Talk:Byzantine Empire under the Angelos dynasty

GA review
A lot of issues, individually minor, but so many that together they add up to failure.


 * Angeloi dynasty - needs a wikilink, probably to Angelos
 * Whatever paper might be presented to the Emperor (Alexios III) - great quote, but the section seems to be describing Alexios II!
 * through old age.|[2] - probably want a " to end the quote
 * Exiled by Manuel Komnenos, he returned in 1180 following his death. - Whoah! Returning after your own death is some trick!
 * A massacre of Latins then proceeded - seems to be the first mention of Latins, need to describe or wikilink what is meant. Surely not Latin Americans. :-)
 * Maria of Antioch was strangled in her cell - jail cell or nunnery?
 * desposing of - deposing? disposing?
 * Afterwards, he took his 12 year old wife Agnes of France for himself - again with the mixed "he/him/his" - specify. Edit made, changed 'he' to Andronikos Laching259 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC) (23/03/2022)
 * Before long his heavy-handed ruling of the Empire gave rise to enemies in all corners of the Empire; the aristocrats in Anatolia were conspiring against his rule, Isaac Komnenos declared Cyprus an independent kingdom and Béla III of Hungary, formerly engaged to Maria Komnene, began sacking towns along Dalmatia and Croatia.[3] - Dates, please. Sticking this all into one sentence implies, for example, that Bela didn't mind that his fiancee was poisoned during the coup, as much as the way Andronikos ruled the Byzantine empire afterwards. Is that really so, did the Hungarian care more about the administration of the different country than his own spouse?
 * these calamities were nothing in comparison to the storm that had laid dormant, that some would argue was worse than the Turks of Manzikert - what? Who are some? Why the comparison? Why the poetic language, anyway?
 * Normans could use a wikilink, important, er, family, or people, or whatever they were.
 * Andronikos, despite his grand military reputation proved to be an incompetent defender. - needs added comma after reputation, or removal of the one after Andronikos
 * Similarly, in "The trading rights of the Venetians, granted by Alexios almost a century earlier were revoked." - either remove comma, or add another one after "earlier".
 * There is a single map image in the article, titled "under the late Angeloi Dynasty" - can we have a specific date, or range of dates? It should also be put in the image page. If it doesn't cover the whole period, can we have a map of the empire when the Angeloi got it? There seems to be something like that in Alexios II Komnenos (though that has so many colors, we should specify that we mean the red). If it does cover the whole period, move the image earlier in the article.
 * Did William of Sicily have any excuse for attacking the empire, any cassus belli, or just "it seems to be weakly led, let's sack it"?
 * desecration of the Churches and buildings - lower case C
 * One contemporary chronicler wrote: - name him
 * with their urine."|[4] - doesn't need a |
 * While we're at it, it's a nasty quote, but is it really necessary? Surely desecration covers it.
 * Before long the women of Thessalonika began selling themselves as prostitutes to the Norman soldiers and thus recovering some of the money they had lost in the looting, as shamefully recorded by Archbishop Eustathius of Thessalonica.[4] - What? Surely that's a rather slanted, biased description.
 * One could only imagine the panic within the city - unnecessary poetics adding little. Yes, a city attacked panics, why this particular emphasis of this particular attack, surely there are plenty within the article. What about the cities Bela was sacking above, didn't their occupants panic? Cut it.
 * His efforts to contain the threat of "the barbarians" were twofold in nature - at times he could not care less though -- what? could not care less that 80,000 soldiers were sacking his empire? Surely not.
 * Andronikos could not bare such a prophesy - bear
 * When was Isaac predicted to rule, and when did Andronikos try to arrest him? When did Andronikos die?
 * Another | at the end of that quote. I'll stop listing them now, check for others.
 * When was the Norman army destroyed? Do either of those battles have separate articles to wikilink to? They seem important enough to have them.
 * the Bulgarians also revolted under Theodore Asen, later Peter IV.[6] Their timing could not have been better, - when exactly please?
 * ambushed in a way sadly reminiscent - sad for whom? Biased
 * reacting (often back-firing) to the many problems now wrecking Byzantium. - back-firing to the problems? I think I know what you want to say, but need to rephrase
 * whilst the Crusader states should not and did not rely - what do you mean "should"? Morally? Legally?
 * However, whilst the Crusader states should not and did not rely on Byzantium for protection, the Byzantines certainly did in that it kept the aggressive expansionism of Islam in check. - What is "it" here? Again, I think I know what you want to say, but need to rephrase
 * This could not be further from the truth in regards to the Principality of Antioch. - What? Also needs a wikilink.
 * The odd exception came when Richard crushed the rebellion of Isaac Komnenos - needs more explanation - what rebellion? A sentence will probably do.
 * using it instead to tame his rebellious vassal - Guy of Lusignan implies Richard didn't sell it to Guy but rather to the Templars
 * Philip II ,who - move comma
 * Image caption - Iconium is won by the Third Crusade. This was Byzantium's second and last benefit of the Crusades. - what was the first, again? And the text doesn't ever say it was held by Byzantium - taken by Frederick, then back by the Turks. Was it ever Byzantine, and for how long? Say so.
 * Crusade of 1197 ... However, Isaac was overthrown in a coup by his older brother Alexios III Angelos.[12] - this whole subsection is in the Isaac II Angelus section. You would think that Isaac's overthrow would mean the end of the section. But it merely changes focus on the Crusade. It shouldn't do that, this is an article about Byzantium, and while the crusade was important, surely the change of leaders of Byzantium was even more important to Byzantium. More about the overthrow and Byzantium, less about the internal politics of the crusade, please.
 * Fourth Crusade - looks like this whole subsection is in the wrong section, since Isaac isn't in charge any more. And the whole subsection doesn't mention Byzantium at all! Strip drastically, or even delete altogether.
 * November 15, 1202 after a brief siege.[19][14], - link 1202, decide if you want a period or comma, not both.
 * Alexios III Angelos;   Further information: Alexios III Angelos ... following the coup of Alexius III Angelus. - are these the same? Pick one spelling, please.
 * Philip and Alexius IV were brothers-in-law - again, pick one spelling, please
 * to pay of the Venetian debt - off, surely
 * Specify somewhere that the Doge Dandolo led the crusade himself. That's implied in the blue quote box, but say it straight out in the text as well.
 * Innocent reprimanded the leaders of the crusaders, - for what? This is a separate paragraph, following on AIV's request to counter-coup - did Innocent reprimand them for doing that?
 * When Alexios IV told them of the situation, war became unavoidable. - rephrase, surely it wasn't the telling that was the important part
 * Alexios Doukas overthrew Alexios IV Angelus - his blind Father was killed shortly after Alexios IV was strangled with a bow string.[26] - whose father? Isaac? If so, name him, and specify when he went blind, and lower case the F, and ... what a lot to complain about one sentence.
 * Doukas was loosely related to the imperial family by having as his mistress Eudokia Angelina, daughter of Alexios III - wow, that's an impressive stretch of relation, "relative by having a mistress".
 * as the sailed against the fortifications - they sailed
 * why is momentum important, were the ships being physically pushed back or something?
 * Alexius V Doukas then gave Byzantium the leadership that she had lacked for over 30 years - since he didn't hold the city very well, I doubt this is true.
 * solidifying hie relation - his
 * The Franks wrecked the city, destroying more than what was necessary. - what was necessary? Surely destroying nothing was necessary. Rephrase.
 * least of which were the famous Horses of Saint Mark[27]. - surely not least. And move ref after period.
 * Stop with the detailed history of the horses, four sentences, this is about Byzantium under the Angeloi, not the travels of a particular sculpture. Condense to one sentence at most.
 * better to carry of the holy vessels - off, or [sic]
 * When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his crusaders, he castigated them in no uncertain terms. - again? Or is this the same castigation as above? Specify "when" to make this clear.
 * Text says Byzantine rule continued in Nicaea, Trebizond, and Epirus, but the accompanying map shows Trebizond in Turkish colors.
 * The quotes seem to be in two different styles, blue boxes and gray curlies. Why?
 * In fact the quotes seem to be overdone. Yeah, war is hell. But the quotes seem to solely emphasize how mean the crusaders were to Byzantium, slanting the article. How about how mean Frederick was to Iconium? Or any of the other battles? I don't think so many long quotes about basically the same thing are needed. Keep some, but not all.

Whew. It's clearly had a lot of work put into it, but needs a fair bit of work for GA. It's written from a pro-Byzantine point of view, spelling is like it was scanned from somewhere, style is like writing a romantic novel rather than presenting facts, the emphasis is on the crusades themselves rather than their effect on Byzantium, missing dates to put things into perspective. In other words, fails WP:GA? 1, 3, and 4. Failed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In defense, alot of what you have posted up there are minor mistakes of spelling - I have read some of the other points, and I don't believe that this GA review was fair. A lot of your own personal opinion seems to have influenced this, like the following points:


 * In fact the quotes seem to be overdone. Yeah, war is hell. But the quotes seem to solely emphasize how mean the crusaders were to Byzantium, slanting the article. How about how mean Frederick was to Iconium? Or any of the other battles? I don't think so many long quotes about basically the same thing are needed. Keep some, but not all. Nowadays Historians are putting the entire blame of Byzantium's fall on the Crusaders - Rumican for example, and other western historians who feel some embarrasment
 * Oh, I believe you. I'm sure there are also others who would be writing about how mean the Byzantines were to the Muslims. But we have to take a neutral point of view, not a western one. We can't write that we feel embarrassment over the fall of Byzantium to the Turks any more than we can write that we feel embarrassment over the times Byzantium didn't fall to the Turks.


 * why is momentum important, were the ships being physically pushed back or something? Of course momentum is important!! How can a ship reach a sea wall if it travels so slowly!!!
 * Momentum isn't speed, momentum is inertia. Anyway, this is a small sentence, and this particular point isn't a big deal.


 * Alexius V Doukas then gave Byzantium the leadership that she had lacked for over 30 years - since he didn't hold the city very well, I doubt this is true. Wrong my friend, quality leadership is not the same as quantity leadership. Even an excellent emperor can't fix something thats broke beyond repair


 * Blatant statement of opinion, not backed up by the facts given in the article, and favoring the Byzantines. I don't notice any statement about quality leadership for the Turks or Bulgarians or Crusaders. This point is a big deal.


 * solidifying hie relation - his Ok, but could you not have done this and other minor mistakes? The GA review guidelines state that such simple errors could be fixed by yourself. 


 * If that were all, yes, but there's a lot not so simple. Here, I'll make you a deal - you fix all the non-spelling stuff, and I'll be glad to fix the spelling.


 * His efforts to contain the threat of "the barbarians" were twofold in nature - at times he could not care less though -- what? could not care less that 80,000 soldiers were sacking his empire? Surely not. Hard to believe but thats why he was overthrown.
 * OK, I can buy that.

This may seem like the reaction of a sour loser, but you haven't given me the 7 days to fix it. Tourskin (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think you can fix the issues, please do, and I'll gladly look at it again, and be more than happy to give you the little green plus. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Half your "7 days" are gone now, and you haven't made a single edit to the article. I'm afraid, that's why I failed rather than put it on hold, because I didn't think you could or would fix things in 7 days. There are a lot of issues to fix in 7 days, and I did notice your parallel GA nomination, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi‎, sat for a number of days with a quick-failing-GA wikify tag, which would have been easier to fix, without you doing anything about it. Please, do prove me wrong, there is nothing I would like better than to see a GA article here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is better and contains more information than others covering the same period.Beickus (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
could someone please check 'Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων' in infobox? This translates in Greek to 'Roman Empire', not 'Byzantine Empire' as laballed at the top of the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airbubbles 451 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Byzantines considered themselves Romans, and viewed their empire as the Roman Empire. The term "Byzantine" was coined by Hieronymus Wolf in 1557, a full century following the empire's demise. Dimadick (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)