Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Basil II/archive1


 * 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2018.

Basil II

 * Nominator(s): 20DKB03 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Basil II (958-1025), a Byzantine emperor from the Macedonian dynasty. His reign, the second longest in Byzantine history, only being beaten by his brother which outlived him by a mere 3 years, would see the zenith of medieval Byzantine power, both militarily and diplomatically. It would also be at this time that the Macedonian Renaissance began, where arts and other sorts of work gained recognition and their own taste. I have been improving this article for quite some time. It initially began from a state that required verifiable content (tags were put to let other editors know that it needed more citations), rated as Start-Class, and I largely improved it to GA-Class with over 80 new citations (about 60 different ones). I have also added much more detail to the notes, corrected some information, added more images, and made the infobox better in its description. After all this, I believe that this article is quite worthy of a FA review. 20DKB03 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose From a very quick initial look, I'm very uncomfortable with the 'Assessment' section. It reads like a hagiography, and its main source is a (literally) ancient work by Basil II's contemporary Michael Psellos. Some of the wording is very sloppy (e.g. "He was worshipped by his army" and " left a full treasury upon his death" - neither is likely to be literally true). I was expecting to see a proper assessment of Basil II's life and legacy by modern historians here. While Basil II was one of the better Byzantine emperors, he was still a Byzantine emperor and not the saint this section makes him out to be. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this FAC fails, what would you recommend as the next step, Nick? - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian's suggestions below (including that this nomination be withdrawn so the article can be further improved outside of FAC). This article is firmly within scope of the Military History Wikiproject, and an A-class review could be very helpful once it has been further developed. Nick-D (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time you have spent on this review. I have tried to largely improve the Assessment section, and to also remove the bias that was present in certain areas of the article. Hopefully it is in a better position now, though I will keep the recommendation of such review in mind for later, in case this does not pass. 20DKB03 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Recommend withdrawal -- recusing as coord, I had a quick look over the lead and some other sections. Although I can see a lot of work has gone into this, I agree with Nick's comments on the assessment section, and I think the article needs a copyedit throughout. Just a few things from various points in the article: The leap from GAN to FAC is significant, so I'd suggest withdrawing to improve outside the FAC process, then take to Peer Review or a MilHist A-Class Review, and then re-nominate for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "reigned as senior ruler from 10 January 976 to 15 December 1025" -- if the term "senior ruler" has some special significance then it should be linked or otherwise defined, if not it should simply be dropped.
 * "Basil, it would appear, took this advice to heart" -- reads like an essay.
 * "succeeded by his brother and his family, who unfortunately proved to be ineffective rulers" -- "unfortunately" is editorialising.
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I have tried to largely improve the article with these suggestions, so hopefully it is somewhat better. Nevertheless, as stated above, I will keep the recommendation of such review in mind for later, in case this current review is not successful. 20DKB03 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Nick and Ian's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from 20DKB03
I appreciate the recommendations, as always. I just would like to know the opinion from you all on the current state of the article, if it is more acceptable (after implementing what was suggested), before I see the idea of withdrawal being necessary, because I am continuing to heavily expand and fix it during this nomination, but I am unsure if it has been reviewed or not. I am open to suggestions on improvements, and I am happy to implement them when needed. It was my intention to also improve the article along the way, with the help of said suggestions. It has been vastly improved from its GAN state, and I believe it is not so far off. I ask this due to the quick opposition from the start. 20DKB03 (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As desired, I have added a few quotes to the Assessment section, from the modern historians J. J. Norwich, E. R. A. Sewter, and a few others. 20DKB03 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine
Oppose. For a ruler of such a long reign, pivotal role, and volume of scholarship, the article is a long way off from FA consideration. There is no background section to understand the context of his reign; no section on the domestic policies and the question of the Anatolian dynatoi, the administration of the conquered Balkans, the economy, the church; no section on Byzantium's position in the world and its relations with its neighbours during Basil's reign; etc. The present article is a good narrative history, but even here it has problems, as it is essentially cobbled together in various sections, contributed by various users (including myself) over the years, rather than providing a coherent narrative in a coherent style, whether along a timeline or by specific themes/areas. I would recommend anyone who wants to bring this to FA to take the time to work this over top to bottom, and write it anew as a coherent whole. Referencing is also a mess, with a mixture of different styles, and with many low-quality or outdated sources (Finlay being particularly egregious here). Constantine  ✍  11:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * And I see that the "assessment" section relies heavily on Psellus; Psellus is an indispensable source and a fun read, but not a WP:RS, let alone for an "assessment" section where sober, scholarly analysis should be found. Indeed, much of the content of this section does not belong there, as it is not an assessment of his character or his policies, but contains factoids about his reign should properly be included the relevant sections; right now it feels even more cobbled-together than the rest of the article. A typical example is in Though not a man of literature, he was a relatively pious ruler, involving himself in the construction of churches, monasteries, and even to some extent, cities.[101] The Byzantine army would be substantially grown during his reign, especially with the help of land reforms, something that many of his later successors would not enforce. This would help him keep the loyalty of his army in his campaigns, a force that approximately reached the manpower of 110,000 soldiers: from a character judgement on Basil himself it moves to his constructions (without any particular examples), and then jumps to the growth of the army during his reign, a completely unrelated subject. Constantine  ✍  12:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: The consensus is clear that this isn't ready yet. Please take time to address the issues raised, and you may renominate after the minimum two-week waiting period. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.