Talk:Constantine (son of Leo V)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: KAVEBEAR (talk · contribs) 04:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Hi Iazyges and KAVEBEAR, as the original author of the article, I will be available for work in addressing the issues raised here after 9 August. Constantine  ✍  12:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can still wait but just checking in case you've forgotten. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi KAVEBEAR, not forgotten, but priority is with the Komnenos article right now. Probably will get around to this onw over the weekend. Constantine  ✍  07:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can take sometime to comment on each point as you rework this article that would be appreciate. It helps me more during the review. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am little concern by the size. I have to ask this since I don't know the topic deeply and I am judging base on other similar GA articles. But is this all? So as I am looking at this article, I am also looking at the Leo V article and there a lot of details there that might be relevant to include here briefly to expand this article a bit more.
 * The article's size was also the reason I never nominated it myself. However, the article does give a complete, as far as is known, overview of its subject. Per WP:SS, only what is directly relevant to the subject should be included; things to do with Leo V as an emperor that do not concern his son should be dealt with at Leo's article. Article size is not a criterion for GA (nor for FA), only addressing the "main aspects of the topic", and here I am confident that is the case, especially now that I have had the occasion to re-examine and rewrite it (and address a few issues thanks to your comments).


 * "from the Armenian Smbat" — It is not mention that Leo or Constantine were of Armenian descent.
 * Leo V is explicitly called "the Armenian" shortly after.


 * "ascended the throne on Christmas 813" - His father's article list 11 July and 22 June 813 as dates of his accession. Leo V's article is not on review here but that is confusing for readers to read so many discrepancies.
 * Hmmm, this is interesting. Treadgold writes that Symbatios/Constantine was crowned co-emperor at Christmas, whereas the PmbZ writes that this happened "at the time" of his father's coronation. This probably confused me. I don't have access to the primary sources used (Pseudo-Simeon and the Scriptor Incertus), but Bury, who knew and followed them closely, explicitly writes that "the new Constantine was crowned and proclaimed Augustus at the end of 813". To confuse matters further, I also consulted the Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire (not publicly available when the article was originally written), which insists that the coronation happened on Easter Day 814. The quotations included do not mention the date or feast, so I will have to look it up somehow.
 * OK, I've checked the original text as well as some critical editions, and it seems plain that the coronation took place in winter, hence Christmas. I don't know why the PBE has a different date. I've included a short summary of the situation in a footnote, however, for clarity and for anyone willing to check it up further.


 * iconoclasm – Can you explain why his father was so interested in bringing iconoclasm back and his conflicts with Patriarch Nikephoros? These are relevant since it led to the council Constantine participated in. Maybe also mention the presence of Theodotus I of Constantinople
 * On leo's interest, I have added some details as they concern Constantine's naming, but I don't want to overdo it. This belongs to Leo's article. I have added a few details on the council, as well as Theodotos.


 * "Church Council in Constantinople" - which is more accurate "council" or "synod"
 * Both mean the same and are used interchangeably.


 * "Constantine nominally presided" - Any other details on his participation? Where was Leo? Was he off campaigning? Was it typical for emperors to not preside in Church Councils and only send a representative?
 * No particular reason, AFAIK. Constantine was no mere representative, but a co-emperor, so there was nothing unusual here. As he was underage, however, the patriarch directed proceedings.

If you can just address these remaining points, I can pass it. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "After the assassination of his father on 25 December 820" - We need a little more detail here. Who assassinated him? And why?
 * Added some details.


 * "three brothers" - Can you mention them by name here? Also Leo V's article mentioned one of them Theodosios died from the castration. Also two of the brothers were alive in 847 during the election of Ignatios of Constantinople. Does this imply Constantine was dead by 847 if he was not mentioned? Maybe mention how he wasn’t mention in that source which state his two brothers were alive in 847.
 * Good point, done.


 * "with his mother" - Also his unnamed grandmother, right? According Leo V, Leo’s mother was also sent into exile
 * Leo's mother was banished, but not to the Princes Islands; sources differ here, not really the place to delve into it.


 * "island of Prote" - Sorry, there is another cross-article discrepancy. You use Prote here and it is redirected to the Turkish name Kınalıada which mentions "Proti" as one of the Greek translations. Leo V mentions Prince Islands which Kınalıada/Proti/Prote is one of. Can you add a few word explaining the island like explaining it is one of the Prince Islands and also that it is literally in the Sea of Marmara?
 * Done.


 * monasteries - Leo V mention there were monasteries on the island they were exiled to. This article doesn't mention that. Do we know the names of these monasteries the former imperial family was exiled?
 * No. The monastery τῶν Δεσποτῶν is mentioned for Theodosia and Leo's mother, but nothing for the sons of Leo.


 * "were castrated and tonsured" - Please explain like you did on Theophylact (son of Michael I), why deposed imperial family members were castrated and tonsured. It is not obvious to the average reader that it was used to deprive them of any possibility of succeeding again.
 * Done.
 * I am still looking for thew sources on the coronation issue, but will deal with the rest later today. Constantine  ✍  08:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to say that I am done, unless you have any more comments or suggestions (even above and beyond GA requirements). Constantine  ✍  17:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Passing now. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Status query
The article hasn't been edited since before this review began, though the nominator, Iazyges, has made well over 1500 Wikipedia edits in the interim. I realize that this nomination had to wait for five months to get a reviewer, but it's been over five weeks since then. If Iazyges wasn't going to work on the article, it shouldn't have been nominated. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was part of a series of articles I nominated which had been worked upon by Cplakidas; I had asked him for permission to nom some, and then rather run away with it and nomed others which were not fully finished by him. He has stated his intention to finish the article; if you think it necessary to fail the review in the meantime, I have no objection. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi to both, I do intend to deal with this over the next few days. Sorry, it had fallen out of my radar for a while. Constantine  ✍  05:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)