![]() | Heraclius the Elder has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 31, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Heraclius the Elder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello there, I will be taking on the GA review for this article, expect a full review to be up by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The below comments have been addressed and rectified.
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done; information confirmed (paragraph sourced specifically to footnote #4 on p. 21 of Kaegi's work). Theban Halberd (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done; merged with quote below and placed in quote box. Theban Halberd (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Done; merged with above quote and placed in quote box. Theban Halberd (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The infobox and lede have been substantially expanded. No issues exist with the layout which is neat and no words to watch are present in the article, except in quotations which are presented in a format different to the rest of the article both for identification and for improved presentation.
Done; no need to include all infobox fields. Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done; introductory paragraph reasonably expanded to include major elements of Heraclius the Elder's military career (no need for detailed biographical summary though further improvements to paragraph can be made later). Theban Halberd (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The references have been formatted correctly and all of the presented sources have also been used in the article through in-line citations.
Done; see inline citation #32. Theban Halberd (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
2b. 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). | All of the sources that have been used are reliable secondary published sources. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Referring to the accessible sources; the article uses accurate paraphrasing of its source material and I can find no obvious case of original research being conducted anywhere in the article. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | I have to mark this criterion as being failed for the time being due to the large quotations that make up the section 'Armenian Revolt (almost the entirety), when this issue is rectified I can change my marking from a fail to a pass. The problem passages, in dire need of a paraphrase and one of a depuffing, are;
Done; quotes from Simocatta and Sebeos, however large and rhetorically puffed, were placed in quote boxes (with proper source attribution) since they highlight important elements of Heraclius the Elder's military career. Theban Halberd (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article covers the life and deeds of its subject in fair detail but without going overboard in doing so. As such, I can pass the article for this criterion. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article stays on topic without drifting off or going into nauseating detail about any section of the subject matter. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | These have been fixed.
There is a mild issue of puffery, I will jot down some of the issues below;
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done; quote from Simocatta's historical narrative placed in quote box (puffery aside, the quote in question isn't really that large or so disruptive to the entry's narrative flow as to warrant a paraphrase). Theban Halberd (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Done; issues resolved (hopefully). Theban Halberd (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is in a stable condition and there are no outstanding disputes or requests on the talk page. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Both images in the article have been tagged with the appropriate CC licenses. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
7. Overall assessment. | All of my findings have been addressed and appropriate action has been taken to address them. Passes GA. |
I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Theban Halberd I have completed my initial review and my comments are available in the above table, I can see that quite a bit of effort has been put into improving the article, as such, I am willing to put this article on hold for the time being (I also note that you have been away for two weeks) to await your fixes. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Comments
edit- Non-reviewer comment: There is a Charles, Robert Henry; John, Bishop of Nikiu (2007) in Sources but no reference to it in Citations. If it isn't used, it should be moved under Further reading, or removed. If it is used, there should be incoming inline citation(s) to it (or it should be moved under General references per WP:GENREF). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Concur with above comment, I'll make a note of it in my review under criterion 2a and b. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done; see inline citation #32. Theban Halberd (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Origin
editThis is an undue edit. There are several third party sources calling him Armenian for one historian to make a difference.[1][2][3] If there are no valid objections, I'll reinstate the previous edit. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Evans, Helen C. (2018). Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-58839-660-0.
- ^ Cameron, Ward-Perkins & Whitby 2000, p. 561 .
- ^ Walter E. Jr. Kaegi, Walter Emil Kaegi, Walter E. Kaegi. (2003). Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge: The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 21-22.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Saw this thread only now, but anyway. We can't state this as a fact when the article's own section Heraclius_the_Elder#Origin citing several scholars says it's uncertain. The entire article should be consistent in that regard. Brandmeistertalk 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- A wording of a section isn't a source, and it is subject to change. Sources, however, we can't change. If most of the reliable secondary sources state Armenian origin, then it's by definition the significant viewpoint and should be presented as such, per WP:WEIGHT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's interesting that Walter Kaegi, whom cite as the supporter of Armenian origin hypothesis, admits that we have no evidence on what Armenian consciousness, if any, Heraclius possessed. And because, as argued in the article by another cited scholar, "there is not a single primary source that says that Heraclius was an Armenian", I think it would be safer to write "possibly" or "considered by some scholars to be of Armenian origin" in the lead. Brandmeistertalk 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take a closer look at all the sources and your argument later, busy IRL currently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay I have looked at the sentence. Before going into it, I would say this doesn't change anything. Firstly, the link you provided isn't Walter Kaegi's book but Anthony Kaldellis (the another scholar) quoting Kaegi and quite frankly cherry-picking a single sentence from his book. If we actually look at the book, it's pretty clear what Kaegi himself thinks and we don't need others to speak for Kaegi:
- The preponderance of evidence points out to Armenian origin (Kaegi's book)
- Secondly, and this is just for the sake of the argument, even if we assumed that a cherry-picked sentence of one historian by another historian changes anything here (which it doesn't btw, we have original sources for that and his viewpoint in his book is pretty clear), 'consciousness' hasn't got anything to do with origin. You may be of one origin, but grew up in another country and have a different 'consciousness' to your ethic background, as a simple example (not saying it is the case here or not, haven't read much yet on Heraclius, just an example for argument's sake). Hope this is clear even if we entertain the idea. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Upon further look I see more doubt. Britannica in reference to him writes "probably of Armenian descent". This source, citing John M. Douglas, The Armenians (1992), says "a possible Armenian origin for the emperor’s [Heraclius'] family". And Cyril Mango cited in our article says "he was a namesake descendant of Heraclius of Edessa, a 5th-century Roman general". So, as long as his origin is mentioned in the lead, it seems that "generally believed to be of Armenian origin" or something along those lines rather than simply "of Armenian origin" would be a safer option and consistent with the "possibly of Armenian origin", as written in the Origin section. Brandmeistertalk 09:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's interesting that Walter Kaegi, whom cite as the supporter of Armenian origin hypothesis, admits that we have no evidence on what Armenian consciousness, if any, Heraclius possessed. And because, as argued in the article by another cited scholar, "there is not a single primary source that says that Heraclius was an Armenian", I think it would be safer to write "possibly" or "considered by some scholars to be of Armenian origin" in the lead. Brandmeistertalk 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- A wording of a section isn't a source, and it is subject to change. Sources, however, we can't change. If most of the reliable secondary sources state Armenian origin, then it's by definition the significant viewpoint and should be presented as such, per WP:WEIGHT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)