Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tiberius III

< 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tiberius III

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Tiberius III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my Roman/Byzantine Emperors project, and I believe it meets the criteria. Previously failed an A-Class, but this was mostly due to my inaction, rather than the article itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Constantine

edit

Will have a look over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Can we add the regnal number footnote in the lede as well? And add who Tiberius II was?
    Done.
  • I think we can drop three obscure, niche, mid-19th-century sources as evidence that his name has been misspelled in the past. This is irrelevant for a modern reader.
    Have removed, was added by another editor in October.
  • Please use {{transl|grc|}} for transliterated Greek terms.
    Done.
  • Tiberius was part of an army led by John the Patrician sent by Byzantine Emperor Leontius for the lede, I would omit 'led by John the Patrician', especially since he is redlinked, but also to shorten it to the essentials. Then killed John can simply become 'killed their commander'.
    Done
  • former Emperor needs to be decapitalized.
    Done
  • Link Slavs to Early Slavs and Bulgars to the First Bulgarian Empire?
    Done
  • several month one to six months or so is not really 'several', rather 'a few' ;)
    Done
  • The inscription reads dn tiberius pe av. Why is that interesting? The average reader won't even know what these terms mean... Unless you provide the complete inscription, e.g. 'Our Lord Tiberius, Perpetual Augustus', I'd recommend omitting it.
    Done
Early life
  • Given that the origin of his name has been used to speculate as to his origins, I would move the footnote into the main body, explain as much (esp. in respect to Vasiliev's claim) and expand a bit on the issue.
    Done
    Have done a slight copyedit there. Can you also add separate references for the Germanic origin? Also, the Germanic origin of the name is the traditional version, right? I would clarify this, and add that the dissenting views are from more recent scholars (hence may indeed represent the current common view). Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added first reference, hunting one down for the traditional bit, which I'm sure is right. So far only Peter Crawford is willing to say such, and I'm sure he fails HQRS, down the line if not immediately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally tracked down a source (Brandes) Willing to say as much.
  • Byzantist is slightly archaic, better 'Byzantinist'
    Done
  • Refs #9 and #10 are from the same work. Unless it is conjecture, Kaegi bases his statement on sources, please mention them.
    Fixed referencing; it seems to be conjecture on his part as no sources are cited. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Per WP:SS, I'd say the entire first section, and probably the second one as well, can be omitted entirely as it concerns events that are not necessary to comprehend the subject. Justinian's exile can be mentioned later when he becomes relevant. E.g. 'In 696, the Islamic Umayyad Caliphate, the primary rival of the Byzantine Empire, renewed their attack upon the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. In the next year, they managed to capture its capital, Carthage. The Byzantine emperor Leontius...' It works fine as an introduction, and does not need the entire back story of Leontius, Justinian II, and the Muslim civil war, with a host of names and dates that are not directly relevant here.
    Done.
  • with the Green faction (one of the Hippodrome factions) close repetition of 'faction'. Perhaps simply 'with the Greens (one of the Hippodrome factions)'?
    Done.
  • Add timeframe for Michael the Syrian
    Done.
  • Don't know about the quote. E.g. Cyprus is not mentioned before, 'Roman lands' would need explanation, etc. I'd recommend simply working into the article, i.e. that Tiberius justified his coup by drawing parallels to Leontius' own deposition of the previous emperor, Justinian II, on account of the latter's responsibility for the disasters in the war against the Umayyads. This way you'd also introduce Justinian II to the reader.
    Done.
Rule
  • Link 'crowned' to coronation of the Byzantine emperor, Syria to Bilad al-Sham, sea walls of Constantinople to the relevant section in the walls article.
    Done
  • Gloss/explain 'patrikios'
    Done
  • crossing into the mountain passes 'crossing the mountain passes'
    Done
  • which had been underpopulated since much of the populace was moved to the region of Cyzicus under Justinian close repetition of 'populace'/'populated'. And please consistently use 'Justinian II' for the deposed emperor.
    Done
  • moved to Propontis no reason to introduce a new, different term. Stick with Cyzicus.
    Done
  • as well as strengthened Would begin a new sentence here.
    Done
  • separating the Theme of Sicily not entirely certain, and not the common view AFAIK. Cf. Sicily (theme).
    What would you recommend doing here? Adding a footnote that Treadgold maintains it, or removing it entirely? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason to remove, but we need to qualify the statement. I would simply mention that some scholars (or just Treadold?) consider that this separation happened under his watch. Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • patrician to 'patrikios'
    Done
  • according to Byzantine chronicler Theophanes the Confessor start a new sentence, and give timeframe for Theophanes. I am on the fence about dropping this part entirely, as a) it is likely invented and b) it concerns Philippicus more than Tiberius.
    Removed.
  • Somewhat pedantic, but I wouldn't call Tervel a 'king', rather a 'ruler', or his proper title of khan?
    Done
  • Later, Justinian Strike 'later' as unnecessary.
    Done.
Family
  • Link either 'Ephesus' or the whole 'bishop of Ephesus' to Metropolis of Ephesus
    Done
  • Decapitalize Historian
    Done
See also
  • Why is '7th century in Lebanon § 690s' relevant?
    Removed.
Sources
  • Add locations to the books missing them.
    done
  • Vasiliev certainly was not published in 1980. Please verify and correct the date.

@Iazyges: That's it for a first pass. Constantine ✍ 14:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will see about finishing this off when I get back on Sunday. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Have done or responded to all, apologies for taking so long. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iazyges, most of the comments have been addressed. Have done some small copyedits, and another read-through now. Some additional comments follow (and see also above for a couple outstanding issues), but I think it is close to passing now.

That's it :) Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Should be all; I have added some bits I came across the article as I searched for the origin cite, not a huge amount but a few sentences. Thank you for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: excellent job, I am very happy to support at this point. Constantine ✍ 13:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

edit

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why does Tiberius III's birth name need to be given twice in the lead?
    Fixed.
  • [...] focused on seizing the city of Carthage and managed to capture it in 697. Recommend condensing.
    Done.
  • After several months of siege, [...] "of siege" unnecessary.
    Done.
  • [...] however, this surrender did not prevent his troops from plundering the city. What surrender.
    Done.
  • Heraclius invaded the Umayyads [...] How does one invade a person or group of people? It would be better to name places.
    Changed to "Umayyad Caliphate"
  • It would suffice to refer to Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik as just al-Malik after his introduction.
    Done.
  • [...] exiting at the northern edge of the wall near the Palace of Blachernae, and quickly seizing the building. Recommend past-tense.
    Done.
  • [...] this Theodosius may be the same person as later Emperor Theodosius III [...] Condense this.
  • @Vami IV: Done all, thanks for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit

Will do after Vami's review has been made. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5: Believe this is now ready for review. Thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "than that he was droungarios" to "than that he was a droungarios"
    Done.
  • "led an army of Slavs and Bulgars" This is a MOS:EGG 'cause people would think they mean the people Bulgars instead of the empire.
    Done.
  • "between August 705 and February 706" Maybe the infobox needs to a note describing this?
    Changed to "between August 705 and February 706"
  • "His body was initially thrown into the sea" Maybe replace sea with the Black Sea might be helpful for the reader?
    It's not certain it was the black sea, is the problem. It might have been the sea of Marmara, for instance.
  • "church on the island of Prote" Which church and was it destroyed by the future wars?
    This seems unknown to history, so far as I have found. Would appreciate any insight you have.
  • "he was a droungarios (a commander of about a thousand men)" Maybe add this in a note?
    Do you mean transfer this to a footnote? That hardly seems useful for such a short gloss.
  • "and declared Apsimar emperor" to "and declared Apsimar as emperor"?
Done
  • "which forced John to retreat to Crete" to "which forced John to retreat to the island of Crete"
  • Done.
  • "allied himself with the Greens" This looks like an EGG?
    Not really; the section that the link opened speaks of chariot racing factions, of which the Greens were one. There is no better page for them, unfortunately.
  • "the city and depose Leontius;[5][11][12][13]" Maybe remove one citation?
    Done.
  • There are four "However"s maybe remove some?
    Done.
  • "of the Anatolian themes.[19][20][21][22]" Remove one citation?
    Done.
  • "al-Malik from reconquering Armenia.[23][20][13]" Re-order the refs here.
    Done.
  • "In 693 Justinian II escaped from Cherson" Link Chreson especially now that people associate it with the city beingcaptured by the Russians not that long ago. It might confuse the reader if you meant another Cherson.
    Done.
  • "sought the support of the Bulgar" MOS:EGG here.
    Done.
  • Add the reigns for Tervel and Busir.
    Done.
  • "to the Kynegion and beheaded.[5][6][25][29]" Remove one citation.
    Done.
  • "Their bodies were initially thrown into the sea" Replace sea with the Black Sea.
    Not done per above.
  • "in a church on the island of Prote" Which church and was it destroyed by the future wars?
    See above.
  • Why is instead of Apsimar his Latin name is been used in the "Names" in the infobox?
    Because that was his name as Emperor of the Romans, not Apsimar.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done or responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Happy with the article now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Only two images:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Sources are all of high quality.
  • Formatting is nice and generally consistent. Anomalies:
    • Brandes, Wolfram (2003). Page numbers? (pp. 716-725) For other journals, you have supplied a location and publisher (although I wouldn't bother).
      Done.
    • Bryer, Anthony; Herrin, Judith (1977). Publisher missing (Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham). ISBN missing (978-0-7044-0226-3)
      Done.
    • Garland, Lynda (2017). Location missing.
      Done.
    • Lilie, Ralph-Johannes; Ludwig, Claudia; Pratsch, Thomas; Zielke, Beate (2013). ISBN missing (978-3-11-016668-2)
      ISBN is not strictly useful given that it's an online journal (and subject to changes in ways that published books are not, which the ISBN is helpful for); to this end, the template doesn't even have one.
    • Sumner, Graham V. (1976). Issue missing (3) Pages missing (pp. 287-294) No publisher, but location is misleading as it is the Cambridge in Massachusetts. Suggest adding the state. Only journal where you supply an OCLC (I wouldn't bother, although I normally supply an ISSN )
      Done.
    • Treadgold, Warren (1995): Compare with Treadgold, Warren (1997); that one has the publisher correct and the state where Stanford is. (Also: these are the only two references where the later one is listed before the earlier one.)
      Done.
    • Vasilev, Alexander (1980). Publisher missing (University of Wisconsin Press). Should probably supply the state as well as the city. Page number is not required. And it is the only book with an ISBN that also has an OCLC.
      Done.
  • Spot checks:
    • 6, 8, 12, 32 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being gone for so long; I’ll get to it tonight. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Sorry for the late response, all should be done now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good then - passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Tiberius_III&oldid=1149370880"