Talk:Constantine IX Monomachos/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: 20DKB03 (talk · contribs) 05:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria:[edit]

Criteria the article must meet in order to proceed with a nomination.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Review[edit]

Checklist for things that have to be taken care of before the nomination is complete.

Comments[edit]

Conclusion and responses.

@Векочел: Article seems fine overall, though some improvements are recommended. Nevertheless, it requires citations in certain places. 20DKB03 (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@20DKB03: I have cleaned the article up a little. Векочел (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: By adding citations, you must improve the article. You have removed considerable amount of detailed/informative content. You only remove content that is not cited when there are no available sources for it, after searching thoroughly online. The main focus is to avoid removing content as much as possible. I suggest finding this content through books available on google books or websites like Encyclopedia Britannica or Ancient History Encyclopedia, for example. I will give you some time to research them, keeping it on hold for now, but the content that was removed is significant, and may result in the article failing its nomination if its not dealt with. 20DKB03 (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: User Constantine has made some good points. I have given this nomination far too much time already, and I believe that you have not properly improved the article with the given time. I recommend improving the article with the given suggestions outside of GAN. For now, this nomination has failed its nomination. 20DKB03 (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Optional, depending on your discretion to implement them or not, though useful on improving the article.

Expansion of the lead paragraph, with reliable sources to back the new information up.
Changing of the image of the ruler, since there is one that depicts him better. [1]

Comments by Constantine[edit]

I am sorry to say this, but the article fails 2B and 3. For one, it relies heavily on two sources that are not WP:RS: Finlay is heavily outdated, and Norwich, although a gifted writer, is not a historian and writes to entertain rather than to provide a sober analysis. The treatment of the reign and the issues at stake is very superficial, lacking context or scholarly opinion; it is merely a brief narrative history of the reign, focusing on external developments and ignoring domestic politics, social and economic dynamics, etc. Just an example:

Constantine seems to have taken recourse to the pronoia system, a sort of Byzantine feudal contract in which tracts of land (or the tax revenue from it) were granted to particular individuals in exchange for contributing to and maintaining military forces.[4][26] Constantine could be extravagant with the imperial treasury. On one occasion he sent a Muslim leader 500,000 gold coins, over two tons of gold.[27] The first sentence is problematic: what does "a sort of Byzantine feudal contract" mean? Does the author know that the issue of feudalism in Byzantium has been debated heavily, and our understanding of the pronoia has evolved considerably over time? Should this not be mentioned, and examined in context? Why did the emperor feel it necessary to do this? The issue of Byzantine finances in the mid-11th century and Constantine IX's reforms (debasement of currency, abolition of military service of the thematic armies in lieu of money, etc) are huge topics in scholarship, but there is no trace of it here. The article authors clearly don't have an independent grasp of the topics associated with the reign, nor of the relevant literature.

The second sentence above is even more problematic, to my mind. The current phrase makes this read like a trivia and an indication of the emperor's profligacy; the original source reads "From the tenth century until the end of the twelfth, the Byzantine state gave the impression that it had great resources and very considerable wealth.. The extravagant Constantine IX Monomachos, for instance, if we are to believe the Arab source that reports it, sent the caliph a gift of 500,000 gold coins, a whole 2.2 tons of gold", which provides an altogether different context: a) one of apparent economic robustness, b) the gift as a tool of foreign policy, and c) the crucial bit "if we are to believe the Arab source that reports it", that is completely missing. This does not speak well of the article authors relationship with the sources that they have used, which makes the credibility of the entire article suspect. Constantine ✍ 12:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]