Talk:Sack of Amorium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Lead

• "The Sack of Amorium by the Abbasids in mid-August 838 represents one of the most defining moments in the long history of the Byzantine–Arab Wars." → This is a bold claim to make without a citation.
• "The huge Abbasid army..." → I changed "huge" to "large", since I think the latter is a more encyclopedic word than the former.
• "...in person..." → Is the "in person" necessary? At the time, given the lack of long-range nearly-instantaneous communication, I think that it's assumed that an army's leader was present with the army itself. For example, one wouldn't write, "The Macedonian army was led by Alexander the Great, in person."
• I changed a comma for an em dash in the sentence introducing Amorium, since otherwise the sentence runs a bit long and the relationship isn't as clear.
• "Although it did not ultimately alter the balance of power, which was slowly shifting in Byzantium's favour, it thoroughly discredited Iconoclasm, leading to its abandonment shortly after Theophilos' death in 842." → How did a battle discredit a religious ban? Even if this is elucidated below, it should be semi-clarified in the lead.

• On the first point, to the Byzantines, the whole campaign was the most humiliating disaster they had suffered at the Arabs' hands for generations, and even 30 years later, they would claim the Battle of Lalakaon as "revenge" for Amorium. However I cannot find a direct citation to this, so I revised that to "one of the major events". Next, an army of over 20-30,000 men was already regarded as "very large" in the Middle Ages, and armies the size of Mu'tasim's force, even accounting for the inevitable exaggeration of the chroniclers, had not been seen since the campaigns aimed at conquering Constantinople. I feel that this must be somehow imparted to the reader, so I changed it to "exceptionally large". Fixed the rest, and agree with your change re Amorium. Good call. Constantine ✍ 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Background

• Where it once said "he issued a new type of follis", I removed "type of". If you exchange follis for coin, then it makes sense to say, "he issued a new coin" rather than a "new type of coin". The former implies a variation of the same, while the latter implies a new type of currency altogether. The currency here is the same — the follis.
• Although mentioned in the lead, Mu'tasim is first introduced into the main body of the text with no introduction to who he is (the lead should be considered independent of the main body).

Agree with point 1, fixed point 2. Constantine ✍ 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Impact

• "...easily comparable with the greatest defeats of previous iconophile emperors..." → This part of the sentence itself needs a citation.
• ..."thoroughly undermined the main argument for iconoclasm, namely that it secured military victories." → I reworded this sentence to, "thoroughly undermined the notion that iconoclasm was responsible for the empire's military victories." I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to say. Either way, I think the concept needs to be clarified. Was it because iconoclasm brought favor from God? If so, this should probably be included somewhere.

• Elaborated a bit on the subject, but the point on divine favour and military success has already been made in the "Background" section: Iconoclasm was conceived as a way of purifying the faith of "idolatry" and regain divine favour against the Arabs. Victory in the field meant that the iconoclasts were right, failure the opposite. Constantine ✍ 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

General

• Apart from the above, the text is good. Very interesting subject!
• Maybe the image of the siege of Amorium (File:Siege of Amorium.jpg) should be used as the lead image, in the infobox.
• All the images check out.
• Article is stable.

• On the second point, I generally prefer the infobox to be uncluttered if possible, and images tend to make it too large. The image is also IMO better placed in context in its relevant section. Constantine ✍ 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps, and I will pass the article once the above is addressed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and for a thorough review. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)