two of Leo's half-brothers, the caesares Nikephoros and Christopher". I cannot find a dictionary which uses "es" to pluralise caesar. Is this a typo?

  Please see wikt:Caesares

• "Although public opinion supported the execution of both of them, Leo chose to pardon them, although he did exile several other plotters to Cherson." A minor point, but is it possible to rephrase to avoid using "although" twice?
•  Done
• "Leo raided the Abbasids in 778, invading Syria with about 100,000 men, made up of the armies of the multiple themes, including the Opsikion Theme, led by Gregory, the Anatolic Theme, led by Artabasdos, the Armeniac Theme, led by Karisterotzes, the Bucellarian Theme, led by Tatzates, and the Thracesian Theme, led by Lachanodrakon." This is difficult to read. I would suggest breaking it into 2 sentences and using a colon and seni-colons in the list of themes and leaders.
•  Done
• "Leo raided the Abbasids in 778". Was Leo personally present?

  This is not mentioned in the book, but presumably so, as Byzantine emperors often served as "imperator", leading troops from a distance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• "invading Syria with about 100,000 men". Do we trust the sources regarding the size of the army?

  Yes. The estimate by Haldon 1984 gives an estimate of 100,000 professional Byzantine soldiers during the 8th century, which could be bolstered during times of war by mercenaries/militia, so a massive raid, which many themes took part in, could reasonably boast this amount. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Lachanodrakon sieged Germanicia for a time". Beseiged.
•  Done
• A bracketed explanation of Jacobites may be worthwhile.
•  Done
• "The next year, in 779, Leo successfully repelled an attack by the Abbasids against Asia Minor." Brief as it is, this is possibly worth a separate paragraph. More importantly, is there no further information on this?

  None given by the book. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Leo died of a violent fever on 8 September 780." The lead says he died of tuberculosis. I realise that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it could be confusing for a reader.
•  Done
• "He was succeeded by his son Constantine, with his wife Irene as his regent." Could whose wife Irene is be clarified. I think that the use of "his" twice, each referring to a different emperor, is where the potential confusion is.
•  Done
• The infobox has "Predecessor" and "Successor" twice.
•  Done
• The box at the bottom of the article states that he ceased to be emperor on 18 June 780, three months before he died. Is this correct?
•  Done

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO readability would be improved by inserting a sub-section between the third and fourth paragraphs. And possibly prior to the last. This is a suggestion only. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)  Done

There are no entries under "Primary sources". Could you remove the heading please. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)  Done

• @Gog the Mild: I believe I have done all you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Iazyges: And very rapidly. You have created a fine article there. A pleasure to assess it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional notes

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)