Talk:Alexios V Doukas

Untitled

Miskin, why does this need cleanup? Adam Bishop 17:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a cleanup since there's nothing wrong with the content, but a good copyedit and structuring. I currently has no sections and gives the impression of a stub. Miskin 10:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Name change

Well, now this has been moved back to a Latinized spelling, so it no longer matches all the other emperors. Now what? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There are some Byzantine figures already using a Latin spelling: there is work to be done in making them consistent. Deipnosophista (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

They all used a Latin spelling until last year when they were all moved to a Greek spelling; there is a lengthy discussion somewhere. Now what, are we going to move them all back to the Latin version again? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is necessary here. Many of our sources are Latin and we cannot have a mixture: and no-one is arguing for "Konstantinopolis" or "Karthagon" or "Sikileia". The convention in historical writing in English is pretty clear: look at Gibbon, Bury, Hussey and (I haven't got a copy but I recall) Rostovtseff (Finlay does take the other line, but always looks strange and a bit pretentious). I would rather go to the trouble of changing them back. Can you point me in the direction of the discussion you refer to, which I haven't seen? Deipnosophista (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it may have taken place on numerous pages, but there is a big discussion at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors/naming (and it was two years ago already!). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The new article title fails to consider that the family name is covered in Doukas. Could you point me to the discussion on the renaming? The "Greek" spelling is actually the one used by the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and reflects more recent trends in English-language historiography.

On the matter of consistency, User:Srnec has started a more recent conversation on renaming articles on Byzantine Emperors for consistency reasons in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I seem to be the only one bothering to answer so far. Your views on the subject would probably be better placed there than any talk page about an individual Emperor or Emperess. Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox needed

An infobox is needed for Alexios V Doukas to fit with the infoboxes that the other Byzantine emperors have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexios V Doukas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 10:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you check that you are ok with my light copy edit. Thanks.

Images.

• The first one is fine. the other two are a bit uninspiring. How about one of the first two paintings from Sack of Constantinople (1204)?

The second does illustrate something directly mentioned in the text - the third image is small, but it does show the emperor's eyebrows meeting! An additional image is fine with me.

Your call. It's not a fail issue and it's your GAN.

Sources

• Head. Is there really a journal called Byzantion, or is that a typo?

Yes and no.

Well, well.

Prose

• Could you explain what a protovestiarios was. Eg '... Protovestiarios (the senior-most financial official)...' or similar.

It is linked, but I have added a bracketed explanation.

• "The Westerners rioted and set fires" Are the "Westerners" the crusaders? If so you need to either state that or, more easy, simply replace it with 'crusaders'. And why the upper case W?

Done

• "The Constantinopolitan populace" Nice, but WP:PEACOCK. Could you rephrase.

Done - party-pooper - I once got the word 'involute' into a published scientific paper, I was inordinately pleased!

• "when bribing the palace guards". Are these bribed guards the same as those in "to bribe the "ax-bearers" (the Varangian Guard)"? If so, how is a reader to know? (To be clear, I know, but a casual reader would, IMO, not.)

Done

• "but was extracted and killed". Could you find a better word than "extracted"?

Defenestrated?? Done and a bit of detail added

That's good. (Defenestrations of Prague is only start class if you want to amuse yourself. I like the idea of someone being defenestrated from the Hagia Sophia mind .)

Alexios V also died after a long drop. I'm tempted to create a neologism for 'death by falling off a column' - based on Greek of course - "pephtostyled" - it could catch on ;)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• "and strengthened the defending fortifications". Redundancy. You nee to say either 'and strengthened the fortifications' or 'and strengthened the defences.'

Done

• Isaac II and Alexios IV are introduced early on ("By the beginning of 1204, Isaac II and Alexios IV had inspired little confidence"), but their relationship is not revealed until quite a bit later, and then in passing (The young Alexios IV was eventually strangled in prison; while his father Isaac). Could this be explained at first mention.

It is pointed out in an earlier paragraph (1st para. of "Political intrigues and usurpation") - but I've added that Alexios III was Isaac II's brother, nice that - briefly - there were three emperors called Alexios all alive.

So it is, so it is. A terrible thing, old age.

@Urselius: That all looks good. I am a bit rushed right now, but hopefully will be able to have a final check this evening. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! Urselius (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Urselius: I have made a couple of edits which you may want to check. Note that page ranges in references, like any other number ranges, should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens. I have changed them in this article.

A fine article you have there. I am more than happy that it meets the GA standards and am promoting it. Congratulations, good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The edits are fine, thanks again! Urselius (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed