Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas the Slav/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 Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [1].

---

Thomas the Slav

Thomas the Slav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Thomas the Slav/archive1

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Slav's revolt is one of the most complex, controversial and fascinating stories of 9th-century Byzantium. After passing a thorough WPMILHIST ACR and a copyedit at the hands of Diannaa, I am confident that the article is ready to be considered for FA status. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how "cf." is notated
• Are OCLCs available for the sources that don't currently have them? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Both issues fixed. Constantine ✍ 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Have reread through it and it has greatly improved. The outstanding issues I had below have been rectified. (Sorry about the delay, Real Life has been kicking my butt lately...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not quite ready to support. Besides the issues I've raised below, I found the text somewhat chunky and full of redundant phrasing. Frankly, it read a lot like a late Victorian history to me (especially Bury's work on the later Roman Emprire or his other works) and would definitely benefit from some more copyediting to improve the flow of the text and to find places where the non-specialist (heck, the non-historian) would be confused. I'm a bit too familiar with the time frame to be able to comment on what would be confusing to someone who knows nothing about Byzantine history.

• General - you need to explain the "historian" abbreviations. Most folks aren't going to understand what "ca." or "r." is an abbreviation for. Double check the whole article for things like that.
• Lead:
  • "...Thomas rose in prominence under the protection..." generally it's "rose TO prominence"...
  • "Byzantine accounts also claim that he pretended to be Emperor Constantine VI (r. 780–797), but the validity of this report is questionable..." are these the same accounts as the ones in the previous sentence?
  • "Thomas's rebellion was one of the largest throughout the Empire's history,.." Wouldn't "Thomas's rebellion was one of the largest in the Empire's history,.." read better?
• Early life:
  • Who is Theophanes Continuatus and why do we care what he thinks? Same for Genesios? I know you have linked the things, but you really don't want folks to click through for simple context.
  • Patrician's are basically noblemen, right? Suggest adding a quickie explanation.
  • "In the second account, he came to .." wouldn't this be better to explicitly state that it's Theophanes' account?
  • "The second version is explicitly preferred by Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus..." how can the second be preffered by Genesios when his account is the first account????
  • "Others think that he remained in the Empire—and perhaps even remained in active service—but his association with Bardanes certainly hampered his career." First, who are these others? Second, the last phrase - does that mean that these "others" feel that it hampered his career or that all historians think it hampered his career?
  • Quickie explanation for Excubitors??? (I know what they are, but your readers likely won't.) Same for Feoderati? Links aren't enough - because you run the risk of losing your reader to the linked article if you don't at least give some context. Also for "themes"...
• Background:
  • Explain who Louis the Pious is?
  • Likewise .. you say "the hagiographic vitae" but you haven't referred to the hagiography as a "vitae" before. I know what is meant but most readers won't.
  • "Byzantine accounts of Thomas's rebellion also state that he did not in fact claim the throne as himself..." awkward. Suggest "Byzantine accounts of Thomas's rebellion also state that he did not in fact claim the throne for himself..."
  • "It is also possible that Thomas chose to be crowned under the name of Constantine." what does this have to do with the surrounding text? It's dropped in and not connected to the rest of the paragraph, so the reader is left confused.
  • Need an explanation of "iconoclasm" and "iconophiles"
• Outbreak:
  • "Although junior to the theme's strategos, his proclamation does not appear to have been opposed by anyone..." We've had a long explanation of causes/supporters, and other verbiage since the "proclaimation" ... suggest that you explicitly state that the proclamation is of Thomas assuming the throne here also.
  • Need a link and an explanation for "strategos"... you linked monostrategos earlier, but not "strategos".
• Seige:
  • Link for Theodosian land walls?
• Legacy:
  • "...by consideration of policy and the sheer number of people involved, Michael was compelled..." this sentence is confusing to me... consideration of WHAT policy?
  • "....citing other reasons." What other reasons? Who holds the traditional view? Who holds this newer view?
• Overall:
  • I think the article would benefit from a copyedit by someone who is motivated to remove some of the "flourishes" and other extraneous words in the text. Also with an eye to making sure that all opinion is attributed in the text. As an example "Michael blockaded these cities, but did not actively assault them, instead aiming to capture them peacefully by wearing their defenders out. In this, he was motivated by the political expedient of not needlessly "shedding Christian blood", but also, according to the chroniclers, for fear of demonstrating to the Bulgarians that the Byzantine cities' fortifications could fall to attack." Who says that Michael's aim was to avoid the shedding of blood? Is this a modern interpretation or one of the medieval writers? Another "In this way the great rebellion of Thomas the Slav ended,..." The "in this way the great rebellion" is unneccessary for the first part and an opinion on the second...

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough - as usual - review! I am beginning to address your issues one by one. I generally agree with your points, except perhaps for a couple. I'll enumerate the major issues as I go along:

1. I've made some alterations in the background story section. I realized from your comments that it seemed as if Genesios and Th. Cont. presented a different story each, when in reality they both reported the same two versions. Both of them explicitly prefer the second, which is dismissed post Lemerle as imperial propaganda, against the first, which is nowadays considered closer to the actual events. I hope this issue has been clarified.
2. I don't think an explanation on the Excubitors or the Foederati is required or even useful. It is stated that the first was an elite regiment and the latter an army division. An explanation of their names would take us back to late antiquity, and derail the article. In this case, if a reader is interested, he'll click the link. Otherwise he'll understand that it's about two military units, which is sufficient for this article. Constantine ✍ 09:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
3. The link for the city walls in general covers the Theodosian land walls. Constantine ✍ 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
4. I've expanded on the "other reasons" for the Arab successes in the 820s. Treadgold is about the only one who treats the question in some detail, but his general thrust is reflected by others as well (Whittow for instance), although not in as many words. Constantine ✍ 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I think the individual points you've raised have been dealt with, please check them and let me know if further clarification is needed. On the general copyedit, I'd be happy to accept the services of anyone willing to do so. Personally, I have nothing against "late Victorian" prose as long as its facts are accurate and there is no moralizing. I find Bury's style rather engaging, but these are matters of personal preference. I understand that clarity for the non-expert must be the focus, and I have re-submitted the article to GOCE. If you have time to go over it and make any changes or proposals that you see fit, that would also be great, for I am indeed too familiar with the subject to easily detect such flaws. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Review All checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Note to delegate: I can't speak to comprehensiveness, so this support is on the non-content-related criteria. I did some minor spot checks and found no problems but I have little access to the sources so there wasn't much I could check. Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

• The second paragraph of "Early life and career" was confusing to me. I first thought that Genesios and the Theophanes Continuatus differed in their accounts of Thomas's early life; but then you list a "first account" and a "second version", and then say the second version is preferred by both Genesios and the Theophanes Continuatus. After puzzling over this I decided you meant that each source gives both versions and prefers the second, but I think this needs to be clearer. What you have ("Both X and Y record two accounts") is quite accurate but since it's not what the reader expects I think you need to be painfully clear.

  You now have "Two different accounts of Thomas's life are recounted in both Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus." This is suffiicient, and I'm OK if you want to leave it at that, but it confused me so much that I think it wouldn't hurt to be even clearer. How about: "Two conflicting accounts of Thomas's life have survived. Both of the main sources, Genesios and 'Theophanes Continuatus', give both versions of his life ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I made a change in the lead from "province (theme)" to "theme (province)", on the basis that the word to be used later in the article should be the word outside the parentheses. I see now that you've adopted the same style with other words such as tagma and spatharios, so I've reverted my change. I'd suggest reversing the order you have; it might be just a stylistic preference, but I think the order I'm suggesting is more natural for a reader new to the material.
• "Bardanes Tourkos, then the overall commander": how about cutting "then"? As it stands I first read this to mean that Thomas subsequently becames the overall commander; I don't think the specificity of time given by "then" is necessary here.
• "the hagiographic Lives": this is apparently a primary source but just what it is doesn't appear to be clarified anywhere.
• "purport that Thomas had risen up": I don't think you mean "purport", which as a verb carries implications of a specious claim to objectivity.
• "who had been and murdered by his mother": some editing debris here?
• Why does "Michael II's conciliatory approach during his early reign ... speak against any open commitment to icon worship"?
• "Thomas's claim to be Constantine VI, if true": I think this needs to be rephrased. I know what you intend it to mean, but as it stands "if true" means "if the claim is true", not "if he made that claim".
• The map of Anatolian themes is very helpful; I did notice that the spelling of Arkadiopolis is given differently in the map than in the article. Which is right?
• Second paragraph of "Outbreak and spread of war in Asia Minor" has two "however"s in fairly quick succession.
• You say Michael began by attacking Thomas, but then Thomas responds by defeating the Armeniac army -- presumably this was independent of Michael's attack, so what became of Michael's attack?
• The caption to the Asia Minor map refers to "Thrace" as opposed to Asia Minor; I think Asia Minor is a common enough term that it needs no further explanation, but Thrace needs at least a link. Better would be an explanatory note or an alternative description.
• "Constantius was soon replaced by another obscure individual": did Anastasius become co-emperor as well? If so I'd make this "soon replaced as co-emperor".

  I see you've done this, but I now see that Anastasius is later referred to as Thomas's adopted son -- perhaps that should be mentioned to, so that the later reference is not surprising?

• The start of the Siege of Constantinople section refers to the European themes by name, and then as "European themes". It's not obvious to a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter that these are the same; particularly as these themes have not been named before. The map helps a good deal but I'd rather the reader wasn't required to search it to understand the text.

• The change you've made is sufficient, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could a scale in miles/km be added to the Asia Minor map? When you say Thomas camped 40 miles west of Constantinople I realized I couldn't confidently say where that would be on the map.
• "to arrange a relief attempt with Anastasius": do you mean "to arrange a relief attempt by Anastasius"; that is, that Anastasius would bring men to lift the siege? If so I think "by" would be clearer.
• " the most defeating obstacles": "defeating" makes an ugly adjective. How about "important" or perhaps "conclusive", or rephrase to say that the walls determined the outcome more than any other factor?

  OK, but shouldn't that now be "was", not "were"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

-- I checked a couple of citations to Bury online, and found no problems with close paraphrasing, but I don't have access to the other sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is in great shape. I expect to support when the remaining minor points above are cleared up; the scale on the map isn't a prerequisite for support, though I do think it would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! On your specific points:

• I've rewritten this, hopefully it is clearer now.
• I initially felt it would be better if the technical term was introduced in a parenthesis, but I see your point. I've changed them all.
• Removed "then".
• Removed the "Lives" bit. From comments by others it seems this is confusing, so I've changed it simply to "hagiographic sources".
• Fixed, I think.
• Indeed, fixed. Nice catch!
• Well, this simply means that the iconoclast/iconophile divide was not very pronounced during Michael's early reign. He had well-known iconoclast sympathies, but did not yet make iconoclasm official policy like his son Theophilos or predecessors like Leo III and Constantine V. Modern scholars by and large discount the icon issue as a factor in Thomas's revolt precisely because it was not such a divisive issue at the time. I've expanded upon this, using the PmbZ resume as a guide.
• Removed "if true". It reads better and is less confusing.
• "Arkadiopolis" reflects the transliterated Greek name, "Arcadiopolis" is the Latin name. Both are equally valid. To avoid confusion, I've converted to the Latin form in the article
• Rephrased and eliminated both howevers.
• Clarified it, Michael ordered the Armeniacs to attack Thomas.
• Added links to both, and clarified Asia Minor (which, in my experience, is no longer quite as familiar).
• Done.
• Hmmm, this refers to the European themes in general, not only Macedonia and Thrace. That means Hellas, the Peloponnese and Nicopolis as well. I've added a clarification, but I am not sure if it is enough. I remain open to suggestions.
• Working on it.
• Hmmm, alright.
• I didn't like it either. Changed to "decisive".

Any other suggestions? Constantine ✍ 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've struck some points and will strike more or respond, as necessary, but I wonder if you'd mind placing any further responses in line after my points above? I'm going a bit cross-eyed going back and forth between your list and mine trying to figure out which reply is to what. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the way I replied, but usually when I respond after each individual point the process becomes a total mess thereafter and oversight is completely lost. Anyhow, I've added the adoption for Anastasius. On the obstacle, since the object (the walls of Constantinople) is a plural, isn't "were" correct? I'll probably finish the map over the weekend, but I probably won't have time to post it or anything else over the next two to three days. Make any changes you see fit, I'll check them on Monday or Tuesday. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re was/were: if you make it "obstacles" it would be "were", but if you have "obstacle" it should be "was". "Obstacles" seems slightly more natural because then the number agrees with "walls", as you say, but I think you could get away with it as a singular "obstacle" with "walls" if you want -- the array of possible obstacles you are conjuring in the reader's mind is "poor fleet performance", "Bulgarian offensive", "walls of Constantinople" -- making "obstacles" plural in the sentence you have implies the list is more like "fleet performance", "Bulgarian offensive", "wall 1 of Constantinople", "wall 2 of Constantinople", "wall 3 of Constantinople", etc. Or you could recast the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed "obstacle were the walls" to "obstacles were the walls". - Dank (push to talk) 22:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was close enough anyway, but your edit reminded me to switch to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think I'm ready to start insisting on in-text attribution for all quotes and for text that feels like opinion (which of course allows for wiggle room), since Chicago Chap. 13 requires it, and usually, some reviewer at FAC (Ealdgyth in this case) will ask for it. I've only found a handful of writers of history articles that prefer the non-attributed style. The argument that "all you have to do is click" often falls apart ... for instance, for the quote that isn't attributed in the last paragraph of the lead, how can we tell who said it when it's cited to an encyclopedia? - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that I'm dealing with all the things other reviewers see as "flourishes", but one thing I suggest is that you keep "spatharios (staff officer)" at first mention and use "staff officer" rather than the Greek word after that, and similarly for the other titles. "Staff officer" won't be unclear to people who know Greek military terms after you've put it next to spatharios, but the Greek term is going to be unfamiliar to almost all your readers, and they're going to have to keep hunting through the article for definitions.
• "made themselves into a brotherhood": I don't know what that means; they started a crime syndicate?
• You have a bunch of AmEng "-ize" endings in what is probably a BritEng article. If you're more comfortable with "-ize" endings and "-our" endings, then you've been reading Canadian English, which is fine ... Canadian English is consistent with Chicago and has a lot to recommend it, but if you're going that way, it would help to specify that at the top of the talk page. And ... of course, whatever English variant you use, be consistent.
• "conversion to an iconophile champion": Who was the champion?
• "the Armenians might have in part been motivated by revenge ...": the Armenians might have been motivated in part by revenge.
• I made it down to Outbreak and spread of the revolt in Asia Minor. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the copyedits! I'll answer your points one by one:

• I had explicitly written that this was a description taken from the ODB, with the authors listed in the reference. A copyeditor then removed it. I'll reinstate it.
• Here I disagree. The definitions provided are an approximation, while the actual titles and technical terms are IMO always preferable. I don't think that dumbing down or eliminating all non-English elements (which boils down to the same) from an article is a correct approach. I am sure the average reader doesn't even need to know what a spatharios is to read and understand the article.
• Again, a result of copyediting, I rewrote it
• AFAIK, "-ize" is perfectly acceptable in BritEng too, per Oxford spelling
• Rewrote the relevant sentence to clarify it

Looking forward to the complete review. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's as much as I had time for, and there was a recent conversation at WT:FAC where reviewers suggested I shouldn't say "support for half" any more at FAC (although I sometimes do at A-class review). Hopefully the work I've done will make it easier for someone else to finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article quite thoroughly during the MILHIST ACR so there isn't much I can add, but first of all I must disclose that I currently have myself an article up to FAC and that I'm here also because solicited by Constantine, that rightly feared this article may fail for insufficient input. As further disclaimer, I must add that I'm not solid enough in the English language to jude of the "brilliant prose", criterion, even if I can say that it seems to go down fine with me. What I can best judge is the adherence to the sources and the balance, and I must say that those few issues I previously had have already been put in order. I'll just add that I tend to agree concerning his second point in answer to Ealdgyth: dealing with these sort of articles I have to agree that it's problematic to well explain the nature of specific administrative of military entities without losing sight of the article.Aldux (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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