Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constantine (son of Theophilos)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 21 March 2023 [1].

Constantine (son of Theophilos) edit

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is just embarrassing. I've made my home at FA and have been here for almost half a year now, and I only learned today that the two-week wait period does not apply to successful promotions. One of my nominations was close recently, and as I do not wish to created a huge backlog at FA, here is a short article about a Byzantine prince. I've returned to my roots and have decided to nominate an article about a dead child. Have fun reviewing! Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: as the GA reviewer, would you care to follow this nomination and offer your thoughts? Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: if this nomination passes, it'll be the shortest FA in terms of both prose size and word count, beating Si Ronda in both. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How interesting. Well, I guess it’s time to break some records! Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am not sure if I am the right person for that, as I've no FAs nor have I ever followed how the process looks like. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is quite alright. Thank you for your GA review, and I'll see you around. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 It turns out that over the course of the FA process, this article has gained some more words, meaning Si Ronda will still be the shortest FA by 9 words! Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Chris edit

  • If it is known that he was born sometime in the 830s, then there's no need to be as vague as "c.830s" for his reign
What do you suggest instead?
If we know he was born in the 830s, then just replace both instances of "c.830s" in the lead with "830s". To me, "c.830s" implies a broad range which could fall outside the decade, which clearly isn't the case here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Fixed.
Side note: I only changed that for Constantine's reign. As with his birth, technically it could fall outside the 330s depending on which source you use.
  • "Unusually, Constantine was not named after Michael II" - need more context to explain why this was unusual
Done.
  • "As Theophilos succeeded Michael II on 2 October 829" => "As Theophilos had succeeded Michael II on 2 October 829"
Done.
  • "suggesting a birth date of 831 at earliest" => "suggesting a birth date of 831 at the earliest"
Done.
@ChrisTheDude: all done, except for the first one, which I have a query about. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing I hadn't spotted before - the link on the name Theophilos in the lead points to a DAB page..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Fixed.
@ChrisTheDude: Okay, now I think everything is done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Solidus_of_Theophilos_sb1653_(reverse).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Is {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} accaptable for these purposes? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, coins are considered 3D. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: {{PD-old-100-1923}}, then? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges edit

Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Constantine was born to Emperor Theophilos and Empress Theodora." Suggest "Constantine was born to Byzantine Emperor Theophilos and Empress Theodora." and moving link to Byzantine Empire to "Byzantine Emperor"
  • "In the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit," Translation gloss (Prosopography of the Middle Byzantine Period) might be useful here.
  • @Unlimitedlead: That is all of my suggestions; well done! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks @Iazyges for the review. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! Happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Most information about Constantine's short life and titular reign remains unclear". I'm not sure about "remains", why not 'is'?
Done.
  • "it is known that he was born sometime in the 830s". If this is "known", then you don't need the "c." at the start of the lead.
While he was probably born in the 830s, some, like Ralph-Johannes Lilie give a possible date of the 820s.
In which case it is not "known that he was born sometime in the 830s".
  • "would continue the iconoclastic policies". Optional: insert 'religious' after "iconoclastic", to give a reader a handle on what, broadly, is being referred to without having to chase the link.
Done.
  • "still not a formal title". Delete "still".
Done.
  • "Herrin agrees with this birth date as well." As well as whom?
With Lynda Garland, as stated in the previous sentence.
Er, Herrin agrees with Garland - fine. "as well" indicates that they agree as well as someone else - ie, that at least two people agree with Garland.
  • "though this could mean he was only raised to co-emperor in 833." I am unsure why you use "though".
Removed.

A little gem. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done or replied to. Thanks for reviewing, Gog! Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Coming up. —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article is nice and short we can check everything in even more detail than usual. Looking at special:permanentlink/1143707534.
  • Sources are all high quality, some secondary and some tertiary. The ODB is used for background content only, nothing to complain here at all.
  • Ref 1: In the text (at use "c"), this is credited to Lilie. At the source, it is credited to "Ralph-Johannes Lilie , Claudia Ludwig , Beate Zielke and Thomas Pratsch"; do you have a good reason not to cite this as {{sfn|Lilie|Ludwig|Zielke|Pratsch|2013}}? If you don't cite it by name, have you considered abbreviating as "PMBZ Online" as they do? As for the content, at the first mention the source is slightly less certain about suggesting he is the firstborn ("could have been the firstborn or—with some probability, not a certainty—at the latest the fourth child"). They are also slightly hesitant about the drowning in a cistern, so perhaps that shouldn't be in the lead without qualification.
I have addressed this under Harrias's comments. For reference, I said: "Changed to: In the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (lit. 'Prosopography of the Middle Byzantine Period'), its authors, including the Byzantinist Ralph-Johannes Lilie, state that... Constantine's saddened father constructed gardens on the spot of his son's death,[1] although the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit points out that this story may actually refer to a son of another emperor, not Constantine." I thought I'd specifically mention Lilie because she is the only author to have a Wikipedia article that readers can skim really quickly, establishing her ethos as a credible Byzantinist." In regards to the citation, I am using the {{Sfn|Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit}} template.
Lilie is a he :) I still don't quite get why do you not cite the authors by name in your short footnote. It is not as terrible here as in the ODB, as the entire book seems credited to these four authors. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arg, I was thinking of Judith Herrin :) I am keeping consistency with the citations in Thekla (daughter of Theophilos). If you feel strongly about this, I can try and change it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"there remains a possibility that he was their fourth" is still a slightly imprecise rendering. What the source says is that the latest possible place for Constantine in the sequence of siblings is the fourth place. Second or third child are also compatible with this statement. He was one of their first four children, likely the firstborn. —Kusma (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2: The ODB article is credited to a single author, Paul A. Hollingsworth. Should be credited here I think ({{sfn|Hollingsworth|1991}}). Content use is fine.
Is it alright to use the {{sfn|ODB}} template? Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the template you use, but you have to mention the name of the author. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I am confused. Isn't the ODB by Alexander Kazhdan? At least that's what the source template says. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was the editor, but he did not write all of the individual entries, which have individual authors that should be credited. —Kusma (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: There are two ODBs here; which one is Hollingsworth? Both? Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: the dynasties are by Hollingsworth (TWL) and "iconoclasm" by Hollingsworth and Cutler (TWL). See the bottom of the page (you need to log in to the Wikipedia Library). —Kusma (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Ah, I am not using the Wikipedia Library, which explains why I was confused. How should I cite two chapters of the same publication? Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As we have only two articles from the ODB, easily distinguished by the authors cited, I would personally use {{cite encyclopedia}} to produce
  • Hollingsworth, Paul A. (1991). Kazhdan, Alexander (ed.). Amorian or Phrygian Dynasty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • Hollingsworth, Paul A.; Cutler, Anthony (1991). Kazhdan, Alexander (ed.). Iconoclasm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 975–976. ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
and then refer to them as {{sfn|Hollingsworth|Cutler|1991}} and {{sfn|Hollingsworth|1991}}. I would use your construction only in cases where the authors are unknown (or very hard to find out). —Kusma (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have done so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3: first two uses should use page range 191–192 to include the full iconoclasm story and the birth year. Second two uses are indeed on p. 192 but the Thessalian marble at final use isn't in here as far as I can see (it is in the Prosopographie).
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the Thessalian marble? (If it is in that ref please tell me so I look again). —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought I had included the PdmZ citation there. Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4: again, we have named authors, Paul A. Hollingsworth and Anthony Cutler. Good summary.
See other inquiry above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5/6: fine. (Note that 5 covers the parenthesis only, and the link goes to the wrong page, but the correct page is available).
  • Ref 7/8/9: fine.
  • Ref 10: this is what Grierson says according to Treadgold. Would be nice to quote the original; unfortunately, that seems to be p. 407 of the Grierson cited as number 5, and unlike p. 406 it isn't on Google Books. Would be nice to check (via WP:RX if need be) and cite (additionally) the original.
Agreed. Do you see where number 5 is, because I do not, unfortunately. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean [2]? BTW the title is Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection; you should use the full title. And I've managed to access p. 407 by asking Google directly: [3]. If you can't see it, wikimail me and I'll send a screenshot. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, excellently sourced with only tiny issues that should be easy to amend except perhaps no. 10. I would suggest to footnote-cite the authors also for the ODB (splitting it up into two bibliographical entries) and the Prosopographie. I really enjoyed how the article made me discover some of the fascinating story of iconoclasm. —Kusma (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review @Kusma:. I have some replies to some of your inquiries. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I believe all comments have been addressed. Feel free to take a look to make sure everything is satisfactory. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're almost there. The final sentence has somehow lost its citation, though. A non-source related comment: shouldn't "religious iconoclastic policies" rather be "iconoclastic religious policies"? (I am not a native speaker, so if you say "no", I will accept that it is more natural in your ordering). —Kusma (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Both fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This passes the source review now. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for this exhaustive review. Good grief, that was quite the experience for me! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias edit

  • I would make it clear in the lead that he was an infant when he "ruled as co-emperor". Although the sources differ on when he may have been born and died, they seem to concur he died young (though I will come back to this with a later point), whereas reading the lead, which states he lived from the "820s or 830s" to "sometime before 836" could have him as old as 15.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead also presents as a fact that he died "after falling into a palace cistern", whereas the body caveats "that this story may actually refer to a son of another emperor".
Clarified. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the addition of "Byzantine" before "Emperor Theophilos", I now think it would read better as "Constantine was born to the Byzantine Emperor Theophilos and.."
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coinage issued under Theophilos suggests that Constantine was their firstborn." Is it possible to be more explicitly about how it suggests this? I assume he is simply the first of their children to appear on coinage, but even so, the article would do well to make that clear.
Sources do not mention how the coinage implies this, only that it does. Quite strange. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusually, Theophilos defied the standard conventions for the naming of Byzantine royalty, as his son was not named after Michael II" – Okay, but what is the convention? I've looked through the emperors that preceded him, and there isn't an obvious pattern I can find. Is it that the children were named after their grandfathers, or after the preceding Emperor? In this case they were clearly the same person, but it seems that wasn't always the case.
Source says: "While the male child should have been named Michael after his paternal grandfather, Theophilos breaks the rule and gives him the name Constantine..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing there about this being a convention "for the naming of Byzantine royalty", just that it was a convention. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. I initially did not include that bit but someone recommended that I did, so here we are. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this article, it states "but his parents first met in May 830 and married the following month", whereas in Thekla (daughter of Theophilos), which I also reviewed recently, it stated "depends on the year her parents married, estimated to be either c. 820/821, or 830". Technically, the internal consistency of Wikipedia isn't part of the Featured article criteria, but I'm concerned that this Featured article nomination is presenting as a fact something that is presented in a different Featured article as uncertain.
Removed. Apologies for the confusion. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, now that I'm drawn to it, the article on Thekla states that "She is presented by contemporary sources as the eldest child of Byzantine emperor Theophilos and empress Theodora.." whereas this one states that the coinage suggests Constantine is the firstborn. This contradiction should be addressed in both articles, unless this article was only intended to state "firstborn son". Looking at Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, it states (via translation): "The son Constantine could either have been the first-born, especially according to the coins, or – with a certain probability, but not necessarily – at the latest the fourth child could have been born."
Oops. Firstborn son is what the PdmZ says; I thought I had said that. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Theophilos had succeeded Michael II on 2 October 829, Constantine became heir to the throne.." This seems fine on a first read, but later we find out that Constantine might not actually have been born at this point, so the sentence doesn't really work.
Okay, so the wording here is odd. The article text (which I have slightly adjusted in an attempt to make the meaning clearer) reads: "As Theophilos had succeeded Michael II on 2 October 829, Constantine was heir to his father's throne and was crowned co-emperor a short time after his birth." In my mind, this does not assert a birth date for Constantine, only saying that because Theophilos was emperor by 829, Constantine was his father's heir. When was he the heir? Who knows? I tried to leave this sentence vague; please let me know if you still think there is something wrong with the wording. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He died shortly afterwards, still in his infancy." This is presenting his death in infancy as a fact, whereas "The British historian Philip Grierson used this evidence to support the claim that Constantine died young." offers more uncertainty.
I have moved the latter sentence to the former one and adjusted accordingly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, looking at it, the whole second paragraph feels too certain and out of place compared to the rest of the body. It almost reads like it should be the second paragraph of a lead, rather than the body.
May I ask why you feel this way? The first paragraph discusses his birth and family, the second one about the titles and coinage during his life (and briefly his coffin), and the third about disputed in modern academia. This flow seems acceptable to me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (lit. 'Prosopography of the Middle Byzantine Period'), the Byzantinist Ralph-Johannes Lilie states.." That sources lists the authors as "Ralph-Johannes Lilie , Claudia Ludwig , Beate Zielke and Thomas Pratsch", on what basis is the article only listing Ralph-Johannes Lilie?
Changed to: "In the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (lit. 'Prosopography of the Middle Byzantine Period'), its authors, including the Byzantinist Ralph-Johannes Lilie, state that... Constantine's saddened father constructed gardens on the spot of his son's death,[1] although the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit points out that this story may actually refer to a son of another emperor, not Constantine." I thought I'd specifically mention Lilie because she is the only author to have a Wikipedia article that readers can skim really quickly, establishing her ethos as a credible Byzantinist. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article, a marvellous effort on such a small topic, but I do have some concerns regarding the internal (and external) consistency shown. I would flag this up with the @FAC coordinators: as needing a more in-depth source review than is perhaps usual for a non-first-time review, to check that the article is accurately reflecting the sources. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Harrias. Noted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: @Gog the Mild: I have offered some fixes and replies. My sincere apologies for all the confusion; Constantine's life is a big jumble of uncertainty that even historians are still squabling about :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for your continued work on this Unlimitedlead. As I said originally, I really enjoyed this article, and you've done great work on such a small and uncertain topic. Well done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b Treadgold 1975, p. 334.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Constantine_(son_of_Theophilos)/archive1&oldid=1145962716"