Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David (son of Heraclius)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [1].

David (son of Heraclius)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC), User:Haukurth[reply]

This article is about David, one of the co-emperors of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps a perfect example of a victim of Byzantine politics, he was raised to the throne as a child, was the subject of intense dynastic scheming, and was hated as the product of incest. And of course, in the end, he was deposed, mutilated, and then ignored. While in some ways more a receiver of history than a mover of it, he still held the throne during a period of vast controversy in the empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I have written historical biographies, but I am unfamiliar with this person, time period or location.

  • " November 7, 630," The other dates in the article have the day first, so this should be standardised.
  • Done.
  • "September 1, 641." Another date inconsistency.
  • Done
  • "But according to Theophanes they were ousted by the Senate" I'm not thrilled with this sentence starter. Maybe, "Theophanes states they were ousted by the Senate" The reader already knows there are contradictory sources so it does not need to be emphasised at the beginning of this sentence.
  • done.
  • "Haldon, John (1990). Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521319171." Since the other refs have dashes in the ISBN, this one should have them, too, for consistency.
  • done
  • I checked the lede, no concerns.
  • In the infobox, the reign says October-November, but the article says the co-orination took place in September or October. Perhaps this needs to be clarified.
  • done

Those are my comments. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: All concerns addressed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

My only comments are these:

Funk

[edit]
  • Will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link more names and terms in image captions?
    Done
  • Link Byzantine at first mention in article body?
    Done
  • Since there are no images of David, and the plates comes cloest to being tied to him, perhaps show more of them[2] by using the multiple image template (like in quagga)? Would also make the image smaller so that it doesn't clash with the quote below.
    Done
  • "literally "David Caesar, may you be victorious."" Shouldn't the period be placed after the quotation mark?
    Done
  • "The high number of titled princes under Heraclius had not been seen since the days of Constantine the Great." How many siblings were there, and how many from the same mother?
    Done (in first paragraph)
  • "An agreement was reached, one part of which was that David was to be crowned as a co-emperor." It seems unclear who he was to be co-emperor with (at least until much further down, and stated as an aside)? And which of them had highest rank?
    Resolved by your solution.
  • This explicit sentence in the intro is what could be good in the article body to solve the above: "As part of a compromise, David was raised to co-emperor with the regnal name Tiberius, ruling with his brother Heraklonas and their nephew Constans II."
    Done.
  • Likewise with: "All three emperors were children and the Empress Dowager Martina acted as regent."
    Done
  • It would seem the map showing Muslim conquest would make more sense under Downfall, after it has been mentioned, than where it is now, Succession struggle, where this is not yet mentioned, and has little relevance?
    Done
  • Should Blue faction really link to Chariot racing?
    Unfortunately, yes, as there is currently no page for each Chariot racing faction, the general explanation of them at Chariot racing is the best we have.
  • Link Bulgar?
    Done
  • "and Marinus" Earlier you spell it Martinus.
    Done (result of page move, didn't catch it)
  • Link Jerusalem in intro.
    Done
  • "given the senior court title Caesar at the age of 7" His age only seems mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    I haven't been able to track down the source that gives him as 7 (although this is obviously correct), so I've changed it to "in 638" in the lede; strong possibility I did the math when crafting the lede in my userspace and assumed there would be a source to give the number in the body, and that never ended up being the case, good catch.
  • "in an early example of Byzantine political mutilation" Only the intro states it is n early example.
    Done
  • "and the noses of her sons were slit" Unclear what "slit" means, probably better to be as explicit as the article body, "cut off".
    done

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Curious about a completely new topic for me. I'll write as I read, leaving the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that some things are not as I usually see them, but may be fine for this kind of article:

  • The side navbox, which sandwiches the text opposite the images. The images should be there because of the context. Could the navbox go further down?
    Done; the navbox right after the infobox is traditional, but I don't believe strictly required.
  • I am not used to more than three citations for one fact.
    Removed some.
  • Bibliography: I am used to differentiate Cited sources and Further reading, but understand that all in Bibliography are cited.

Under the reign

  • I am surprised by Nikephoros, without link, while there's Nicephoros later, with link, and no obvious connection to the previous sentence.
    That's actually supposed to be Heraclius, not Nikephoros, text has been fixed.

Tiberius

  • I'd link monothelitism, - yes it was linked in the lead, but I forgot.
    Done (it was linked previously at Monothelete in the quote above, but I moved it down to the first actual word.
  • I'd move the coin images to the numismatics in the text.
    Done.

Lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes, all fine for me. So now lead:

  • "David (Greek: Δαυίδ, born 7 November 630), who had the regnal name Tiberius, was one of three co-emperors of Byzantium for a few months in late 641 (or early 642)." some concerns:
    • Yes I know that we usually first have names but in this case I believe it would make more sense to first mention co-emperor and then the regal name, which by being bold would still stand out.
      Done.
    • the "early 642" suggests to me that the whole reign was perhaps that year, but I understand it's only the end.
      Done.
  • the David Plates: yes, I understand there's a link, but in this case would like a very short description, because it could be almost anything made anytime, and is a very important thing to say about our subject (about whom we know almost nothing). Many readers will never get beyond the lead, and may be too lazy to click.
    Done.
  • likewise, I believe it wouldn't hurt to add at which young age he was named Caesar.
    Unfortunately this cannot be done as none of the sources feel inclined to give that age; I can say with absolute certainty that it was 7 but no sources will outright say that, so it would be a very technical OR I think.
  • I could imagine , for chronological order, to first have the (now last) sentence about the reign, then its end, but also understand the current order, to not leave the cut-off noses as the final line. Perhaps a line about their possible later life, as in the body? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done

Comments (incl. source review) by A. Parrot

[edit]

I made a few edits to wording and punctuation as well.

  • "Byzantine art historian Cecily Hennessy points out that the birth of David occurred after several children of Heraclius and Martina had been born malformed or died in infancy." This sentence isn't supported by a citation and is redundant with the paragraph below it, so I don't see why it's here, unless Hennessy draws some conclusion that is missing from this sentence.
    Accidentally split a paragraph, now cited; the two are meant to be together. The conclusion is that the David Plates were not just for Heraclius, but a celebration that Heraclius had multiple "good" heirs.
  • "but the accusation that Martina poisoned him was later officially propagated." When, and by whom?
    Fixed, it's by Constans II; the exact time scale isn't known, but probably soon after he took the throne.
  • The text says the mutilation of Martina and her sons may have been the first instance of the practice, but the article on Byzantine mutilation lists John Athalarichos as the earliest instance. Do any sources discuss this uncertainty? A. Parrot (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the sources agree that it was early, Moore alone states it was the first; it's possible he was simply unaware of John Athalarichos, as he doesn't mention him at all. Seems like it might have been #2 after all.

Source review

Sourcing is excellent. All look like highly reputable sources, overwhelmingly from the past 50 years or so. Older sources are used exclusively for treatment of primary documents, not for analysis. I only see two slight irregularities in the bibliography. The Reiske source is an edition published long after Reiske's death, which seems to have been edited or corrected by Barthold Georg Niebuhr; could Niebuhr be incorporated into the citation template? Also, the author link to Warren Treadgold appears the second time Treadgold's name shows up rather than the first, because of the inflexible nature of the template for Treadgold 1997, but I don't know if there's anything you can do about that.

Spot-checking ten citations reveals no verifiability problems.

I have one complaint about citation style: notes are placed before ordinary citations, which makes them hard to see, especially because the note format uses lowercase letters. Experienced Wikipedia readers' eyes gloss over normal citations when they're reading the running text rather than checking the sources, but because discursive notes are to some extent part of the article text, I think they should be as visible as possible. I use a more visible format for them ("Note 1", etc.), but at minimum, the notes should be placed after the numbered citations, so that the space following the citation allows them to stand out more. A. Parrot (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Replaced Treadgold template with regular cite book to fix the author-link issue, have added Niebuhr as an editor, and converted EFNs to NoteTags and moved them to the end of their citations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and support from JeBonSer

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/David_(son_of_Heraclius)/archive1&oldid=1107802960"