Talk:Photian schism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 11:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll be back.

Introduction

After your kind and fair review of Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro, I thought I'd return the favor—after all, a happy man is one who has returned all goodness done to him.

Overview

I have assessed the article at B now.

1. Prose:

• No copyright violations.
• The article reads well and is clear, but some sentences are very lengthy, some having up to six clauses. I will do a detailed review below, but there won't be much that doesn't meet GA standards.

2. MOS: Meets standards.

3. References layout: No dead links. No problems found.

4. Reliable sources: Some sources are from denominational publishers, but there are sufficient independent sources.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: See below.

7. Focus: Yes.

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Please add international tag for File:Pope John VIII.jpg.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. I will do the lead later.

Background

• She was at first opposed to this idea ... Opposed to the veneration of idols or opposed to restoring such veneration?

The latter. Clarified. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Can Methodius only refer to Methodios I? Same holds for Photius, used later on.

Yes. There is only one person by each name mentioned in the article, and I didn't feel it necessary to add the numeral each time. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the numerals be in there on first mention, so the reader knows who you are talking about without having to follow the wikilink?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• There was an intense struggle to succeed him ... Sentence too long to read smoothly, please break up.

Done. Period added after "him." Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• If possible, please wikilink coronation of the Patriarch.

Done. The article is simply entitled coronation; an article does not exist on that rite as pertaining specifically to the Byzantine patriarch. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• after his situation was still not resolved It isn't quite clear what he tried to do about it before he made the mentioned protest.

I added that Ignatius excommunicated him. After that, he protested to the Pope. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• in the scandal Which of the scandals do you mean?

Replaced "the scandal" with "Byzantine affairs." Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Beginning

• Liturgy is capitalizing this common in independent sources?

The source doesn't capitalize it. Changed accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hagia Sophia What was the role of the Hagia Sopia at the time? Was it the main church of Eastern Christianity at the time? I can guess, but maybe not all readers should be left to guess.

Brief explanation added. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• One man named Gebeon ... Was this after the beheading?

Yes. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Another contemporary source ... Author is unknown?

I can't find a reference to the author in Dvornik. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No other sources available?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dvornik is the only author to have written an account of the entire Photian Schism. His 1948 book remains the standard. So the answer is no. Display name 99 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• flatly contradicts Better cut out flatly for a neutral tone.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, I have responded to all of your points thus far. Thank you for your review. Display name 99 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Reign of Photius and papal intervention

• in demonstrations against the emperor. As in protests?

Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this sounds a little anachronistic. How about protests or another more general word?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The word demonstrations is commonly used as a synonym for protests. I think it's rather clear. Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean it wasn't clear. I meant it is not a word used for that period and age.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• He allegedly ... You mean that it was unknown who gave the order?

Accounts claiming that he ordered the arrest of bishops who opposed him are not treated as 100% reliable by Dvornik. Tails of his repression may have been exaggerated. Display name 99 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Capricio.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Pope wrote to Photius ... A bit too many clauses.

The sentence has been broken up. Display name 99 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Slightly better, yes.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• questioned by a made What does this mean?

This should have said "maid." Fixed accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thought i was about to learn something new. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Bulgaria and complication of Rome

• Sometimes you spell Emperor with a capital, sometimes not. This is a little bit confusing. Same holds for Khan, though I think I already fixed that.

It should be capitalized when referring to a specific emperor. But if it is only referring to the office of emperor, it shouldn't be. I've hopefully fixed that in all areas of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• nor acting as if anything had happened A little odd. Better rephrase as positive: acting if nothing had happened ...

It sounds fine to me. The point is that Photius did nothing after Nicholas's condemnation. He didn't retaliate, but he didn't step down either. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Can Khan be wikilinked?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• had accepted Christianity ... that resulted in his conversion A little repetitive.

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• future Pope Formosus What was his position then?

Bishop of Porto. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• attacked these Latins ... Probably unintended, but sounds a bit dismissive. Attacked the delegation?

Changed to "attacked these Latin missionaries." Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• the Creed Can this specific Christian sense be wikilinked? Later you refer to the Nicene Creed: is this the same?

Yes. The Nicene Creed is the main profession of faith for most Christians. The conflict pertained to a word in that creed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• On the Duties of a prince Please add what format this was, e.g. book, article, letter.

Specified that it was a letter. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• 4th council of Constantinople Can this wikilink to something?

It's linked under "Bulgaria and complication of Rome." Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Eventually, they sided with the Pope against Photius This information comes a bit sudden—please expand.

I'll look into this. Display name 99 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some background material. Display name 99 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

• Michael had conspired with Basil I Please introduce Basil I first, briefly.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't find it...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Second to last paragraph under "Bulgaria and complication of Rome." Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• he had made a secret agreement with Basil I and Photius So Photius was given another position? How about the variety of actions mentioned earlier?

Photius was restored to his former position as patriarch. Changed "variety of actions" to "took action," because calling the council of 869-870 condemning Photius was for the most part all that he did. Display name 99 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• universal Church Please wikilink.

The best thing to link to would be "Catholic Church." But I did that already under "Church of the West." Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is okay, because it is a synonym that people might mot be aware of. It is not strictly speaking a duplicate wikilink, because the label of the wikilink is different. There's a redirect called universal church, if I am not mistaken.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• he acknowledged with gratitude the Emperor's submission The emperor's authority?

The emperor acknowledged the Pope to be head of the universal Church. That is what is meant. Display name 99 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

But the Emperor's submission would imply that the Emperor had acted humbly. Is this what is meant?. Or am I missing something here?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly remembering the fate of Radoald and Zachary It isn't quite clear what happened to Radoald and Zachary. Were they excommunicated?

I expanded on this at the end of "Reign of Photius and papal intervention." Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Ouch.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Dvornik calls John's demand for an apology "obnoxious." Please expand.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Upon all those who believe and teach such doctrines, he imposed an anathema ... Was this official in any way, or just a sentence in a book?

If you remember, he was deposed a second time and sent to lie in a monastery. He had no authority. It was a declaration that carried no official weight. Display name 99 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just checking if I missed anything.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• peaceful until the East–West Schism Please add period inline for smoother reading.

I'm not sure what this means. Display name 99 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant a time period. Probably 1054, right?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Well-written and comprehensive, but I was unable to trace the last paragraph (The main problem ...) in the main body of the article. Looks like a relevant discussion though. Better expand this, or at least copy and rephrase it, in the main body.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Great! Please also add the part about the legacy to the lead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Broadness

• Dvornik says the second schism "belongs to the realm of legend." How does this relate to the content in the article here? This 1986 source, with over 200 cites, says something about a fake theory about a second schism as well.

I added a discussion about the fake "second schism." Display name 99 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Dvornik relates extensively how Photius' example affected later history, Photius developing a symbolic status. Should some of that be reflected in the article? I found more scholarship from the same author about that topic here, downloaded here.

I added a "Legacy" section to briefly discus the overall impact of the schism, partially in the context of the above issue. Display name 99 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• The 1986 source says that khan Boris was baptized by the Greek, rather than by his own decision.

That's all.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I added that he "capitulated," showing that it was not entirely his own decision. Display name 99 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Perfect.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, yes, there was a legend of a second schism and it's my fault for not discussing it. I didn't know the 1986 source existed. Thanks for finding it! Please give me some time to work on expanding the end of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Great. You don't have to be comprehensive at this point, of course, but these matters should at least be addressed briefly for GA. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, I have responded to all of your remaining points. Display name 99 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Waiting for your response before continuing the review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a few remaining points left, of which most importantly the lead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, that's everything. I'm still not convinced that the use of the word demonstrations is bad, but hopefully we can get past that. I actually avoided a potential duplink for universal Church by deciding to link to "Christian Church," in order to show that the Emperor acknowledged the Pope to be the leader of all Christians. That works better in my opinion. I added the information to the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. We are almost there, but which has somewhat helped ease the division in the lead doesn't quite fit with the a partial rehabilitation of Photius in the body. The former is about East-West relations, the latter about the person of Photius.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, I've taken care of that. The source speaks of Photius's rehabilitation. So that's what I added into the lead. Thank you for your good and thorough review. Display name 99 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, passing. Looks like a great article, and you have worked hard and focused to get the review done quickly. Before I forget: let me know if you do a DYK, and if you could a GA review of my article Angulimala, that would be much appreciated.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed