Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thomas the Slav

< 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 by The ed17 06:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC) [1][reply]

Thomas the Slav edit

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

The article deals with the controversial leader of one of the largest-scale Byzantine civil wars. It was just promoted to GA without particular problems, and I think it qualifies for A-class status. I would also like to raise again the questions originally posed in the rather unsuccessful peer review. I definitively aim to take this to FAC, so please be as thorough as possible. Constantine ✍ 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support A1 A2 A3 Source check, highly impressed. This is how to do it. Appropriate HQRS, appropriately cited. Please note I don't do biography, and I don't do pre Moderns; but, I'm jumping in because nobody else has. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lemerle, Paul (1965). is a book in series, not a Journal, correct? Does it have a series title, or is each book merely Series title, 1 etc.?
  • No journal articles on Thom? A possible source of content. From scholar (excuse the poor quality of the citation, I don't have the time to render at the standard high quality, because scholar is a bit silly in presenting data to paste):
    • Olster "The Byzantine Revival, 780-842." Speculum, 1990 - JSTOR
  • Cite 42 Bury, pp. 90, 92–93. Lacks Bury's date per your style. Citation link to bibliography broken (probably due to date missing) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for the review. On Lemerle, the Travaux et mémoires series includes collections of articles by various authors. The volumes of the series are numbered 1, 2, etc. Olster's article is a review of Treadgold, while useful in correcting some of Treadgold's faults, it does not really impact on the narrative, on which Treadgold is practically the only detailed recent account. The main scholarly examination of the issues surrounding Thomas and his revolt, on which modern scholars are based, is that by Lemerle. Fixed citation #42, thanks :). Any comments as to prose style, readability etc? Constantine ✍ 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bugger about the lack of journal articles, you seem to have command of the literature. Sadly, I find prose reviews extremely difficult and extremely time consuming, I've discovered I can do footnotes and sourcing in an achievable human time. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: this looks very good in my opinion. It is well referenced and illustrated, and I believe the prose to be of a good standard. Only a few minor comments/suggestions from me:
    • according to the Featured article tools, the ext links all work (no action required);
    • images appear to be correctly licenced (no action required);
    • the Featured article tools report one disambig link: [2]. Please see if you can fix this;
    • images lack alt text. It is not a requirement currently, but you might consider adding it in: [3] (suggestion only)
    • in the lead, "from the Pontus (now north-eastern Turkey) who" (should this perhaps be: "from the Pontus region (now north-eastern Turkey) who")?
    • in the Early life and career section, "a view accepted by a few other scholars" - perhaps it would be best to list a couple of these scholars here?
    • inconsistent capitalisation: "Iconoclasm" (in the lead) and "iconoclasm" (in the Background and motives section);
    • "had his young son Theophilos led a procession" (probably should be "lead a procession");
    • "He departed the rebel camp headed west and sent a" (I think this sentence requires a comma - "He departed the rebel camp, headed west and sent");
    • "some 40 km west of Constantinople". You might consider using the {{convert}} template here to help readers who prefer miles;
    • in the Aftermath, "Some scholars, however, have disputed this". Again, I think it might be a good idea to list an example of a scholar here;
    • in the References you have "Kaegi 1982", but in the Sources the date of publication is shown as "1981". This should probably be made consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except for the penultimate comment. I'll research this a bit more and add names tomorrow or the day after. Constantine ✍ 15:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "whose troops caused severe casualties to Thomas's army": after Thomas's troops ran away, or was this the battle before that? - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have revised this, good catch, its a piece that went back to an earlier stage of writing. Constantine ✍ 07:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator note: with a reference and two prose reviews in, I'd be comfortable promoting this, but would you like the opportunity to find another reviewer or two first (so you get more reviews now rather than at FAC?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'd very much prefer it. I'll try to contact a few editors who might be interested. Constantine ✍ 06:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine by me, just let me know when you are ready. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm awaiting a review by Aldux and have asked Malleus Fatuorum as well, let's give it a few more days. Constantine ✍ 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • I'm no expert in this area but have completed a review due to the current lack of reviewers at ACR at the moment. Overall this article looks good to me with only a few minor issues which I have listed below.
    • The citation error checking tool reveals 3 errors with the consolidation of citations: "{{harvnb|Bury|1912|p=84}}" (Multiple references contain the same content), "{{harvnb|Treadgold|1988|p=233}}" (Multiple references contain the same content), and "Bury84" (Multiple references are using the same name);
    • grammar here: "where he remained there for 25 years before...", "there" seems superfluous as you already say "where", perhaps reword to "where he remained for 25 years before...;
    • "like J.B. Bury or Alexander Kazhdan", should this be "like J.B. Bury and Alexander Kazhdan"?
    • Over linking of patrician (in "Early life and career" and again in "Outbreak and spread of the revolt in Asia Minor" sections);
    • perhaps wikilink siege machines?;
    • Punctuation or capitalisation here: "Michael's troops "by land and sea", He sent messages..." Specifically capital "He" mid sentence; and
    • Missing word here I think: "and captured most of the remaining." Remaining what? Anotherclown (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the issues you raised. Thanks for the review, and I must say, you've got sharp eyes :) Constantine ✍ 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support

I really like this aticle a lot; all the same, there are some small things that could be possibly changed, wanting (I won't express myself on the language as while seems fine to me I'm not very good in dealing with prose issues).

    • Starting with the sources, let me say that their selection is absolutely excellent: they are all of high academic quality and include even Lemerle's article, especially relevant here. In the future it could be useful to use also the first volume of the PBE, as the entry to Thomas is quite extensive and covers all viewpoints.
    • Regarding the notes, I wonder if it isn't better to keep one ref note for every single source, as I've seen done generally in the articles that are FAC; but apart that this isn't a FAC review, I'd call it quite a minor thing that can be lefte to the preferences of the main editor.
    • Concerning the ODB refs, maybe you could add that p. 2079 is the entry for Thomas: in other words instead of "Kazhdan 1991, p. 2079.", it could be "Kazhdan 1991, s. v. Thomas the Slav, p. 2079." Also, in the bibliography it may be OK to add the authors of the specific entry used.
    • Going to the lead, it states: "After the murder of Leo and usurpation of the throne by Michael the Syrian, Thomas rose in revolt, claiming the throne for himself." Now, as you clearly explain in the main text of the article and as the ODB does too it would seem to be a more complicated issue than that; and why I'd personally tend to agree on a suspicious stink of official propaganda, it may be well to mention in the lead also the idea that it was possibly a revolt against Leo V. This mostly because while Bury is quite an old authority Kazhdan is more recent.
    • Always regarding the lead, there's a possibly ambiguous passage, at least for me: "he pretended to be Emperor Constantine VI (r. 780–797), but the validity of this claim is questionable." Maybe it could be made clearer that questionable isn't that he was Constantine VI, but that Thomas ever pretended to be Constantine VI.
    • This is really a tiny thing, always in the lead: for better precision instead of saying "According to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium", one could put it "According to Anthony Cutler and Paul Hollingsworth in the ODB"
    • Going to the main text, I'm a bit weary of the regular use of a word like "most" regarding scholarship: unless a scholar explicitly states that his is the major perspective I think it would be better to mention clearly in the text which scholars support said poistion: so in the first section you say: "The French Byzantinist Paul Lemerle and other modern scholars however consider it an unreliable later tradition." "The more recent Byzantinists Paul Lemerle and Warren Treadgold however consider it an unreliable later tradition" (not great English, I admit).
    • Similar issue with before in the same section with "a view accepted by a few other scholars like Alexander Vasiliev and Romilly James Heald Jenkins"; "few" is another word in my opinion to treat with care: maybe shorter is better, say "a view accepted by scholars Alexander Vasiliev and Romilly James Heald Jenkins".
    • Going to the second section, first subsection, the phrasing: "Most recent studies follow him and prefer the account of Symeon Logothetes", as before, it makes me a bit uncomfortable; the ODB cautiously just puts "others follow" and maybe putting "other scholars like Treadgold and Klapidou follow him and prefer the account of Symeon Logothetes" would be more simple, as among very recent works the ODB doesn't take sides and only two studies can be mentioned for "most".
    • Regarding Constantine VI "Most modern scholars follow Paul Lemerle, who dismissed this too as yet another later fabrication". This is OK as Klapidou clearly puts it as the majority interpretation; but maybe a mention could be made that an alternative possibility is that it was just "an informal rumour".
    • "In reality, this exaggerated account was yet another piece of hostile propaganda." OK, I know I'm waaaayy too fastdious but maybe it should be put clear that this is Lemerle, so "According to Lemerle this exaggerated account was in reality yet another piece of hostile propaganda." could be also possible.
    • "In exchange, Thomas is said to have promised to cede certain unspecified territories, and to become a tributary vassal of the Caliph, but it is impossible to say how much of this reflects the true terms or later propaganda" This passage tends to follow to closely Lemerle, I believe: the ODB accepts as fact that territories were given to the Caliph and Treadgold tends to agree on a tribute, so it should be made clear that it's Lemerle postition alone that "it is impossible to say how much of this reflects the true terms", and countered by the other scholars.
    • A small note: I've given a look at the PBE at it openly states that Thomas was crushed by the Bulghars and that the fleet surrendered as a result of that. Just to observe that maybe some more caution on who won the battle could be better.
    • I've really done my best to find a pretence of fault elsewhere, but honesltly the pieces on the siege and on Thomas death seem just perfect to me. Only the very last concluding sentence leaves me a bit weary: "More recent scholarship, however, has disputed this, citing other reasons for the Byzantines' military failures during these years." First, it should be observed that only one scholar seems available for the claim; second, Treadgold is pretty cautious, as even he doesn't at all exclude that the events involving Thomas may have had an impact, only he disagrees it was decisive.
    • Well, that's all. As I said previously, a really fantastic work. Hope I've given something useful, but there wasn't much to mend in the first place. Bye, Aldux (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the review! I've addressed your concerns point for point: on 1) & 13), I have the CD version of the PBE, but I have to say that I am not thrilled by it. Unlike the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit for instance, it merely reports the primary sources and has little in the way scholarly opinion and analysis on them. Thus, when it says that "in the ensuing battle Thomas 7 was completely defeated and his forces scattered", it merely summarizes the primary source. Given that the prevailing opinion tends to follow Lemerle's well-founded scepticism (see for instance the newest English edition of Skylitzes), I've sided with that. I'll re-check it and see if there's anything that can be added, but the primary narrative is already given pretty well by Bury and Treadgold. On 2) it depends (if I understood our question correctly), I myself use both patterns. There isn't really a guideline, but especially in cases where several sources are used, I think that it simply looks better to bundle them in one reference rather than append them singly at the end. 3) & 6) I've changed the reference for the ODB. I usually don't put in the authors because I quote several entries from it, but here that isn't the case. I've also rewritten the part in the lead to read "According to his entry in the ODB...". 4) & 5) have been addressed, I think. 7) Well, as I said above, the impression I get from Kiapidou, but also from the other recent books that treat Thomas and his rebellion in a more general fashion is that Lemerle's reconstruction of the events is pretty much standard, and Treadgold follows that consensus. So I feel that it would be wrong to explicitly limit the opinion to Lemerle and Treadgold. 8) similar to the previous, along with Kazhdan, some general histories on Byzantium still follow the older tradition that Thomas did indeed flee to the Arabs. I cannot now enumerate them, but it would be inaccurate to imply that only Kazhdan and Jenkins support this view. 9) changed to "some". On 10) Lemerle absolutely refutes the claim that he presented himself as Constantine. The "rumours" that he considers as possible are only that he was pro-iconophile. That aspect is treated below. 11) rephrased acc. to your suggestion, and 12) likewise rephrased. I tend to agree that Thomas most likely made concessions, but Lemerle has a point too. I hope the new phrasing is satisfactory. On 13), I've rephrased it a bit, and intend to work on this passage before FAC. I'll draw on Ostrogorsky to support Kiapidou on the negative impact of Thomas's revolt, but most recent works I've come across seem to refrain from explicitly linking the loss of Crete and Sicily to the rebellion, and prefer terms like "the disaster was followed/compounded/etc by the loss of Crete" etc. Constantine ✍ 11:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point regarding the PBE, there's not much critical analysis. You've well adressed all the other points and explained very well why not to give undue weight to outdated views; I believe it's in the right shape to pass without great difficulties the FAC process. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (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/Thomas_the_Slav&oldid=432129915"