Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Leontios

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Leontios[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets, or else could meet, the A-Class standards, and it is part of my project to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine Emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:

suggest Isauria in Asia Minor and link, in the body also
Done
"defeated decisively after the Battle of Sebastopolis" perhaps "at the"?
Done
suggest "and imprisoned by Justinian for his failure"
Done
Hellas→Theme of Hellas, also in the body, and say where it was. Central and southern Greece?
Done
drop the comma from "been launched by Leontios, to recover Carthage"
Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

link Constantinople in the lead and move link to first mention in the body
Done
link Rhinotomy, unfortunately there is not an article for Elinguation (cutting out the tongue)
Done
"where he remained until February 706" but the first sentence says August 706/February 706?
First sentence says August 705/February 706, could have been any point between those dates. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course, but my point is that the range should be reflected in the text of the lead (second last sentence). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand. Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
link Armenians
Done
the link for Abd al-Malik is to the name Abdul Malik, not Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, and drop the later link to his article
Done
suggest " the ~~patriarch~~ Patriarch of Constantinople, Callinicus."
Done
link Crimea
Done
link Byzantine army
Done
"allegedly lead"
Done
perhaps Byzantine Africa→the Exarchate of Africa for consistency
Done
Hippodrome, patrikios and Green faction are duplinked
Done
can you add the year Leontios ascended to and lost the throne into the body?
Done
"It is said the body of Leontios was thrown into the sea" by whom?
Done
consistency in hyphenating ISBNs
Done
it says Monastery of Dalmatou in the lead, but Monastery of Psamathion in the body
They are quite possibly one in the same (there does not appear to be any discussion of which one it was, so they are perhaps different names for the same place); but Monastery of Dalmatou has more usage so I've used it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Believe I have done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One outstanding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Only image is free (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Iazyges, I've asked for more reviewers on the Milhist talk page, but if one or two don't jump in shortly, I reckon we'll have to archive this one. You might like to consider adding a map if possible? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891[edit]

Will comment shortly. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" However, he was defeated decisively" unclear here to me whether 'he' is Leontios or Justinian
Why "given the title of strategos of the Theme of Hellas" here, but "the Anatolic Theme" above? I'd reckon they are essentially the same.
"After being released, he led a rebellion" Suggest cutting "After being released" since it's already been mentioned
"because he feared losing control of Carthage" Unclear to the unknowing reader why this would factor into his release?
I'd recommend putting the sentence beginning "During his captivity, Leontios was" into directly chronological order, or replacing 'was' with 'had been'?
"out of reverence for Constantine IV" how does this factor in?
So did anybody not support leontios?
link Plague (the one you want)?
"emboldened by Leontios' perceived weakness" any reason for the perception?
link Exarchate?
", and had his nose slit" is dupelinked
"with the Green faction" perhaps worth a link?
"until Justinian retook the throne " but I thought that "mutilated people were traditionally barred from becoming emperor"?

Very nice, if short, article overall! Perhaps some comments to come. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Constantine[edit]

Will take this on in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 18:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Umayyads links to the dynasty. Replace the first mention in lede with Umayyad Caliphate
forcing the Umayyad caliph, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, to sue for peace. add the year for context
De-capitalize and de-link Southern Greece. The term is not really used.
After being released, he led a rebellion against Justinian, and seized power, becoming emperor in the same year It is unclear whether all of this happened in the same year, and the phrase "in the same year" suggests it was a drawn-out process, whereas it was essentially a coup in Constantinople.
I would recommend avoiding too many technical terms in the lede; the patrikios bit for example is not really necessary, or that Apsimar was a droungarios (simple "naval commander" or such like will do)
The lede states explicitly that Leontios was in command at Sebastopolis. This is not certain, however, as the main body of the article makes clear.
By this time Justinian had retaken the throne. Both Leontios and Tiberius were executed. Merge the two sentences.

Origin and early life

add regnal dates of the various rulers
Some WP:OVERCITE instances; unless something is really contentious, more than three references are unnecessary. I also see that refs #6 and #7 are from the same work, so why not merge them?
I suggest using at least one map like Asia Minor ca 740 AD.svg for context (Anatolic Theme, Cyprus, Armenia, etc.)
relink Syria to Bilad al-Sham, Iberia to Principality of Iberia in the first instance, delink in the second.
he campaigned successfully...successful campaigns repetition
such as Nikephoros and Theophanes conventionally, they are distinguished as "Patriarch Nikephoros" and "Theophanes the Confessor". Since the average reader won't be familiar with them, it is a good practice to do so here as well.
Why is Bacharach used to reference Leontios' role in the battle of Sebastopolis? Even if he mentions it, his specialty is not Byzantine history, and there are enough more specialist sources already cited. Also, it is unclear which source supports what in the preceding statement. Moore simply asserts that Justinian held Leontius responsible for the defeat, which is not quite what is stated here. As far as I can tell, the phrasing here is derived directly (to the point of being a verbatim translation) from the PmbZ article, which in turn cites Head's work on Justinian II. This and only this is what ought to be cited then, with reference that the PmbZ in turn cites someone else.
Leontios, once free, quickly raised a rebellion against Justinian per my comment above, make clear that this took place in Constantinople itself, and was not a provincial rebellion.
Link aristocracy to dynatoi?
Why was Patriarch Callinicus opposed to Justinian?
On his ethnic origin, Moore and Haldon & Brubaker say nothing of him being an Armenian; the PmbZ says not only that he was "from Isauria", but actually that he was "of Isaurian, possibly also of Armenian, descent", meaning not just the region but the Isaurians as an ethnic group. The first two should be moved to reference only the Isaurian origin, and the PmbZ one used for the possibility of Armenian descent.

Reign and downfall

adopted a moderate political stance. He restricted the activity of the Byzantine army, allowing small raids against the border of the Byzantine empire to proceed without reprisal, and instead focused upon consolidation I see some very close paraphrasing of Moore here. Also, in what way was Leontios more moderate than Justinian? Small raids by whom? In which border? I am pretty sure that there is information about these raids to be found in al-Tabari, or in modern works by Lilie and Stratos (I'll have a look myself at my copies).
Similar to my comment on Bacharach before, why is Garland's work used for the citations here? Her work is excellent, but its main focus is not Leontios. As far as I can tell, the exact same information is also given in PmbZ (and Moore, of course), so why Garland?
Conversely, I am a bit surprised to see that Treadgold is only once used here. He makes some excellent points, pointing out that Leontius "was the first man of mature age and experience to become emperor since Heraclius", that his sparing of Justinian was a deliberate gesture of moderation, and that his 'passive' strategy in the Anatolian border zone was because he focused his attention to North Africa, which if lost would be gone for good.

Content-wise, the article is in good shape. Looking at Moore, ODB, or PmbZ, it is clearly just as if not more comprehensive, so no problem with ACR, but if it is to move on to FA, more in-depth sources are needed. Just some examples of sources would be Theophanes' account, Stratos (Byzantium in the Seventh Century), Head's work on Justinian II, Lilie and Kaegi for the wars against the Arabs during his reign (possibly Kaegi's Byzantine military unrest as well?). Once my points above have been addressed (and I've had a look in Stratos at least), I'll have another look and then support. Constantine ✍ 17:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

This is rather outside my wheelhouse, so please feel free to disagree with my comments, and to revert/discuss any copyedits I make.

Is it conventional not to gloss the linked greek terms like "strategos"?
"Leontios' successful campaigns" repeats "successful" from the previous sentence; one of those could probably be dropped.
"the Umayyad Caliph, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan" he's been introduced already; is there a reason you style him this way here, rather than above?
"the port of Neorion in Constantinople cleared, which allegedly led to a four-month outbreak of plague." two questions; what does clearing mean here, and how could it cause the plague?
The lead mentions Leontis's tongue being cut off, but the body does not

That's essentially I have for the prose. I am a little concerned about the length of this. I'm fairly certain you've done the best you can with the source material, but the fact remains that we have the equivalent of sixish paragraphs of prose about the man himself, and precious little biographical detail. To be very clear, I don't think this reflects on you at all; some subjects are just not covered in as much detail as is necessary for top-quality articles. Personally I don't send something to GAN unless it's above 1200 words, and at FAC I'd definitely oppose this. Since ACR is often a step between the two, I think I'd like to hear from Peacemaker67 or one of the other coordinators how they judge comprehensiveness, and objections over comprehensiveness, at this level. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Vanamonde, personally I have got ship articles through FA with 800 words, but I think the smallest bio FA ever is about 1,400 words. The issue for me is whether this is all there is on this fellow. If it is and he is still notable, then it is as comprehensive as it can be, as it can only ever contain what is known about him and his reign. I think it has a chance at FA, and therefore is ok here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: The reason I'm uncomfortable with that logic is that it implies there's no minimum level of detail for an FA. To carry that argument to its logical conclusion; if I wrote a stub about a recently discovered exoplanet, I could reasonably argue that a three-sentence article included all the available information, and was therefore comprehensive. This is surely not what you mean; I'm therefore asking how one judges a minimal level of detail. I know this has been a point of contention at FAC, too, but I don't see evidence that it's been resolved. That said, this article isn't all that short, and this is ACR, not FAC; so I'll not stand in its way. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vanamonde. Please bear with me as I try to explain my current position on this. I don't agree that my position implies there is no minimum level of detail for an FA. The minimum level of detail for an FA is that it is comprehensive. It is impossible to add detail that doesn't exist, and it is my view that any article on a subject that that is clearly notable should be able to be an FA. I've been ruminating over why several of these emperor articles by Iazyges have struggled to get enough reviewers, and am wondering if something else might be at play. My provisional conclusion is that the question is actually a different one, whether Leontios is clearly notable, ie really has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Perhaps the question should really be whether the heavy reliance on the tertiary sources Moore and PMBZ Online is appropriate in an FA. It is common for articles to be created on individuals who have an entry in a national or international biographical dictionary, but really the person should be discussed at some length in secondary sources as well to be clearly notable. For the reasons detailed, I won't be supporting it at FAC (my view may be unique and it may well get enough support at FA, so don't be discouraged, Iazyges), but see it as just meeting Milhist A2 as it stands, which is why I am supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hog Farm[edit]

This is not a subject I'm particularly familiar with, so feel free to challenge any of these comments.

This really needs a map. For readers like me who aren't super familiar with ancient Byzantium, this is geographically confusing. I have no idea where half of these places are.
Rhinotomy is duplinked
I'm not seeing the full regnal name cited anywhere, and I'm personally not convinced that that's information so self-explanatory it doesn't need a citation
"He ruled until 697, when he was overthrown by Apsimar, a droungarios who had taken part in a failed expedition that had been launched by Leontios to recover Carthage. " - In the lead strongly suggests he ruled until 697, but the rest of the article strongly suggests 698.
The dynasty isn't cited anywhere. And was he really part of the Heraclian dynasty? The Oxford English Dictionary defines a dynasty as a group of rulers from the same family, I believe, and I'm seeing no indication that Leontios was of royal blood in the article. Especially since the navbox indicates that the 20 years' anarchy is separate from the Heraclian dynasty.
Link solidus in the infobox caption, it's not a well-known word.
"port of Neorion in Constantinople cleared" - I'm not 100% sure I'm getting exactly what cleared means in the context. To me, it would indicate a form of dredging, but it's unclear what that would have to do with the plague.
You state that he took the name Leo, with a wikilink to regnal name in there. However, the regnal name listed in the infobox has the full Leontios, not Leo, in it
Wouldn't it make more chronological sense to mention the monks caring for him during captivity before mentioning his release from captivity?

There may be more coming. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Iazyges, this one is in the same boat, open since 3 April and has only attracted one support. Unless you can address the comments of the other reviewers in the next week or so, I'm going to list it for archiving. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.