Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Constantinople (674–678)/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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2018.

Siege of Constantinople (674–678)

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  22:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the first major Arab attack on the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. It was essentially rewritten from scratch some time ago, in 2012, along with its pendant, the Siege of Constantinople (717–718), which became an FA already at the time. The only reason I did not nominate this too for FA then was that I had glimpsed somewhere about Howard-Johnston's different opinion of these events and the poem of Theodosius Grammaticus, but could not yet source them properly. This has now been done, and some details have also been added to the siege's cultural impact (thanks to PericlesofAthens), news of which apparently reached as far as China. The time has come to complete this article's progression. Any comments and suggestions as to further improvement are, of course, welcome. Constantine  ✍  22:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Europe_around_650.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed --Constantine  ✍  15:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class (5 years ago!) As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support: a shining example of Wiki's finest work. Well done, sir! It was a pleasure to read this article. As for my little contribution regarding the siege in medieval Chinese historical records, perhaps a small little blurb about that can be added to the third paragraph of the lead section. That small paragraph, which discusses both Greek and Arab historiography, could also provide a little sentence summarizing the Chinese historiography on the matter. Just a thought! Cheers and congratulations on crafting a fine article. Pericles of Athens Talk 08:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed that you followed my suggestion about adding a sentence to the lead regarding Chinese historiography. Excellent! It looks fantastic. Kind regards, -- Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
Just a few very minor format issues:
 * Ref 36: hyphen in page range should be ndash
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 38: I'm unsure about the italicisation – is "Bryn Mawr Classical Review" a print source? No problem if it is.
 * It is both. As a journal name, I think the italicization is proper. Constantine  ✍  17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ISBNs: the general norm at FAC is to standardise isbns in their 13-digit form. For Mango this is 978-0-19-822568-3; for Treadgold it's 978-0-804-72630-6; for Turnbull it's 978-1-84176-759-8.
 * Thanks a lot for providing them. Fixed. Constantine  ✍  17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments reading through now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  and the first culmination of the Umayyad Caliphate's expansionist strategy towards the Byzantine Empire - must say I am not thrilled with this sentence...sounds a bit bureaucratic....but an alternative isn't springing to mind...
 * Hmmm, which elements precisely are "bureaucratic"? Perhaps "the culmination of the expansionist strategy pursued by the Umayyad caliph Mu'awiya I towards the Byzantine Empire", rather than the caliphate as a whole? Constantine  ✍  15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "culmination of..expansionist strategy" sounds like something from an annual business report of a multinational. That said, I know what it means and I can't think of an alternative, so don't regard it as a dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Arab land army in Asia Minor was also defeated by the Byzantines, forcing the Arabs to lift the siege.  - I'd switch this to, "The Byzantines also defeated the Arab land army in Asia Minor, forcing them to lift the siege. "
 * Good point, done. Constantine  ✍  15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  It should also be noted that both Byzantine and Arab chroniclers record the siege as lasting for seven years instead of five - the " It should also be noted that" - sounds a bit essaylike. Can we just remove it?
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise reads well. I am not familiar with the topic matter but it seems sort of complete I guess....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for taking the time, if you are not familiar with it but it reads well, then my main objective is accomplished :). As regards completeness, I can confidently say that it is the most complete single account of the siege and associated scholarship I know of online, and probably (I don't have access to some recent published sources) also in print as well. Constantine  ✍  15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth


 * Lead


 * ¶3 "The siege left several traces in the legends of the nascent Muslim world, although it is conflated with accounts of another expedition against the city a few years previously, led by the future Caliph Yazid I. As a result, the veracity of Theophanes's account has been questioned by recent scholarship, which places more emphasis on the Arabic and Syriac sources. On the other hand, echoes of a large siege of Constantinople and a subsequent peace treaty reached China, where they were recorded in later histories of the Tang dynasty." – The main text suggests that most modern historians accept Theophanes's account but that James Howard-Johnston does not. Instead of saying "questioned by recent scholarship, which places...", it might be more appropriate to say "was questioned in 2010 by Oxford scholar James Howard-Johnston, who placed...".
 * Excellent point, done. Constantine  ✍  11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Background
 * ¶1 "The Arab sources on the other hand report...". – Delete "The" since this is the first time in the main text that Arab sources have been mentioned?
 * Hmmm, indeed. Done. Constantine  ✍  11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Opening moves: the campaigns of 672 and 673
 * ¶1 "The undertaking was not haphazard, but followed a careful, phased approach...". - Trim by four words? "The undertaking followed a careful, phased approach...".
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Arab attacks and related expeditions in 674–678
 * ¶2 "... led a campaign in 677, whose target is unknown." - Maybe "the target of which is unknown" since a campaign is a which rather than a who?
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Cultural impact
 * ¶2 "...account where he mentions an augmentation of tributary payments a few years later due to the Umayyads facing some financial troubles." - Substitute "which" for "where" and tighten the ending a bit? Suggestion: "...account in which he mentions an augmentation of tributary payments a few years later when the Umayyads faced financial troubles."
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Modern reassessment of the events
 * ¶1 "The Syriac chroniclers also disagree with Theophanes in placing the decisive battle and destruction of the Arab fleet by Greek fire in 674, during an Arab expedition against the coasts of Lycia and Cilicia, rather than Constantinople." - More clear without the two commas?
 * Removed the first, I think the second is best kept. Constantine  ✍  11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * General
 * No problems with dablinks.
 * No dead URLs.
 * Has alt text.
 * No overlinks.


 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Finetooth, and thanks for taking the time, and for your suggestions and edits. I have implemented most of your suggestions. Any further comments, apart from and beyond FA requirements? As I wrote in response to Casliber above, I am keen to know the impression upon the uninitiated reader. Constantine  ✍  11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on prose. Uninitiated, I found the maps, especially the one in the infobox, helpful in understanding some of the basic elements of the historic account(s). A most interesting and enjoyable read. Finetooth (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. What Finetooth has written, immediately above, applies precisely to my view of this fine article. As a complete layman I found the article easy to understand, widely sourced and splendidly illustrated. As far as I can see it meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to add my support for promotion.  Tim riley  talk    20:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Tim riley for your kind words, and a happy new year! Constantine  ✍  08:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.