Talk:Heraclius the Elder

GA Review

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. Origin *"held a highly important strategic location and was fiercely contested" -> held a highly important strategic location which was fiercely contested  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) :*"Nothing is known of the specific ancestry of Heraclius the Elder, but this has not prevented modern historians from speculating on the matter. Cyril Mango has supported a theory which suggests that he was a namesake descendant of Heraclius of Edessa, a 5th-century Roman general. A passage from Sebeos's History has been understood to suggest an Arsacid origin of Heraclius. This theory was strongly supported by Cyril Toumanoff, while considered likely by Alexander Vasiliev and Irfan Shahîd. John of Nikiû and Constantine Manasses seem to consider his son, Heraclius the Younger, to be a Cappadocian, which might indicate his place of birth rather than actual ancestry." Has his entire paragraph been sourced to a single page (pg 21 of Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, by Walter Emil Kaegi), I have tried to access the specific page but cannot, I will AGF if you inform me that it has. I do note that the claim from page 22 and also 37-38 are indeed accurate portrayals of what is written in the book, with slight puffery, which I will address in a later section.  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) Family I haven't noted any prose issues in this section. Career Under Phillipicus *"Heraclius's" -> Heraclius' (there's not supposed to be an s after the apostrophe, this is a recurring phenomenon, such as Phillipicus's, I counted at least seven instances of this happening (including one in Origin that I had originally missed)  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) "relentlessly using his siege engines day and night until it fell" -> using siege engines throughout the day and night until it fell. Be wary of puffery; "relentlessly" according to whom?  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) *"general Theodore" -> General Theodore  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) *"Priscus's" -> Priscus'  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Under Comentioulus *"Comentiolus's" -> Comentiolus'  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Armenian Revolt ::*""Then [the emperor] ordered the general Heraclius who was located in the country of Armenia to take his troops and go against [the rebels] in battle...Then [the rebels] looted whatever they found, taking a great deal of booty, and departed to the secure Korduats' country. They wanted to have the stronghold there. Now the Byzantine forces with general Heraclius and Hamazasp Mamikonean pursued them. [The rebels] approached the stronghold, crossing by bridge the river called Jermay (which is styled Daniel's bridge). They cut down the bridge and fortified themselves in a pass where they held the site of the bridge. [The Byzantines] were on the [opposite] riverbank wondering what to do. Because they were unable to find a ford, they wanted to depart. But unexpectedly, a traveling priest strayed into their midst. They seized him and said: "If you do not show us the river's ford, we will kill you." [The traveller] took the forces and showed them the ford [at a place] below where they were. All the troops crossed the river. Some of them held [watch over] the stronghold, others the bridgehead. [Some] held the mouth of the valley, others entered the stronghold and battled with them. The devastation was enormous, and [the rebels] were worn out."" This is a huge section to be quoted, it should either be put into a quote box or paraphrased. While quotes are allowed, they shouldn't be of such substantial size.  Done; merged with quote below and placed in quote box. Theban Halberd (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC) ::*""Killed in the battle were Nerses, Vstam, and Samuel, who killed quite a few [warriors] around them in fight. But Sargis and Varaz Nerseh were arrested along with some others. They were taken to the city of Karin and later beheaded. When they were about to be beheaded, Varaz Nerseh said to Sargis: "Let's cast lots to see whom they kill first." But Sargis replied: "I am an old, blame-worthy man. I beg you, grant me this little respite, that I not see your death." So they beheaded him first. Now T'eodoros Trpatuni fled to the court of the Iranian king (Khosrau II), for refuge. But [the king] ordered him bound and delivered into the hands of his enemies to be put to death. And [the king] visited severe misfortunes upon him." Another large quote coming immediately after the first, this entire section is dependent upon quotes, please paraphrase.  Done; merged with above quote and placed in quote box. Theban Halberd (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Exarch of Africa *"According to Patriarch Nikephoros, Heraclius had been appointed to the position by Maurice, thus prior to the latter's deposition and death in 602." -> According to Patriarch Nikephoros, Heraclius had been appointed to the position by Maurice, prior to the latter's deposition and death in 602.  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Revolt against Phocas *"In 610, the Persian general Shahrbaraz was approaching Antioch. But the Persian front was not the immediate threat: the rebels of Africa were" -> join the two short sentences together to form one (with a rephrase as well); In 610, the Persian general, Shahrbaraz, was approaching Antioch, but, the rebels of Africa posed a more immediate threat than the Persian front.  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) *"The Greens also changed sides. Constantinople fell with relative ease." -> Fuse the short sentences again; The Greens also changed sides, to support Heraclius (the Younger was it not?, I am not aware that the Elder actually went to Constantinople), and Constantinople fell to the Heraclii with relative east.  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) General issues that crop up across all parts of the article *"Heraclius the Elder" and "Heraclius" refer to him as one or the other but don't use them interchangeably, I recommend Heraclius the Elder for the infobox and first mention, and then from there on, refer to him as Heraclius. The choice is yours however, if you select to refer to him as Heraclius the Elder throughout, that is fine, the key is consistency.  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC) *"Heraclius the Younger" In either case above, be sure to consistently refer to Heraclius the Younger with his honorific of the Younger, if you've unintentionally referred to both members of the Heraclii family in the article as Heraclius be sure to rectify it. I may have come across an example of this issue in the section Revolt against Phocas where both (the Elder and the Younger) play a prominent role in the discussion.  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. Infobox :*There should be an infobox on this article, specifically; {{Infobox military person}} and it needs to be filled out to as much depth as possible, I will include a list of fields that should be filled out as I come across the information for them in the article. Fields to be filled (some are optional, others practically required) honorific_prefix = General (I assume based on the lede) name = Heraclius (below you may also include either his nickname or of honorific suffix ("the Elder") image = (if you have one) image_size = (assuming there's an image) caption = (assuming there's an image) native_name = for the Greek translation of the name (if appropriate) native_name_lang = Greek (as above) nickname (or honorific_suffix) = "the Elder" birth_place = Cappadocia (possibly, if you wish to include) death_date = <!-- {{birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} or {{birth date|YYYY|MM|DD}} if dead --> death_place = I doubt that this information is available, but, will notify if I find something in the article. placeofburial_label = As above, this also applies to placeofburial_coordinates = <!-- {{Coord|LAT|LONG|display=inline,title}} --> allegiance = Emperor Heraclius (if appropriate) serviceyears = Not likely to be known rank = He was a General, but, I don't think that this field applies in this case due honorific_prefix commands = Not likely to be known battles_label = (Tbh, no entirely sure how this works) battles = anything of note? spouse = (Epiphania I believe?) <!-- Add spouse if reliably sourced --> The above is a preliminary set of fields that could possibly reliably sourced, I have noted some which I consider unlikely, I may remove these as a I go through the article, as I am yet to go through the entirety of it. Be careful not to change the above as there are many nowiki's required to ensure this works.  Done; no need to include all infobox fields. Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) *Lede The lede is particularly small for this article, it ought to be expanded to include (or cover) at least the following; His career under Phillipicus and Comentiolus (this needs expansion in the lede, it's covered but only in minute detail) His role in the Armenian revolt (which may also require a rewrite and is not mentioned at all in the lede) His role as Exarch of Africa (mentioned, but, in need of expansion) His role in the revolt against Phocas (mentioned, but, very briefly), including but not limited to 1. the death of Maurice and the impact this had on Heraclius the Elder (and others), 2. the political situation of the Byzantine empire (invaded by the Sassanids) alongside 3. The general revolts and invasions all across the empire (Slavs, Greens and Blues (in Constantinople), etc) 4. The use of the wealth and resources of North Africa and 5. the reliance that Constantinople had on it (North Africa).  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. Minor Issue; My apologies, I forgot to make a note of it, but, as Finnusertop mentions; "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)."  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.	Earwig's copyvio detector rates it unlikely with a confidence of 9.1%. I will be going through a couple of the sources myself to confirm that this is indeed unlikely. 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; 1. "He [Philippicus] gave part of the army to Heraclius, since he was himself overwhelmed by pain and unable to fight. Heraclius marshaled his soldiery and camped opposite the foothills of Izala, or rather the banks of the river Tigris. Accordingly Heraclius left Thamanon [a location on the eastern banks of the Tigris], advanced towards the southern parts of Media, and ravaged the whole of that area. He even traversed the Tigris and urged the army forward, burning everything of importance in that part of Media. Then he re-entered the Roman state, circled past Theodosiopolis, and once again rejoined the men with Philippicus" :*2.""Then [the emperor] ordered the general Heraclius who was located in the country of Armenia to take his troops and go against [the rebels] in battle...Then [the rebels] looted whatever they found, taking a great deal of booty, and departed to the secure Korduats' country. They wanted to have the stronghold there. Now the Byzantine forces with general Heraclius and Hamazasp Mamikonean pursued them. [The rebels] approached the stronghold, crossing by bridge the river called Jermay (which is styled Daniel's bridge). They cut down the bridge and fortified themselves in a pass where they held the site of the bridge. [The Byzantines] were on the [opposite] riverbank wondering what to do. Because they were unable to find a ford, they wanted to depart. But unexpectedly, a traveling priest strayed into their midst. They seized him and said: "If you do not show us the river's ford, we will kill you." [The traveller] took the forces and showed them the ford [at a place] below where they were. All the troops crossed the river. Some of them held [watch over] the stronghold, others the bridgehead. [Some] held the mouth of the valley, others entered the stronghold and battled with them. The devastation was enormous, and [the rebels] were worn out."" :*3.""Killed in the battle were Nerses, Vstam, and Samuel, who killed quite a few [warriors] around them in fight. But Sargis and Varaz Nerseh were arrested along with some others. They were taken to the city of Karin and later beheaded. When they were about to be beheaded, Varaz Nerseh said to Sargis: "Let's cast lots to see whom they kill first." But Sargis replied: "I am an old, blame-worthy man. I beg you, grant me this little respite, that I not see your death." So they beheaded him first. Now T'eodoros Trpatuni fled to the court of the Iranian king (Khosrau II), for refuge. But [the king] ordered him bound and delivered into the hands of his enemies to be put to death. And [the king] visited severe misfortunes upon him."  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; *"Heraclius besieged an unnamed strong fort, relentlessly using his siege engines day and night until it fell." ("relentlessly")  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) "Theodosiopolis held a highly important strategic location" ("highly")  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) "and was fiercely contested in wars between the Byzantines and Persians" ("fiercely")  Done Theban Halberd (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) *An example of rather extreme puffery can be found in this quote; "...advanced towards the southern parts of Media, and ravaged the whole of that area. He even traversed the Tigris and urged the army forward burning everything of importance in that part of Media" ("ravaged", "urged", "everything of importance") This is a quote in need of a paraphrase due to its size.  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) Note; the issue with these words is that they make unprovable claims, prove that Theodopolis is "highly important", that it was "fiercely" contested, that Heraclius "relentlessly" besieged the fort, that Media was "ravaged" and "everything of importance" burned while Heraclius "urged" his army on. Simple, it's not possible to prove. Theodopolis may have been important, and that is fine, it may have been contested, even regulary, and that too is fine, but, how important and how often it was contested and to what degree of ferocity, that, is merely speculation and something Wikipedia doesn't engage in.  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.	*Image 2; "Gold solidus struck during the revolt of the Heraclii, depicting them both wearing the consular robes" of whom is them both? I assume Heraclius the Elder and Emperor Heraclius but it would be best to state this explicitly.  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

• 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

This is an undue edit. There are several third party sources calling him Armenian for one historian to make a difference. If there are no valid objections, I'll reinstate the previous edit. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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. Brandmeister^talk 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. Brandmeister^talk 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. Brandmeister^talk 09:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)