Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347/archive2


 * 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 promoted by Ian Rose 15:23, 25 June 2012.

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the second nomination on one of the most crucial conflicts in Byzantine history, perhaps the one that can be credited with finally gutting the venerable empire. The first nomination back in 2009 failed on prose issues, but the article has been considerably expanded and extensively rewritten and copyedited (thanks to Auntieruth55 and Philg88) since then, so it is time for a second try! Constantine  ✍  11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "a small, but [...] compact" - why the brackets here?
 * File:Andronikos_III_Palaiologos.jpg needs US PD tag, as does its source image
 * File:Byzantine_empire_1355.jpg: page?
 * File:John_V_Palaiologos.jpg needs US PD tag
 * File:Anna_of_Savoy.jpg needs US PD tag, as does its source image
 * File:John_VI_Kantakouzenos.jpg needs a US PD tag
 * File:Alexios_Apokaukos.jpg needs US PD tag, and source link returns 404 error
 * File:Eurse1340b.gif needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the image tags, and expanded Nicol's quote to get rid of the brackets and improve its context. Constantine  ✍  16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments & questions from Ling
 * "extensive losses of territory, principally to Dushan's Serbia, which doubled in size" "principally to" means "most of which were captured by" or similar...?– Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Dushan was the major beneficiary, territorially speaking, of the civil war. Constantine  ✍  06:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hinting that the English is ambiguous/incorrect. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then, the hinting was ambiguous too ;)... Changed to the simpler "mainly". Constantine  ✍  05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "became regent for his the underage John V" – Ling.Nut (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: by DemonicInfluence
 * Is the link to the resurgence of the civil war supposed to redirect back to this article?
 * Is "Serbsian ruler" a typo for Serbian ruler or on purpose?
 * I'll check this more thoroughly laterDemonicInfluence (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for taking the time! I fixed the typo, and no, the "resurgence of the civil war" was initially not a link at all; it was added by User:LlywelynII back in September. I am not too happy about it either, as it serves no purpose in its present form. Constantine  ✍  07:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Some more comments:
 * The rebuilding of the navy by Andronicus III perhaps should be mentioned, along with the fact that it was destroyed. The successful capture of Chios under Andronicus followed by its loss during the war seems important.
 * The fact that much of Kantakouzenos' support was specifically Thracian aristocracy might be useful to mention. And that he himself was part of a very wealthy family.
 * The movements of the Bulgarians seems to be confusing. In the 2nd section they are described as threatening war whereas in the 5th section they have already besieged Demotika. Perhaps the point where they have joined the war nominally on the side of the regency should be mentioned
 * Perhaps fact that the Catholics strongly opposed Hesychasm should be mentioned as opposed to the aristocrats disliking Catholics.
 * Maybe it should be earlier that Manuel was give the Despotate of Morea, instead of at the very end to solidify it was done during John VI's rule.
 * Seems pretty good overall--DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions! I've included the rebuilding of the navy and expanded the section on Chios and Lesbos, and I've corrected the "Bulgarian" siege of Didymoteicho on the 5th section, the Bulgarians were supposedly sent to aid the city, but they pillaged on their own account. I'll take care of the other points over the next few days. Constantine  ✍  17:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your points have been addressed, I added some info on Kantakouzenos' fortune and his role as the poster boy of the aristocracy, plus that Hesychasm won out under Kantakouzenos and that the Catholic Church regarded it as a heresy. I also rewrote certain sections to give a more balanced view of Apokaukos. On Manuel and the Morea, I can't really find a good place to include him earlier, and prefer to leave it there at the end. Constantine  ✍  09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The nationality of Andreolo Cattaneo/Phocaea should probably mentioned unless they were totally independent.
 * Dynatoi should perhaps be defined when it is first mentioned instead of slightly after.
 * Those are minor things. I'm willing to support.--DemonicInfluence (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments:
 * the dab link checker reports a couple of links that redirect back to this article ("Byzantine civil war of 1352-1357"). It might be an idea to create a quick stub at that location, rather than having it redirect back to this article;
 * the external link checker reports one link that might be dead:
 * the duplicate link checker reports a few possible instances of overlink: Thessalonica, Serres, Manuel Kantakouzenos, Sarukhanids, Ottoman emirate, Matthew Kantakouzenos, Republic of Venice, exclave;
 * I see a mix of US and British English variation. For instance "center" and "recognized" (US), but "harbour" and "favoured" (British). There may be other examples. This should probably be made consistent (either variation would be fine, IMO). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I've removed the dead ext. link. I'll go through the text to fix overlinking etc. I prefer British English, but the "-ize" forms are not, contrary to popular belief, US English. On the civil war of 1352-57, I'll write something during the weekend. Constantine  ✍  18:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I can't say I agree with your assessment. Writing style guides in Australia (at least the official one used in my profession) are quite firm on the issue of "ise" as opposed to "ize" in British/Australian English. It's your call, though, and I don't see it to be a major issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created the article on the 1352-57 war, mainly with text from this article. I'll try to expand it, provided I have time. BTW, in case you weren't aware of it: -ize. Since I am something of a traditionalist (and "-ize" comes easier to me as a Greek), I tend to prefer the "old" spelling. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  10:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link: interesting read and I see your point. As you've fixed "center", I think the article is consistent in its language variation now based on your reasoning. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You put native Englishmen to shame, Constantine! Most of us have opted for a lazy all-purpose "-ise" rather than follow H.W. Fowler, the Oxford English Dictionary, The Times and Inspector Morse in using a "z" for words derived straight from the Greek and "s" for words filtered through French. I salute, but do not emulate, you. Tim riley (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the comma here: "when the heirless Andronikos III (John V was born in 1332) fell, ill he insisted" (I suggest removing it as it doesn't really work where it is);
 * this seems like inconsistent capitalisation (Emperor): "a cousin of the Emperor" and "with the deceased emperor";
 * this sounds a bit too conversational: "To quote the Byzantinist Angeliki Laiou, "after the end of the second civil war, Byzantium was an empire in name only."". Perhaps something like this might work: "According to Byzantinist Angeliki Laiou, "after the end of the second civil war, Byzantium was an empire in name only."";
 * inconsistent capitalisation (empire): "accelerated the empire's decline" and "remaining in the Empire";
 * this sounds a little awkward: "In 11 June 1345, while undertaking an inspection of the prison". "On 11 June 1345, while undertaking an inspection of the prison" might sound better. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Requested corrections done. Constantine  ✍  09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why the "of" in the title? Tony   (talk)  09:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no commonly used proper name for the war, and IMO the dates are an integral part of the name. Personally, I don't support the use of parentheses for wars. I mean, when one wants to refer to one of a series of wars, e.g. the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) specifically, one always includes the dates, while parentheses imply that it can be left out. Just to clarify, I've no problem with a move, if it is judged to be necessary (AFAIK, WP:NCE does not prescribe the parentheses). Constantine  ✍  09:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Looks good so far.
 * Link the first occurrence of "r." - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding commas between independent clauses is getting tedious; I'd like for you (or someone) to go through and add these before I resume copyediting. Most style guides require these commas except when the two clauses are very short and connected in meaning. (I don't always insist on them, because standards are changing, but they're clearly missing in this article in places where pretty much any copyeditor would require them.) An independent clause is a clause that could be a sentence itself; for instance, I stopped at "The relationship between the two remained close and in 1330, when the heirless Andronikos III (John V was born in 1332) fell ill he insisted that Kantakouzenos be proclaimed Emperor or regent after his death." A comma is needed after "close", before the coordinating conjunction "and". - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do it myself. For some reason, when I request an article to be copyedited the commas tend to vanish. Constantine  ✍  19:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've asked for advice on this issue over at Featured article candidates/Reg Saunders/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "(see Hesychast controversy)": This recent edit is a WP:SELFREF problem; the reader may be reading this on a mirror site or elsewhere, where there may not be any Hesychast controversy article, and then this note wouldn't make sense. Work the link into the text. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand what you mean. This is in the same way as including any other internal link, wither directly or via a or  template. A mirror site may not have an article on Andronikos III Palaiologos either, so how am I to resolve that? Constantine   ✍  08:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SELFREF was the wrong link, sorry. "See (whatever)" is more common in textbook-y Wikipedia articles. In history articles, we generally credit the reader with knowing what they do or don't need to read in order to understand the text. It would be better to work  "Hesychast controversy" into the text so that the reader can see that it's important, so that they'll click if they need to.  If this article really can't be understood at all without some of the material from that article, then insert the necessary text into this article. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "reportedly": That's not really working for me, because it doesn't give me any clues as to what it was that makes you question the number. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "a force of 1,000 "picked" men": I don't know what the quotes around "picked" mean; maybe "an elite force of 1,000 men" would be better.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Nicely done. The reading level is a little higher than I like to see at FAC, but I don't think we can avoid that in these articles. Excellent work, dense but flowing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds - reading through now, and will make straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert if I change the meaning. I'll post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ' 'This event was imitated over the next weeks in town after town throughout Thrace and Macedonia, as the people declared their support for the regency and against the despised forces of "Kantakouzenism"'' - surely you mean "repeated" rather than "imitated" here?


 *  Kantakouzenos was however able to take fortress Melnik, where he met with Hrelja to conclude an alliance. - "conclude" means "finish" - is this what is meant here? Maybe "forged" is better.....


 * ...Dushan opened negotiations with the regency and concluded a formal alliance with them in the summer of 1343 - same as previous


 * Meanwhile, Kantakouzenos and his army camped outside Thessalonica, hoping to take the city through treachery. - rather than use the emotive word "treachery", might be better to let sequence of events speak for themselves.


 *  Once again Umur of Aydin came to the rescue with a fleet carrying some 6,000 men - somewhat flowery, maybe just, "Umur of Aydin came to John's assistance with a fleet carrying some 6,000 men" or something similar


 * In 1344, the regency concluded a further alliance with Bulgaria - ditto.

Otherwise looking ok - last section is good and nice conclusion to article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time! I've implemented some of your suggestions. On "concluding", AFAIK it is a standard verb to use when an alliance deal is, well, "concluded". It means the agreement is finalized, while for instance "forging" does not necessarily mean that the negotiations were successful. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  07:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but then you'd say you concluded the deal - to me, concluding the alliance sounds like winding up or finishing the alliance....but I concede I am not a military reader or editor, so not a biggie. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi Constantine, correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's been some time since you last had an article at FAC and an associated spotcheck of sources, in which case we'd better organise one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's been more than a year. Go ahead. Constantine  ✍  10:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do if nobody else does it first. I may not be able to get access to the source books till Monday, though on the other hand they may be available this afternoon. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks as ever, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Spot check. I have spot checked for accuracy and for innocence of close paraphrase against: Of these, my only queries are: I found some of the bundled citations fiddly to check because the citations do not say which statements in any sentence are from which source (see WP:BUNDLING) but I quite see that although this was a problem for me it won't trouble any other readers.
 * Bartusis: refs 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 16, 28, 44, 58, 83, 84, 97, 106, 107 and 112
 * Fine: refs 21, 28, 40, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 87, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 106 and 107
 * Nicol (1993): refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 32, 33, 40, 46, 47, 50, 51, 62, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94 and 107
 * Bartusis: I could not find on the pages quoted the information mentioned at refs 16c and 44. (I may have failed to see what was there, of course.)
 * Fine: ref 42 should cite pp. 294–95, not just 294.
 * Nicol: ref 5 – I think the paraphrase might perhaps be a touch too close for comfort, but I don't press the point.

In passing, I can't find "underage" (second para of lead) in the Oxford English Dictionary, which prescribes "under-age"

I enjoyed this article, having known absolutely nothing of its subject before now. It's well written and indeed most readable, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim riley (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time. I am glad you liked it, and especially that you thought it readable even without any prior knowledge on the period. On Bartusis in ref 44, the information is there: Synadenos and his attempted surrender of Thessalonica (Thessaloniki in the text). I removed ref 16c because I don't have access to the online version right now (nor to a printed one, alas), and the statements are supported by the other refs either way. Otherwise I fixed Fine 42, and added the dash in "under-age". Cheers, Constantine  ✍  13:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.