Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Palaiologos Tagaris/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) 23:23, 30 September 2016 [1].

Paul Palaiologos Tagaris[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 14th-century Byzantine minor noble who by various deceits managed to advance from a simple monk to the Roman Catholic Patriarchate of Constantinople, switching back and forth between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the Roman and Avignon popes, and generally making a splendid career out of it. It passed GA without much trouble in 2014, when it was created, and I think it has what it takes for FA. Of course, any suggestions for further improvement are always welcome. Constantine ✍ 19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Urbanus_VI.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author information, and it needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I've replaced it with a better sourced one. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Wonder why no one has commented yet on this short article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complemented by an account of his visit to Paris, written by a monk of the Abbey of Saint-Denis." You could mention a date for both the visit and the document here.
    • Good idea. The date of the account is not known, but the visit was almost certainly in 1390. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a while he returned to Constantinople," Until this point, you haven't established that whether he was from Constantinople.
  • "in the words of Alice-Mary Talbot" That is pretty abrupt, you need to present this person and give a date for her comment.
    • I've rewritten the segment and removed this entirely. On reflection, the quote doesn't add much to the text. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Palestine, Paul managed to be ordained" No date?
    • The PLP provides the date 1364, but this is somewhat conjectural. I've added it with a "circa" to be in the safe side. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brought charges against Paul" Nothing on their nature?
    • Not as far as I can see. Nicol writes "For once he felt that the charges against him were unjustified", so perhaps this was nothing more than politics and jealousy of the favour he enjoyed; on the other hand, it is not unlikely that he engaged in the same practices as he did later at Antioch. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Antioch, Paul once again managed to befriend" What is "once again" a reference to?
    • To his previous close relationship with Lazaros of Jerusalem. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forestalled by the Bishop of Tyre and Sidon" Name?
    • Nicol doesn't mention a name, nor do the other sources. I had searched the web for lists of bishops, but as you can imagine, it is like looking for a needle in a haystack (esp. since the patriarchate of Antioch is Arabic-speaking). I thought about checking the PLP for the term "Tyros" though, and had luck: apparently this was Arsenios. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immediate return to Constantinople to stand trial." Trial for what?
    • Again, not explicitly mentioned, but his uncanonical appointments and dismissals, not to mention his blatant bribery, were probably the main charges. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Paul once more decided to flee and try his luck in Rome" Once more? But Rome isn't mentioned before this point?
    • "once more" refers to the flight. I've added a comma to separate the two halves of the phrase more clearly. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George Tagaris, his putative brother or father," Shouldn't this be mentioned already in early life?
    • It is: "he [i.e. Paul's father] is possibly identifiable either with the megas stratopedarches Manuel Tagaris,[4] or with the latter's son, George Tagaris." Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City" Would be pretty nice to have an image of this?
    • It would, but copyright won't allow it, and I don't think fair use would fly. I've added the Met's page as an external link though. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo was self/usermade, there would be no copyright issue, because the object is certainly out of copyright due to age. Just like any other ancient artefact, the "artist" is long dead, and far longer than the 70 year expiration limit. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His tenure was troubled: the local Orthodox clergy appealed to the Venetian authorities for protection against his exactions, the Latin Archbishop of Athens, Antonio Ballester, complained of the Patriarch's interference in his diocese, and his lease of some of the Church lands in 1383 to a Venetian from Crete, Giacomo Grimani, proved a source of protracted legal trouble since Grimani, in the words of Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, "revealed himself as much a scoundrel as the Patriarch"." This sentence seems too long.
  • "n the words of Raymond-Joseph Loenertz" Again, who is this, and when?
    • Context added, but the date seems redundant as the journal article is clearly referenced. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—rather dubious—connection with the Palaiologos" You don't call this dubious in the article body, and you don't explain why it is dubious.
    • This comes from the "Early life and family" section: "even if Paul was Manuel's son, Theodora was, according to the Byzantinist Donald Nicol, "almost certainly not the mother of Paul".", i.e. he was not actually a Palaiologos. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "via Ukraine" Only mentioned in intro.
    • clarified that this refers to the Golden Horde lands. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You there, Cplakidas? FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi FunkMonk, sorry for the delay, work has been rather busy and I couldn't get my hands on Nicol until today. I've implemented most of the suggested changes, or otherwise replied to your concerns. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "from where the chronicler of the abbey later received his information": I don't know what that means.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual, thanks for your improvements, Dank. I've fixed the problematic phrase, I hope its clear now. Constantine ✍ 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, now I get it. This one was easy, btw, thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fascinating and well-written article. Just one minor wording issue, which you can ignore if you wish; it doesn't affect my support:

  • "brought charges against Paul, forcing the latter": suggest "who was forced", or possibly "which forced Paul" -- "the latter" is a little clumsy.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike Christie, good suggestion. Done. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS and just in case, I'll be in China for the next two weeks, and my ability to connect to the internet there remains to be seen. If there are any additional comments during this period, please be patient. Thanks in advance. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: What a marvellous little article! I like the sheer gall of this chap! I just have a few minor points and will switch to full support once these are replied to. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Paul managed to be ordained a deacon": I understand the intention here with "managed" but I wonder if it is the best word. If the sources allowed it, would something like "arranged" be a little more neutral?
    • Hmmm, I am not sure "arranged" conveys the same meaning here; I've tentatively rephrased it with "was able to secure his ordination as", which is wordier but is closer to the original meaning. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Antioch, Paul once again managed to befriend the newly elected (1368) Patriarch Michael": We have a repetition of "managed", but as written it looks like he had already befriended Michael before. If we want to have "once again" maybe we need "once again managed to befriend an influential figure, the newly elected..."
  • "He took ship, probably from Trebizond, to the Crimea": Is this a typo for "took a ship" or am I missing something?
    • AFAIK, this is a normal expression in English? I've certainly come across it often enough. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In exchange he secured an escort through the Horde lands (modern Ukraine) to the Kingdom of Hungary, and from there to Rome. He secured an audience...": Close repetition of "secured", and I think for consistency with usage in this article, we might need a comma after exchange.
    • Good point, I've rephrased the two phrases to avoid the repetition. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any opinions on how reliable the sources are on him (in the historical sense)? For example, was his confession believed, and how reliable do historians consider the St Denis account? Similarly, can we say in what work the St Denis account comes from? (I'm assuming a chronicle) Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good point. Added the primary sources, but regarding historians' opinion, I can't really say: Nicol gives a list of a few (mostly sort) articles to him published in the decades before his own article, but the only clue he gives is "Other references to him, some credulous some incredulous...". Nicol for one considered both accounts broadly reliable, and so apparently do the ODB and the PLP. Certainly the confession is a POV account, but it is the only source we have for most of his career, while the later parts are indeed corroborated by the account of the St. Denis chronicle. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: More than happy to support now; I've never come across "took ship", but that doesn't mean it isn't a normal expression! Either way, it doesn't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think I have -- probably comes from watching too many spear-and-sandals epics on TV in my youth... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Looks fine for formatting and reliability. I'm assuming we are not giving locations for journals, which is fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna exchange reviews? @Cplakidas: My FAN is really inactive
  • I found the lead a bit short. Per WP:Lead at least two paragraphs long
    • It is a bit short, but one cannot really summarize his career well, as it is composed of multiple small incidents; if I were to fulfill the letter of WP:Lead, then the lead would be as long as half the article. I've preferred to simply give a general overview, rather than a step-by-step summary. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the first paragraph of "Early life and family" is very small. Try expanding it or merging it with another (Imagine you are writing a formal letter).
    • Erm, the first paragraph has a very distinct subject, and I am not writing a formal letter, but presenting a historical topic, and there is little analogy between the two. Anyhow, it has been expanded now. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same section "Tagaris was probably born in the 1320s,[1] or at the latest around the year 1340" seems weird. I would at least point out that "According to X, Tagaris was...." or "It has been speculated when was Tagarin born;...."
  • In "Latin Patriarch of Constantinople", Rome was linked. Isn't it a common link?
    • Probably depends somewhat on the eye of the beholder, but in essence, yes. Removed. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally in "Return to Constantinople"'s paragraph relies mostly on a quote so I would paraphrase it or use in a box.
    • I often use quote boxes, but I don't think it has anything to contribute here. Nicol sums his career up eloquently and succinctly, and I far prefer keeping it this way that trying (and certainly failing) to paraphrase him adequately. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If all these issues are solved, I'll give you my support. Good work.

Hi Sarastro1 and Tintor2, thanks to both for your reviews and suggestions. Sorry for the delay, as indicated above, I was on a business trip to China and both time and internet access were rather scarce during the past couple of weeks. I've implemented most of your proposals, or otherwise explained why not. If you have any suggestions for further improvement, above and beyond the requirements of FAC, please let me know. Best regards to both, Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I would suggest splitting at least the lead, but I'll still give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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/Paul_Palaiologos_Tagaris/archive1&oldid=741992105"