Talk:Massacre of Thessalonica/GA1

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

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Review undertaken by llywrch.

Some minor copy edit points. More to come as I do the needed background research: More when I have a chance to do the needed research. -- llywrch (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed this article used both single & double quotation marks, jumping from the British style to the American & back. That needs to be made consistent.
 * Thank you for catching that! I think, I hope, that now you will find the only place individual quotation marks are used is when it is a quote within a quote. All British style now as well.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The bibliography needs some grooming. Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History is cited in two different ways, & Liebeschuetz, et alia, Ambrose of Milan Political Letters and Speeches appears in two separate entries -- which is unnecessary in the citation style you use here. (Seeing how you have footnotes & also have a bibliography, I'm not certain the style used here is the best choice. I'll need some time to think of a better solution.)
 * Sozomen done; my control-F function finds "Ambrose of Milan Political Letters and Speeches" in one place only; it's a book by Carol Hill, so I am unsure what the problem is here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahah! I found it! Fixed! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the 2nd paragraph of the section "Commentary", you lump Rufinus in with 3 others as "5th century historians". Rufinus published his history in 401, & this alleged massacre happened during his life time (either 389 or 390). I don't think the implication that Rufinus was inaccurate about this due to the time that passed between the event & when he wrote. (Maybe for other reasons...)
 * Well, that's a fair point. I will see if I can reword that without having to get into a long discussion of reliability.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See if that works. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Llywrch awesome! I am so glad to see you, and thank you so much for doing this! :-)  These are good comments, and I will endeavor to fix them all as immediately as possible.  I only have 5 minutes right now, but I will be back and work myself to the bone later tonight I promise!  Thank you again, this is great! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * llywrch Sorry it took awhile - RL is interfering with my WP!! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Llywrch So, how's it going? Any sign of a return anytime soon? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry I've been silent. I'm getting a handle on thing at work, so I can devote time to this review. One problem I've had is figuring out exactly what the reported accounts of the Massacre were: just yesterday I finally found a copy of Rufinus' account of the Massacre, only his Latin is a challenge for me & putting it thru Google Translate only makes it worse. Another problem is that there are two other aspects of this event that merit inclusion in this article. One is that there were a number of riots in the Late Roman Empire around this time, but beyond mentioning it (Doležal at p. 101 provides a succinct account worth using to address that), I would only address this detail if you wanted to make this into a Featured Article. The other, which I believe needs to be included is that the Massacre was important in the relationship between Emperor Theodosius I & bishop Ambrose of Milan.In the last decades of the 4th century, Ambrose was a powerful figure, pushing the agenda of the Church in Imperial politics. For this reason Gibbon devotes several pages to this event, far more than to other, better recorded urban riots & their violent suppression of this period. Some accounts portray this relationship as one where Ambrose gets the upper hand; some explain this with a bit more subtlety, that Ambrose knew he was best served by supporting Theodosius & his acts were reinterpreted within a generation of his death as victories. But to insist that you include this information, I need to help you do this, & this requires research work on my part.There is also the matter that I have to keep in mind that this is not my article, & I need to give thought about how to offer comments. After all, I am simply offering opinions here, & you always have the right to ignore what I say -- or to take my comments & go in another direction. So while it may appear I am doing nothing, I am at work on this. -- llywrch (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * llywrch Hi! Wonderful to hear from you, but I have to say, some of this confuses me, as everything you mention here is pretty much already discussed in the article. In the second paragraph of the commentary section, I discuss that figuring out what actually happened is near impossible, so you are not the only one with that difficulty. There is no need for you to do primary source research - unless it is simply for your own interest. None of it could be used here as it would be OR.
 * I can't say I understand what value 'other riots' would add. It seems off topic to me. This is not an article on 'ancient riots' but is specifically this one riot alone. Perhaps you feel a section on other possible causes, beyond those mentioned in the sources that wrote about it, is called for. I can do that if you feel strongly about it, but I retain my reservations. For me that is off focus.
 * Nearly the entire section 'Aftermath' discusses Ambrose. Any more would make it an article about him instead of the massacre.
 * There is no need for you to feel you need to help me write this article. It's written. Your job is simply to review it according to the GA criteria ; it is not to write or rewrite the article for me. If as an editor you have something you want to add to the article, that's perfectly fine of course, but that would automatically disqualify you as a reviewer.
 * And I do fully understand if you don't have time after all to do this. RL things changed for you right after you got this, and no one would fault you for passing it on. We all have that from time to time and have to back off of WP. I certainly have. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Llywrch You accepted this review at 20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC). It has now been a full month with no actual review having begun. I have no doubt of your good faith and that you are well intentioned, but I request that you either begin an actual review or pass it on to some one else. Thank you for trying. Things happen to us all. No hard feelings, I just need to move on with this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner. There are some issues besides my unexpected increase of duties at work that caused this. Let me explain.First, one of my practices in reviewing any article for GA is to perform some research on the topic in parallel. My intent in doing that is not to write the article, but to get a sense for how much material on the topic is out there, & a sense for the accuracy of the facts. Doing so, I can tell you have done a lot of work performing research for this article, for which you deserve praise. (For one thing, you alerted me to just how useful Research Gate can be. I looked at it several years ago, & did not find it that useful then; clearly it has improved significantly since, & I should give it another look.)Another thing I do is to avoid articles which I feel are flawed or in need of some blunt criticism. As I wrote, you have spent a lot of time on this article, & are proud of what you did; too much criticism of a GA nomination can discourage the recipient, & be seen as a personal attack, even when it is clearly focused on the article. (I know I have made this mistake in the past.)

So what is my criticism about this article?

First, as the article is currently written, it appears that this incident is notable for being an imperfectly known event. There was a riot in Thessalonica, & the garrison responded with a massacre of the inhabitants, & Ambrose blamed the actions of the garrison on the emperor Theodosius -- this is what the article tells us happens. The Cambridge Ancient History presents one version with extensive details of this. However, there is nothing about what is disputed about this event. This is what I spent time researching: what were the different accounts, & what is disputed? I don't see any of this dispute clearly set forth. I do find hints about what might be disputed, but no where can I read, "This is the account of Ambrose; this is the account of Rufinus; this is what Theodoret wrote; this is what Sozomen wrote." I would even settle for secondary sources being presented to show the disputed facts. And reading Doležal's paper, I find he has reported some of what is disputed about this event, for example the date of the massacre.


 * So, more specifics of the details of the disputes? More beyond the mention of the fact the sources contradict each other, because the sources are biased and include the writer's own views of what might have happened; more beyond that the event is not mentioned in the pagan histories, and the discussion of the charioteer and whether racism against the Goths was part of the riot or not, the dispute over numbers, and whether Theodosius ordered it, and the disputed date which is mentioned in the last paragraph, just as the disputed law is? More than that? I am unsure what more that would be. All of that is already spread around in the article. I will try to make it all clearer in the lead which it seems is all you read. If that's all a reader reads, which is often the case, then it will not be clear, so I will fix the lead to better reflect these controversies. Otherwise I am at a loss. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Along these lines, I encountered a problem that none of the authorities writing about the massacre seem to have mentioned: Theodosius could not have had direct involvement in the massacre, due to slow communications of the time. Ferdinand Braudel's The Structure of Things has a set of very enlightening diagrams showing just how long it took news to reach Venice from various locations in Europe, before the start of the Industrial Age (pp. 426f). According to these diagrams, it routinely took news from the region around Thessalonica 4 weeks to reach Venice; one could conclude from this that it would take that long to reach Thedosius in Rome under normal circumstances. Excluding how long he & his court spent deliberating what should be done, any official response might have reached Thessalonica two months after the initial riot. We could argue that news reached Theodosius by the imperial post -- a relay of messengers on horse & by ship between Thessalonica & Rome -- which traveled an average of 5 miles an hour, 24 hours a day; the distance from Thessalonica to Dyrrhachum then Brundisium then Neapolis & at last to Rome is about 600 miles; so it would take 5 days for urgent news to reach Theodosius. Much quicker, but still an official response would come about 2 weeks after the original riot. Add to this the objections Doležal raises about Theodosius actually ordering a massacre of the city's inhabitants (pp. 99f), & it becomes doubtful that Theodosius did order a massacre. Which leads to a problem I'll bring up in a moment.


 * Well, it's a perfectly reasonable deduction, and if I can find a source that says what you have concluded, then I can add it, but otherwise it is original research, and I can't use it no matter how obvious it seems to you and I. I have already included Doležal's objections, along with the others, in the discussion of whether Theodosius ordered the massacre or not, and I agree, it is doubtful he ordered it. But that is already in the article too.

As I said above, this event played an important role in the relationship between Ambrose & Theodosius. This was quite clear to me when I read Paulinus' Vita of the life of St. Ambrose. It was clear from Edward Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire -- in chapter 27 Gibbon mentions the massacre in connection to the conflict between the bishop & emperor. It was clear when I read John Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364-425 (pp. 234-236), who includes it as an event in Ambrose's repeated manipulation of the emperor. And it was clear to me in reading Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (pp. 80-82), where Cameron argues that Paulinus misrepresented his sources, & that instead of dominating the emperor, the bishop was offering him a means to save face over the garrison's massacre of the city's inhabitants. In short, the reason this massacre is not only important, but meets Wikipedia's notability standards, is because it was an event in the relationship between the two men. And therefore needs to appear in the lead.


 * I don't know that it is proven this event did in fact play an important role in the relationship between Ambrose and Theodosius. Paulinus was not an unbiased source, and as it says in the article about the histories of the period: ; writings about Ambrose present him as an icon of the best of bishops. Paulinus used Ambrose's letters, and it is unclear how accurate Ambrose's personal view of his own importance in those events actually is. Gibbon is certainly not an unbiased authority either, and his interpretation of Ambrose in the worst light is just as questionable. It is not a sure thing either way, and all of this is already discussed in the article. I could copy paste the entire Aftermath section here, because all but one paragraph discusses this, but you could instead just read and evaluate it. Of course, I explained this previously when you mentioned Ambrose before, so if you find the discussion inadequate, please offer specifics that don't include something already in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Which brings me back to the problem I mentioned in the paragraph before: why did Ambrose hold Theodosius responsible for something he apparently had little to do with? While Ambrose is frequently portrayed as manipulating Theodosius like a puppet, it would be hardly fair to hold him responsible for every botched response by an underling some distance from Rome. Did Theodosius decide to avenge a murdered general, as Gibbon & others argue? Or was Ambrose's role more of an advisor, suggesting a possible means to save face for a messy situation? (Doležal explains why this was a crisis for Theodosius.)


 * This is in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've gone on at length about this article. The short version of my criticism is that while there are lots of facts from reliable sources (which I am confident are correct), there is no answer to the numerous whys of this subject. Why is this massacre notable? Why are the details disputed? How were Ambrose & Theodosius involved in this massacre? Why did Ambrose force Theodosius to do penance for this massacre? I'm not pushing my own opinions here about any of these questions, but as an informed reader, I would like to find these questions acknowledged & addressed. And I believe you have collected the material that would help you do that in this article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * llywrch Well, this is the most unusual review – peer, GA or FA – I have ever experienced. You have not gone on at length; indeed, there is no prose review, no source review, and the comments you do make lead me to think you have not read the article with an eye toward detail because you have asked for the inclusion of details that are already there.


 * As to the last comment: I must say, that statement is correct - no one knows or can know the whys.  Is this not enough of a discussion of something that will always have inadequate historical detail?


 * Because of the conflicts between the sources - which is explained in the article.


 * That is self explanatory, obvious and apparent: if it happened, it's obvious why that's important, and if it didn't, it is still notable that it went down in history as if it did. Besides, that discussion has no place in the article itself.


 * I will add to the lead to reflect more of a summary of the various disputes. Beyond that there is little here for me to respond to. I have waited a month only to be deeply disappointed. Your comments indicate you haven't read the entire article, which is just embarrassing for both of us. Please don't waste more of my time or yours by posting things that you would know if you read through the article, carefully, as a reviewer, with your questions in mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Then I'm sorry to have disappointed you. -- llywrch (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * llywrch I doubt you are even half as sorry as I am. I have just wasted an hour posting repeats of the article itself here. I have adjusted the lead, beyond that, there was nothing here I could do a damn thing with. I don't need apologies. I need actionable suggestions, or a conclusion of your review. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite what you think, I have read the article, carefully & several times. Since you disagree with my comments, I suggest you seek a second opinion. That would be more productive of your time than arguing with me. -- llywrch (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, llywrch I stand corrected, so now I am just confused. Your critique is broad. How are five paragraphs discussing Ambrose insufficient? That is a sincere question - what of the Ambrose debate remains uncovered? Paulinus and Gibbon can be added, but their views are already represented by more contemporary scholars, so wouldn't that add verbiage without value? What disputes are missed being discussed somewhere in the article? I added to the lead as you requested, so there is now a better summary up front, but I do not know of any other disputes beyond those already included. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I am at a loss as to what to do. I want to cooperate. I always cooperate with anything a reviewer asks. I just don't have a clue how to do what seems already done. Please help me to understand more concretely what it is you are looking for that isn't there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * llywrch I have added more section titles in hopes of clarifying the discussion and also added Dolzáls review of the sources. Does any of this address your concerns? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion
and : I'm glad to provide a second opinion, but before I do that I'd like to have a slightly better understanding of what's actually at issue here. The relevant criterion seems to be number 3a, which requires the article to cover "the main aspects of the topic". The footnote declares that comprehensiveness is not required and that articles that "do not cover every major fact or detail" are indeed permitted. From that perspective, I'm having a hard time parsing what main aspect the reviewer feels is being omitted. The article seems to cover the massacre and its consequences quite thoroughly, incorporating a wide variety of scholarly views on the subject. But the reviewer has looked at the research much more thoroughly than I have, and so I'd appreciate it if he could articulate a bit more clearly what major part of this event he feels is missing from the article. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ Thank you so much for showing up and doing this. I am more grateful than I can say. I agree with your assessment, but it does seem as though and I are talking past each other. I have now added some to the source discussion, section titles that are hopefully more descriptive of content, and some to the lead. Perhaps these additions will help. I am trying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the second paragraph in the lead would better fit in the "Sources" section. If you wish to keep it.Next, I may an outlier with this opinion but I believe we need to use some thought & common sense in our selection of sources, be they primary or secondary sources. I mention this because there are some unintended contradictions in the material presented. Let me present two examples that jump out at me. One is the account of the massacre quoted from the Cambridge Ancient History. While the CAH has a lot more credibility than I do, familiarity with the primary sources would show it is clearly based on the account of Sozomen, who wrote 40-60 years after the event. (And about which Doležal has raised questions about its accuracy.) It is worth noting that the sources contemporary with the event have the least amount of detail, while the later versions are the most detailed. Understanding the primary sources -- even if not cited -- helps to better judge the secondary ones. So I don't know if I would cite the CAH here, but common sense dictates if it is cited, at least point out that it presents one version of the disputed facts. (Or maybe it should be kept since it may be the most familiar version of the event. And it could be argued Sozomen drew on oral tradition. If used, its use should be explicitly justified.)Another instance where common sense is needed is in Doležal's assertion, "None of the pagan historians of the period mention the Thessalonican massacre at all." Knowing a bit about this period of Roman history, I find it hard to list more than a few "pagan historians" who might have possibly mentioned this massacre. Only three come to mind: Ammianus Marcellinus, Zosimus, & Procopius. Now Marcellinus ended his historical account long before the date of the massacre, & likely even laid down his pen before then, so he can be excluded. While Procopius does mention events in the 4th century, his primary focus is on events during the 6th century; he may have known about it, but considered it irrelevant & excluded. This leaves Zosimus, another 6th century historian. So Doležal's number of "pagan historians" is one. He has engaged in a bit of hand-waving here; it is the weakest of his arguments, & is best excluded. IMHO, it doesn't effect the plausibility of his argument the massacre was not historically significant. (For the record, there is at least one Christian historian who also omits any account of the massacre, the author of the Chronicon Pascale.)Does this better explain my points? -- llywrch (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the revised version, & it's clear there is a lack of understanding. Let me discuss the revised version to explain my point.First, the new section headers did help me to understand the article better. The subsections "Theodosius' accountability" & "Aftermath and Ambrose" cover those aspects of the event satisfactorily.Nevertheless, the subject of these sections -- how this event played a role in the relationship between Ambrose & Theodosius -- is not at all mentioned in the article lead. Without it, this article seems to be about some historical oddity of questionable notability. The discussion about the two men is buried in the body of the article.Were I to rewrite the opening paragraph, I would write somewhat as follows:"The Massacre of Thessalonica was an action by imperial soldiers that ended an urban riot during the reign of Roman emperor Theodosius I. The details of this event are disputed by modern historians, but innocent Thessalonicans were amongst those killed. This massacre had an effect on the relationship between the emperor and Ambrose, bishop of Milan and later saint, and has been cited as an example of the bishop's influence on the emperor."


 * llywrch I have now changed the lead using as much of your wording as I know is supported by sources. The massacre did not end the riot, it followed after it, and the influence of the event on the relationship of the two men is not established, but with those two alterations, and the removal of the second paragraph, the lead is now yours.


 * I believe an evaluation of the CAH within the article would be out of place and lead down a rabbit hole of book reviews and discussion of quality standards that would have nothing to do with the massacre of Thessalonika. It would be the only contemporary source evaluated, and I have never seen such an evaluation in any article on WP. The fact the other two sources in the same section contradict the detail in the CAH does in fact I trust the reader to see the point without the need to hit them over the head with it.


 * I originally made the decision not to include all the detailed discussion of the primary source material – what is in each one, what isn't, how many pagan sources there would likely be, and so on – as irrelevant to a WP article. Our readers are likely to be sophomores who need a broad overview with enough detail to go look up elsewhere if they want or need to. Bogging this down with minutiae will not improve the article in my opinion. I feel strongly about this point, and it is what common sense tells me.


 * So as far as I can tell, your response here indicates there are no main points excluded, only different levels of detail desired. If you want to add more of those details, you are certainly welcome to do so as an editor, but I don't agree they are needed. The lead now includes a mention of Ambrose. Those are the only changes I see, and they are now ✅. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Allow me to summarize my thoughts on the matter. There doesn't seem to be much of a dispute about criterion 3a, broadness. It does appear that the article discusses "all main aspects of the topic", including the facts of the massacre, Theodosius' role, Ambrose' response, and scholarly perspectives. While the desire for more concrete answers to the "whys" is certainly understandable, the article can only include what the sources will bear, and original research is of course proscribed. Since the article needn't be comprehensive, I would thus conclude that it passes 3a as written. There does appear to be a bit of a disagreement about the part of criterion 1b that pertains to the lead. Jenhawk777 has attempted to resolve the issue, although the lead's size shrunk to three sentences in the process. I'd recommend bulking up the lead a bit more, giving at least a sentence to each subsection. That being said, I'm reasonably confident that this can be resolved without my intervention. The main impasse would now appear to pertain to the due-weight portion of criterion 4. When the scholarly literature is so seriously divided, giving each source appropriate weight is difficult. I feel that the article doesn't rely too heavily on the CAH: it immediately explains why that account is "murky", and it thoroughly analyzes perspectives on the story's accuracy in the next section. The citation to the CAH is effectively a plot summary, giving the most common rendition of the story. The remainder of the article takes a much more critical look at that summary, explaining why many scholars doubt some or all of the details found therein. That seems to be a reasonable way of, to quote WP:GANOT, "provid[ing] the reader with information, allowing them to form their own conclusions." I'm therefore fairly confident that this article meets criterion 4, as well. I have not assessed any other criteria; there do appear to be some prose issues that will need to be resolved. I trust that the nominator and reviewer will be able to complete this review amicably, with helpings of WP:AGF on both sides. I hope my perspectives are helpful, and I'm glad to provide clarification or further assistance if it is needed. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe might be happier if I withdraw from this review & find another person to take it over. -- llywrch (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * llywrch no, no, please, that is the exact opposite of what I have wanted all along. I want more not less. You cared enough to show up in the first place, and that matters to me. It's since then - when things have been hard for you at work in your RL - that I didn't hear from you for a whole month, and when you do show up it is - well - it is what it is. Surely you can understand my frustration. But I don't want you to go away - I want you to engage more not less - and if you are unable to do that, I just want you to be up front about that.


 * I do understand that this is a volunteer job that has to be a lower priority. I want what's good for this article, but I also want what's good for real people, and that includes you. I want the quality review it seemed you were ready to give when you started this, but I also want us both to be practical and have enough common sense to recognize if someone is overextended.


 * I am fully confident you are a great reviewer when you give it your full attention, and I am happy to continue with you if you think you can hang in there and do that here - give the article the GA review, according to the criteria, that it deserves - but I also understand if you need to let this go. You need to decide what is best for you. Don't feel bound and trapped in this. The article will survive to be reviewed another day.  It's okay.  What I need, and what I want, is for you determine if you can be all in, or all out here. I need you to decide what you have time for and what you don't. You are the volunteer here. I will be happy with whatever you decide, I promise, but that decision can only come from you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Extraordinary Writ Your perspectives are helpful. They are focused, on point, concrete and workable, and I am deeply grateful for your participation and your input. I don't know what llywrch will decide, but I do believe the right to decide is hers, not mine. I am grateful when anyone volunteers to help others like this, and both of you have my full esteem. I am rewriting the lead - and checking the prose - per your suggestions. The article will be better for your input. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * llywrch Please respond. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant to respond last night. I sincerely think that the best move would be for me to step away. I just think at this point trust has been broken & we not likely to be listening to each other; nothing productive will come of this. Please don't think I'm blaming anyone about this, & I wouldn't have suggested it had it not been for being available to step in. In any case, about the only further substantive comment I have is to suggest another photo to go in the infobox at the top: at first glance the subject seems to be the modern apartment building behind the ruins of Galerius' palace. If there were photos of the remains of the hippodrome, one of those would be the best choice, but after looking thru Commons I could not find any. -- llywrch (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * llywrch All right, I don't much like it, but I said it was your choice to make, and I accept your decision. Extraordinary Writ you kindly showed up to offer a second opinion and have now been dumped into the fire. Are you available to do this? I understand it is more than you signed up for. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That'll be fine,, albeit a bit more than I was anticipating. To keep everything procedurally in order, I'll mark this review as failed; you can then renominate the article and I'll review it. (This is an approved procedure: see WT:Good article nominations/Archive 24.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ Thank you, I appreciate that this is more than you anticipated, and I am overwhelmingly grateful for your willingness to take it on. I am not up on the proper procedure, plus I am not sure that I followed what is said in the reference you gave - credit? What is that about? How is marking it failed the best way to go? I thought there was a waiting period required between a failure and a new request, and worse, I thought there was a requirement that the article be substantially changed before it can be renominated - I am guessing I must have that wrong - could that be for FA instead? I tried to look up the rules for renomination and didn't get anywhere, I must not be looking under the right heading, so I remain totally clueless, feel like an idiot, and now I am worried as well. If I'm correct about these requirements, I don't see how this article will survive a failure because I don't see how it can be "substantially changed" and ever qualify for renomination.

I will follow your lead and do what you say is best, of course, but I am now officially wringing my hands in distress. I've never had this happen to me before. I usually get a prose review, a source review, an image review, and I'm passed. I've never had a failure before. All part of experiencing the wonderful world of wiki huh? I'm sorry, I know I'm going a little crazy here, but I promise not to inflict it on you - well, after today anyway. :-) Tell me what you need me to do and I will do it. How and when do I renominate and are there qualifications for renomination that I need to meet?

Thank you again. I am totally turned upside down by this and can't tell you how much it means that you are providing a landing place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Extraordinary Writ Okay, I nominated it again. It looks really weird to have the nomination and the failure together at the top of the page! :-) I am feeling completely cross-eyed by all of this but attempting to carry on, Captain!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)