Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thurisind/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 Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011.

Thurisind

 * Nominator(s): Aldux (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This biographical article is related with an article I brought here some time ago, Alboin, as the latter was Thurisind's son in arms; the topic, I'm afraid, may be considered quite esoteric as 6th-century barbarian kings don't seem to be all that popular, except with me. The good news is that differently from the Alboin article I've obtained lots of useful input during the peer reviews; in particular, following advice I had during the Alboin FAC and again during the peer review of this article, I inserted this time a section on the analysis of the relevant primary sources. Another thanks for the good people at the Guild of Copy Editors and also for the MILHIST A-class reviewers, who helped me see a number of slips hidden in the article. Aldux (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When a source has two dates, be consistent in whether you use the old or new date (you're usually using the new one, but on one or two occasions the old)
 * Pritsak 1982 or 1983?
 * Check for small inconsistencies in punctuation like doubled periods
 * Be consistent in how editors and volumes are punctuated
 * What is CISAM? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've detected the inconsistencies you were speaking of. As for what is CISAM, it's an acronym that stands for Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo (roughly translated "Italian Centre for Early Mediaeval Studies"). It's an academic foundation.Aldux (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Thurisind. I commented on this one at the A-class review. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I moved a few things around in the first section, and now I don't see a good place to put "Thurisind (called Thorisin in Procopius)". In most of our history articles, different spellings by early writers aren't mentioned, but it may be that this detail is important, I don't know.
 * I don't understand what "a rank that made him close to his heir apparent" means. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late answer: hope the rewording makes clearer what I mean with "a rank that made him close to his heir apparent". Regarding Thorisin, I agree that it's not all that important, so you did fine by removing it.Aldux (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem ... what does "close to the king's heir apparent" mean? Physically close? - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It just means that Thurisind by appointing his son Turismod governor of Sirmium placed him in a position that made Turismod heir to his father's throne. In other words, first in line of succession. I'll try to rewrite it.Aldux (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that works. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments  -- I always enjoy these, although (or perhaps because) it's not my area of expertise. Following a few minor copyedits, happy with prose, structure, and detail, just need to come back to check refs and supporting materials when I get a chance.
 * In the meantime, one thing: I don't think there's much value in linking Gepids in the infobox title, the blue shows up poorly against the burgundy background. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. supporting materials, I'll await responses/actions re. Nikki's comments below.
 * Re. referencing, I've tried spot-checking using two online sources, Bona and O'Donnell. The latter came up fine, showing no sign of close paraphrasing or misreporting the source's information, however I didn't progress with Bona because there seems to be a contradiction in the page references, i.e. p. 19 is given for citation 13, but pp. 137–331 is given in the reference entry -- in any case the online version doesn't seem to use page numbers so unsure of where I'm supposed to be looking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, sorry for the late answer but I've only now reached my computer. As for Boná, I believe there is a misunderstanding here: I used two works of his, of which the most used in the article is Boná's A l'aube du Moyen Age: Gépides et Lombards dans le bassin des Carpates, printed in 1976, (in the footnotes this is "Boná 1976", used for citations 13, 21, 30, 35, 50, 58, 59, 60), and this one isn't available online; the second instead is the online book printed in 2001, that is "Boná 2001", used for citations 16, 32, 39, 55. The page numbers in the webpage are really really tiny so it's very easy to miss them; anyways, here are the relevant webpages:, , .Aldux (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've taken so long to respond to this, just busy. Heh, don't know how I missed the other Bona ref -- anyway, spotchecks fine based on what online refs there are, so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Images
 * File:Hanoverae_MDCCCLXXVII_simply_Hangover_1878.PNG needs a non-Wikipedia source.
 * Done.
 * File:Gepid_kingdom_6th_century.png: on what source and base map or data set was this image based?
 * I'm a bit confused here. I'm not author of the map but it's heavily sourced, including many historical atlases, all listed, and they are in line with my historical atlases, so could you explain to me more precisely the nature of the problem, please?
 * File:Roman_Empire_Map.png: ditto. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the last map you asked about, it's base map, if I understand correctly what you mean, is . But if further sourcing for the specific map is needed I've added a source which has the empire in exactly the borders shown there and those of pannonia also. Hope it's OK now.Aldux (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on the prose, which flows well and makes for an interesting read.  ceran  thor 03:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, with minor comments: Overall, solid history writing. The only thing which may be worth considering is diagrams to help explain those wars; all those different armies can be quite hard to follow in text! Apterygial talk 11:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Thurisind's kingdom, also known as Gepidia". Given this is the first mention of Gepidia.
 * "was succeeded by his only remaining son". Assuming there were just two.
 * "Both of these works mention Thurisind and the third Lombard–Gepid war, which represents the only overlap between the Historia Langobardorum and the Historia Romana." represent, surely (although I could be wrong).
 * "who cut short the former's expansion into the Danubian plains". Cleaner as "who cut short their expansion into the Danubian plains" (and without losing clarity).
 * "who in their turn asked for help from the allied Crimean Tetraxites."
 * Given "the Kurigurs were forced to leave the Balkans to defend their homes", it might be worth saying where they were from (the north-western shore of the Black Sea).
 * With the quote box from Procopius, I believe you should begin the quote with ellipsis if it is begun mid-sentence.
 * "with hopes of dealing with the Goths once and for all". Perhaps would work better as "with hopes of finally defeating the Goths".
 * " in the end, only a force under Amalafrid reached the battlefield."
 * "with no less than 60,000 warriors killed." fewer.
 * "After the battle, the Gepids were never again able to play a formative role in the shaping of future events." Historical bias aside, it's hard to play a role in the shaping of past events.
 * "under him Thurisind's people were once and for all annihilated in 567" (or use finally instead).
 * Clarify that Rosamund was the daughter of Cunimund, not Thurisind.
 * Thanks for your careful reading of the article; I think I've now answered to the issues you've rised. Thanks again, Aldux (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support, still without spotchecks and with further comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mention something about Early sources section in the lead?
 * "the other 6th century source" - as it's an adjective here, should be "6th-century". Check hyphen/dash use throughout (in general, more are needed)
 * Gepid-Lombard or Lombard-Gepid, war or War? Check for internal consistency
 * "an event which is absent in Procopius' writing and is thought to have originated through oral tradition" - the event didn't originate through oral tradition, though the story of it may have
 * Wikilink unfamiliar terms on first occurrence in article body - for instance, Lombards should be linked in Early sources, not Rise to power
 * "Thurisind's rise to power is a typical example of..." - would suggest broad statements like this have in-text attribution, as in "According to x, Thurisind's rise to power..."
 * "To contain these obstacles Thurisind made Turismod, his oldest son, commander of the Gepid forces in Sirmium, an important position that made Turismod the king's heir apparent." - we might need a bit more explanation here, as to many non-specialist readers it would make perfect sense for the oldest son to be the heir apparent even if he wasn't the commander of anything.
 * What is considered the Pannonian Basin?
 * "the only one providing independent evidence of the king, accounts of Justinian's wars, and a detailed account of the relations between Gepids and Lombards and their kings is De Bellis", but later "According to the contemporary Procopius in the De Bello Gothico" - this seems contradictory, am I missing something?
 * "An obstacle that Thurisind had to overcome to reach a complete peace was represented by Ildigis, who had found hospitality at Thurisind's court." - phrasing is somewhat awkward
 * Odd tense shift in Peace: Alboin went to Thurisind, but Thurisind receives him. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have answered the issues, even if I must admit I was a bit hard pressed on how to explain that in the early middle ages the successor even in the family was not necesarily the eldest king, as I was bit afraid to derail. I'm reluctant, I must admit, to speak of the early sources in the lead, as observing Mike Christie's Anglo-Saxon FAs (who are built with a similar early sources section) the sources are generally not discussed in the lead and I would personally prefer to leave it (the lead that is) to the historical narrative.Aldux (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Has a spotcheck of the sources been done? Ucucha (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian spotchecked the refs available online, above. There were no spotchecks during the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed Ian's check. Thanks for the quick reply. Ucucha (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


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