Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sack of Amorium

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Amorium edit

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍
Toolbox

One of the most important and memorable events of the late Byzantine-Arab Wars. The article passed GA in early October, and I feel it meets the A-class criteria. Constantine ✍ 08:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Chicago gives its blessing to "r." at "Scholarly abbreviations", and I've added a link to reign, which explains the abbreviation. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy $!@$%$, this is good writing. Although the lead is perfect for what it is, WP:LEAD recommends more than one paragraph for an article of this length, so at least consider whether you want to add a few sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seeking divine favour, and in response to iconophile plots, in June 833 Theophilos reinstated harsh suppression of the iconophiles.": my British English is crap so I can't say if this is right or wrong. In AmEng, 2 unrelated phrases before the subject is just a little uncomfortable, and 3 is "right out" (just to prove my introduction to BritEng was Monty Python :). If I were the writer, I'd move "in June 833" to the end. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [the coins were] "portraying him in the traditional Roman manner": I'm not certain what you mean ... was the traditional manner the issuing of the coins, or the images on the coins, or the way he was dressed? - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many women had been raped by some of Theophilos' Khurramites": odds are it would be better to delete either "many" or "some of", but I don't have the source so I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general point concerning but, however, while, although, etc. Chicago, §5.206, recommends against something like "He went to school, but he left his lunch behind", because there's no contradiction between going to school and leaving your lunch behind. What's meant is something like "He went to school, intending to have lunch there, but he left his lunch behind." That is: don't insert but, however, while, although, etc. unless you explicitly state the two ideas that are in opposition. Chicago says that if the sentence holds together with and, then but is almost always the wrong word. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What made me think of this was "While Theophilos returned home in triumph". Btw, is this saying that there were celebrations or honors of some kind, or just that he won all his engagements? - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the city was strategically located": I understand what it means to say a unit or ship was "strategically located", but since cities can't be moved around (easily), I'm not sure what this means. Are we talking about a defensible location, good supply routes, good natural resources, or something else? - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was attributed by Byzantine writers to his sorrow over the city's loss" needs a citation at the end of that sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, excellent writing. I've done some copyediting, and I'll support after these few points are addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks for taking time to review this, and for the appreciative remarks. Always pleased to meet another Monty Pythons fan ;) I fixed/clarified the easy points 2, 6 and 8. On the lede, I am not sure whether expanding it would serve any purpose. I could add a few sentences or split it up, but it wouldn't really add anything to it, unless there is some major point that I have missed. On the coins, the "triumphant emperor" motif and the legitimization of a ruler through military success was a typically Roman mode of portrayal, although minor details like clothes etc changed. The caption also makes clear (hopefully) that the whole dress shown, and in particular the toupha, was reserved for triumphal occasions. I have changed the wording a bit, but remain open to suggestions here. On the rapes, the sources state that a number of Khurramites, on their own initiative, raped many of the captive women. I reworded it a bit, but again, I am open to suggestions. On Amorium's location, it was strategically important because of the geography of Anatolia: a large plateau surrounded by lowlands, where most of the agriculture, trade and population were (and still are) concentrated. Amorium (along with Ancyra to the north and Iconium to the south) controlled one of the major routes to the western lowlands, and sat near a major node in the road network. I hope to clarify this further when I update my maps of Anatolia to include the road network. I will also go through the article again for the "buts" and "howevers". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Per Chicago, while is the wrong word when it's not clear whether it means "although" or "at the same time as"; I made an edit to clarify, but please change it if it's wrong. I'm happy with the lead section; others might not be. I think it would be helpful to repeat in the article what you're saying here about Amorium, given that you want to make the point about its strategic location. The "buts" are fine now.
  • Support. Fine article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I can't find much to fault this article. I have the following comments for the review:
    • There are two dab links that need investigation: [1];
    • ext links work, alt text is present and images seem appropriately licenced (no action);
    • could an OCLC number be added to the Vasiliev work? They can usually be found at Worldcat.org;
    • could an ISSN be added to the Rekaya work? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs fixed, issn and oclc numbers added. Constantine ✍ 08:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice and well-written article. I don't know whether this has to be corrected but probably there have to be full-stops in the sentences under the pictures and the second link to the Madrid Skylitzes in the last image should be removed. I don't know whether there are such requirements though. --Gligan (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:MOSCAPTION. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments/suggestions? Constantine ✍ 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - wow, what an article, and what a pleasure to read.
    • You say that Amorium's walls were "strong." Why was this?
    • "The sack of Amorium was one of the most devastating events in living memory of the Byzantines. " -- in 'living' memory? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the two sentences. The city's walls were remarkably long and well-built, at places up to 6 m thick. When I find a good citation for that, I'll re-add it. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tweaks, they were helpful. To make Amorium more easy to find, I considered implementing a map using {{Image label}} or {{Annotated image}}, but was not very satisfied with the result. Constantine ✍ 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Sack_of_Amorium&oldid=399893007"