Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3

Byzantine Empire
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notices 2020-11-21 2022-12-10

This 2001 FA which dates to Refreshing Brilliant Prose days was last reviewed at FAR more than 10 years ago, and its most significant contributors are no longer active. The talk page notifications from 2020-11-21 and 2022-12-10 barely scratch the surface; the article is riddled with maintenance tags and there are concerns about image licensing, uncited text, prose, MOS compliance, and a good chunk of the very large article has never been vetted in a review process, as it was added after the last review. I believe the problems here are too deep and wide to be addressed at FAR, and the article should be delisted and re-submitted to FAC if it improves, but maybe someone is up to the task. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that FAR is an unlikely solution for this, unless someone seriously commits themselves to this daunting task. This has been one of the big impending FARs for many years... I think the biggest length issues are in the history section, which should be 3/4, maybe even half as long. On the other side, the Literature section seems embarrassingly brief. From my understanding of Byzantine music (I created the List of Byzantine composers article), the emphasis on instruments is hugely undue and much more discussion of composers, genres and music rituals should be instead substituted.  Aza24  (talk)   22:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to commit, given other constraints, but with a day in the library I could seriously improve the bloated history section. We shall see. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with SandyGeorgia. Even if it were thought that a very long article would be needed even to summarize this topic well, this is not in any shape to be considered featured article class. As Sandy points out, there are too many deficiencies for a featured article. It will be a big task to make the needed improvements and, I think, few if any reviewers available to undertake it. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. If there's a collective push to save this article I would chip in but it's way too modern for my usual area and I'm in no position to lead it.  Aside from all of the valid criticisms already made, I am surprised to see not a single mention of slaves/slavery in the article. We have Slavery in the Byzantine Empire which seems to suggest that there were major changes to the institution of slavery from how it had been in classical antiquity... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * it looks like work is progressing; are you in? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . Between Christmas and other real-life stuff I probably can't commit to  much but I'll watchlist the page and poke my nose in if I have anything useful to contribute. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC, it looks unlikely anyone can or will take this on. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC per the above. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC it seems like even basic maintenance tags are unaddressed. Apropos of nothing, I am surprised that this article manages to be even longer than my own African humid period. I caveat though that I see though that is doing a bit of work on the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been taking a break due to life, but before I touch this topic again I want to read Anthony Kaldellis's The new Roman Empire and complete my research on a draft I'm working on. I think there are some easy improvements that could be made. I prefer to collaborate with people and take a section by section approach as I go deep into the sources and more interested in factual accuracy as it supports a narrative than word smithing. Biz (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also reading this book, and I would like to contribute to improving this article the best I can. If I can help you in an adequately directed way, I would be happy to. Remsense  聊  13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your timeline like - are you hoping to work on this within the context of FAR? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I don't have time to commit due to life circumstances, have not finished Kaldellis yet because I'm 4 deep in other books, but throw me a bone... @Future Perfect at Sunrise @Furius @DeCausa what do you think is best to improve the article? Biz (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I do have time, but I am intimidated in the task and would feel most comfortable as the "junior partner" in an article cleanup where I'm possibly doing tasks specifically requested by others with more intuitive expertise, like I am presently doing at the other FAC Battle of Red Cliffs. This is a big topic of my interest, but it's not my specialty.If anyone else wants to help and knows exactly what to do, but doesn't have the time to do it—I have that time at present. I hope that's useful. I've been grabbing the sources cited so I have them on hand. Remsense  留  15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have time, and like to read sources, then I have a project that will prepare us for productive editing. It's the approach I would take and if we set this up right, I'll happily involve myself as well when I find a minute as this is the fun bit for me but also the most time consuming. This can be a parallel process to any editing that occurs. It will align people and can be used to settle Talk disputes. If more people want to involve themselves, it gives a common reference point for editing.
 * 1. Read all the sources referenced to statements and document with quotes and/or bullet points what they say.
 * Check they actually say what was written
 * Check for patch-writing
 * Use this an opportunity to identify historians who might have written more research that updates our knowledge. Bruno Rochette on language is a good example of that, as he wrote a more recent paper (2018) that, I think, responded to misinterpretations of what he wrote in 2012 (and that Wikipedia used as the basis of its narrative in the Roman Empire article section).
 * Documenting this means you can have other people help with the evaluation
 * 2. Read the article and sources in Roman Empire and see if there is anything there we can use.
 * There should be synergies between these articles
 * When these articles talk about each other as different empires, we should probably understand why.
 * 3. Finish reading Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire. See if anything he introduces supports the sources, the narrative or challenges them (the Iconaclasm is an example).
 * If you want to take this article to an even higher level, chase down Treadgold’s 1990s work and see where he and Kaldellis agree or differ in views.
 * In my view, this article should read with what Treadgold and Kaldellis have written in their books as the primary sources as they are the most recent academic historians to write about the topic at length.
 * Specialist historians on sections should be used of course to delve into issues but as we are looking for consensus what Kaldellis and Treadgold have said should be the test for consensus.
 * The act of doing this will give us plenty of inspiration to start editing and improving the article on what substantively it needs. As it’s a large topic, I suggest this is done in sections to make this less over-whelming. If there is a way to set this up as a project, other people can contribute. By reading the sources, the edit prioritization will just naturally emerge.
 * Further, by doing this, copy editing I think will be more informed and it will allow us to make the article more concise with the content that matters. Biz (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree that this shouldn't be an FA. It would be good to get a clear summary of why it's not and of what needs to change.
 * I have a lot of respect for Biz's work and especially for their careful section by section approach, but that does mean that the talk page tends to focus on points of detail and nomenclature.
 * Thus, we don't currently have a holistic overview of how the article should change. It would be good to have that. If FA review could give us that, it would be worth doing. If there is another, better venue, we should do that. Furius (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. That said, I do think Kaldellis’s book — the first new academic narrative since the 1990s — should be a standard for us to measure the current article beyond the maintenance tasks. Despite some issues, it’s remarkable well written. If we have a group of people commit to reading it before editing we will be all on the same page and the article will be all the better because of it.
 * One suggestion on approach is we understand this is a big project and do drives every so often on sections. It will make this a sustained effort then (and action will breed other action). If a regular group of editors have experience working together, they can just jive off each other’s edits. If people revert and becomes a problem, we take it to talk. What’s key is we set the expectation that we are blowing up a section and ask for people’s collaboration in edits rather than hash it out on talk. Biz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am currently already reading it as I've said above, and I agree with your praise. Also with your methodology, I am fully onboard. Remsense  留  05:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can work with Kaldellis as a foundation, I also have access to the relevant Cambridge history; I can get going in around a week, if that's acceptable. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Word counts by major section
 * Lead: 571
 * Nomenclature: 307
 * History: 10,090
 * Government and bureaucracy: 924
 * Science and medicine: 528
 * Culture: 3536
 * Economy: 418
 * Legacy: 416
 * Lead can be done last (and where Talk wastes the most time so let's stay away from it). Nomenclature has undergone a major review recently so no need to focus on that now. The Language section in Culture is 519 words, a good 1/7th of that section and larger than the two sections after it -- the languages section in Roman Empire has undergone a recent deep review by me so we can lean on this to re-evaluate this section. Oh, and history, let's look at that as clearly this needs work:
 * Early Byzantine history: 1026
 * Justinian dynasty: 1081
 * Arab invasions and shrinking borders: 1312
 * Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025): 2170
 * Crisis and fragmentation: 491
 * Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades: 1694
 * Decline and disintegration: 1282
 * Fall: 309
 * Political aftermath: 725
 * Was hoping to finish Kaldellis before editing again -- with my travel and other commitments, optimistically it won't be before January -- but hey, throw a dart and we can start. Biz (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For some reason, my non-binding pick is Crisis and fragmentation, it may be easiest to identify the article's broader shortcomings with a short cut from the middle. I can also take a closer look at Language.Oh, also, the presence of File:Bizansist touchup.jpg seems fairly...not for this decade. It needs to be replaced or likely removed, I'll see what I can source. Remsense  留  04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, the most interesting section! Crisis and fragmentation, or rather that time period, is something Kaldellis will be key for as there is a lot of new research since Treadgold.
 * It's worth introducing the historian Roderick Beaton (with his very excellent, The Greeks: A Global History) who's book tries to make a case that every generation of Greek-speaking regime collapsed when central government was no longer useful. So in the case of the Byzantine Empire, he said long before 1453 and even 1204 occurred. That is to say, this era of 800-1204 is very sensitive how we edit it. Howard-Johnston, Treadgold and Kaldellis are the leading experts on this 'middle' period so I hope you understand my reluctance to have an opinion on this section until I get further with Kadellis. Biz (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's start at the beginning? (I should note that when this FAR was opened a month ago, I trimmed the original six paragraphs into the current two). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also fully support this approach. Remsense 留  14:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Logical. Ready to roll. Biz (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

With three "Move to FARC' declarations, I'm unclear which way this FAR is headed. If you all are intending to save the star, it will be a very long effort, with work best conducted on talk with bi-weekly updates here, while a discussion of how you intend to tackle the size issue will be helpful. How will the article/work be divided, where will summary style be employed?  Alternately, if the thought is that the article will be better served by having it delisted, and re-appearing at FAC once reworked, we need to know that, too, so we can move to FARC.  I understand people are still reading the necessary new sources, but over a month in, we've seen very little actual article progress, so direction is needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Per above, it seems like we are going to keep it simple, starting with the history section and go over it chronologically. I've already earmarked several graphics that I plan on replacing or possibly removing. Remsense  留  14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work on the article within FAR, but not outside it. To be honest, the size issue is at the moment secondary to more immediate problems (OR, CLOP, etc.) History section first, then others, when we're all hopefully soaked through with knowledge. As we should be going section-to-section, and just move the comments on each to talk after it's satisfactorily completed. This will be a long job but I wouldn't expect anything else for such an important article (Genghis Khan took me 413 days on my lonesome). At the moment, I'm mildly optimistic—we have three competent and active editors, pretty much a blank sheet in front of us, and if it fails then. well, at least we tried? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I support working within FAR though these frameworks for review is not something I have useful experience in. Will need to defer to someone else's lead on that. In terms of process, I'm amenable to suggestions.
 * If we exclude the Lead and Nomenclature, there are 9 history subheadings, 7 culture subeadings and 4 other major sections. By announcing periodic drives on a section and putting eyes on it, even with just 1-3 of us, we'll rip through and make Temüjin-like progress. If we want to do this right, and on balance of all the things needed, I'd say this a 20-80 week project (budgeting 1-4 weeks per section).
 * I'll put my hand up on the slowest part of this process which is validating existing sources, evaluating other sources people suggest or from other articles, and otherwise assessing current scholarship. This will result in addressing article issues like CLOP and OR, and by extension assist with condensing the narrative which will address the big billboard problem of size. Happy to document notes and note down direct quotes as I read sources which may assist in making this work more accessible so other people can leverage it. Biz (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Sandy is probably right that we should do all the nitty grity on this FAR's talk, so we don't clog up the main FAR page with all our scribblings. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. So if I understand this right:
 * this FAR page (or its talk?) is where we document a FAR review
 * this FAR talk is where we put notes evaluating scholarship and/or other notes
 * Issues from the above two processes will get posted on the articles Talk page
 * We announce updates here every two weeks
 * After (or in parallel?) of the FAR, we do section by section drives?
 * Anything else? Who will perform the FAR? And we officially start sometime-ish this month? Biz (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that everything happens on this page or its talk, and that the improving of each section is part of the FAR. At the end, some other editors will take a look at the article and see whether they think it meets WP:FACR. Is that right ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Biz's question: the FAR is open, the instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, but there is no time pressure. Other editors will evaluate on this page whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, but it is typical for them to wait until after you all are ready for a new look and as long as you keep this page informed and that work is steadily progressing in the right direction.  (I am quite concerned that I haven't seen much progress yet, particularly in terms of re-organizing the content towards a trimmer version.)  Where you coordinate the work doesn't matter; it can be on the article talk page, or on the talk page of this FAR, but to avoid clogging this page, the nitty gritty need not be conducted here, unless you need broader feedback beyond the day-to-day improvements.  This page is for others to eventually declare Close or Move to FARC in the FAR phase, and Keep or Delist if it moves to the FARC phase. Considering there is a very large amount of work to do, my suggestion is that work proceeds on article talk, and that you let this page know bi-weekly how things are going.  If progress stalls, editors are likely to suggest Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. Perhaps an understanding of FAR functioning can be had by reading through Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 (which I I believe is the biggest rewrite at FAR to date). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pointers.
 * I've started the review with some structure on how we approach it in this article's talk page. Open to feedback to do this differently (in the Talk page, of course). Biz (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussion of approaches may also take place on the article's talk page. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing the rewrite, aided by the others here; as the two remaining !votes, is there anything in particular you want to see addressed?  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is at least one section without a source at the last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll get to that. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I still see lots of uncited sections. I am happy to cn tag the article if this is requested. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes please, that would be a great help! Biz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate feedback on two sections I've been focused on: Transition into an eastern Christian empire and Language. I still want to do more source work (last paragraph of languages needs verification; waiting for a new book on slavery which may improve the narrative) but I thought now is as good a time than ever to ask if I am rewriting this article to the standard that is expected. (I'm finding it a challenge to balance summary prose with comprehensiveness and neutrality...I've never brought an article to FA standard so I apologise for what may seem obvious to others.) Biz (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Christmas Day update: Biz has been working on the language section, while my grand reduction of the history section has gotten slightly distracted; I will be back there shortly, however. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've completed my read (40+ hours) of Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire which was my precondition before I start work on this article.
 * I'm currently focused on "society". It's two-thirds done. @AirshipJungleman29 is taking point on History and it's not an easy task.
 * Languages: need to validate last paragraph sources and final review of copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
 * Transition into an eastern Christian empire: need to validate two sources still and final proof read to make sure I'm happy with the copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
 * when I thought I had finished this, someone added a paragraph on slavery, and as I validated the sources, I ended up reading a book Slaveries of the First Millennium by Youval Rotman which helped rewrite it and which is also helping with a lot of other content (like marriage which sits in women right now)
 * I've asked for feedback on the above because I'm not confident in my ability to meet FA standard, and before I embark on the rest of the article.
 * I'm currently reviewing the "women" section and have more literature to read as it's a topic I have no expertise in
 * I'm drafting a new section on socioeconomic and legal rights, that will incorporate sources from the women section I'm reading and that will reduce that section but also make the content stronger I hope (ie, combined with other sources, broader perspective).
 * I'm still evaluating if there needs to be something on "gender" (as part of women or separate) which is something that is coming up in modern scholarship. Can only resolve this by reading a book by Leora Neville
 * Due to life commitments, I expect to be slow moving until February 5th.
 * Biz (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * History rewrite is ongoing...slooowwwwly. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * sloooooow progress. should be able to crack on next week, however. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: I hope to make some progress this weekend. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Life got in the way for me that I needed to depriortitise this. But I'm still committed. My current focus is on the government and military. Working on how to find a balance of what I can do with more consistent contributions so I don't disappear again. Biz (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikitrivia comment: This is undisputedly the longest-lived FA on the English Wikipedia, going as far back as mid-November 2001 (or rather, August 2001 per Wayback)—a total of ±22½ years. Given its tenure and current longstanding rescue mission, it'll already be too soon if the star gets taken down. (Having typed this out, I now feel really old.) Details and backstory at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * According to BrilliantProse, 26 May 2001, 08:00:45 . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * How is it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Halted, and probably will be for the next three weeks due to RL responsibilities. Working on adjacent topics, however, and intending to return. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Same with me. IRL challenges, but have every intention to continue. Appreciate the follow up. Time has flown this past month… Biz (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I copy-edited the "Society" section, does that section look better. CosXZ (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you! @AirshipJungleman29 added that copy editing tag because I wanted feedback on my writing and actually I've been waiting for this and is partly why I paused my contributions. I would appreciate your continued involvement in copy-editing as we re-write sections. Personally, I'm trying hard to write a balanced and modern narrative supported by stronger sources but it's easy to get caught in detail that another editor can easily correct. Biz (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * please try to iron out your additions in drafts, before adding them to the rewritten article. Take for example the second paragraph of this edit—none of the three sentences make grammatical sense, and I additionally don't see what relevance it has to a section titled "Central government". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By second paragraph, you mean the sentence starting with Phocas?
 * I'll review the two new sentences on nomos empsychos and re-evaluate which seems to be the only thing you cut from the revision I made. Biz (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi all, came across this a few days ago and thought I'd offer my help if there are any particular sections that could do with editing/sourcing improvements? @AirshipJungleman29@Biz & co.? Jr8825  •  Talk  21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! We are working our way down the article, @AirshipJungleman29's driving the history rewrite and also worked on Nomenclature which I also previously worked on, I've completed my work on Society and recently finished Governance. I've gone into a rabbit hole understanding one statement about nomos empsychos and related the impact of Justinian's code, which probably won't belong on this article but reflecting on its relevance still, and plan to focus on military, diplomacy, law after that which has some overlap on the work I've already done.
 * Economy, architecture, Daily life, Science and medicine, Religion would be next after that so that would be a great place you could pick up on. Arts @Aza24 has previously said they would work on, but otherwise open field! Biz (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Starting work on literature in my sandbox. Should get to Art and Music after –  Aza24  (talk)   19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've completed a draft for a new literature section, see User:Aza24/sandbox (perma link: )., does it seem too long? I was going for as concise as possible, but don't know if I've overstepped. I'll paste it in after I copy edit and go through the sources once more. Should get started on the art section in a few days. –  Aza24  (talk)   21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've responded with feedback. @AirshipJungleman29 should also take a look. Biz (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've made some adjustments (moved your comments to the bottom of the page with replies).  Aza24  (talk)   04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't have much time to take a look at this at present. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries! The Byzantine Empire will be waiting, since you can't go back to Constantinople anyways.  Aza24  (talk)   21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My new literature section has been added. Thanks again Biz for your feedback! I'll look towards doing Art next sometime soon –  Aza24  (talk)   02:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work. I've updated the status of the article here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3. Let's use that page to coordinate on the work, and keep this page for general updates. Biz (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood! Nice system you got there  Aza24  (talk)   16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * After 8 and a half months, this article is still not close to meeting the FA criteria. There are still uncited sections, including the entire "Military", "Clothing", and "Relationship with Western Christendom" sections. Progress also seems to have stalled, with information added recently getting reverted several times. While I appreciate the work done to try to save this, it might be better if it goes to FARC so that it can be evaluated for delisting. Z1720 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the three sections until more work can be done on them.
 * If there is a list of specific issues you want done by a certain time period, I'm happy to prioritise this over the line by line by section review that is currently occurring (albeit at a leisurely pace as I did not think there was a rush and it requires readings and reflection)
 * As for the reverting of some of my edits, this has not been a problem for me, as it keeps me to a higher standard when done respectfully. And of the litany of other editors where this occurs, it's been appropriate as we've had talk page consensus on these issues. But I can understand it does not look good. Biz (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The concern is not about specific sections: it's that FAR is about evaluating whether the article should still be considered an FA. Having extended comments on a review makes the FAR page difficult to load, and discussions on article improvements should happen on the article's talk page, while small corrections should be discussed on nomination pages such as FAR. If the article is so far away from the criteria that it cannot be fixed in a couple of weeks, my opinion is to delist it and work on it without the time pressures of FAR, and it can be renominated at FAC when it is ready. Since this has been open for 8 months, and citation problems still exist (even after the above sections were removed) my opinion is that the article probably needs a lot of work to get it back to FA status, which should happen on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. I defer to yours and others judgement. Personally, I like the idea of keeping this as the oldest FA on Wikipedia so would prefer a process where I have time to improve it which is how I understand FARC with extensions is.
 * I do want to say that the articles talk page has been inhibiting progress on this article these last few years. Since this FAR started, I've become along with others one of the top authors in the articles history. The work I do is not superficial and will take months. For example, the previous FAR editors added citations but when I checked one, it was to the contents pages (as I read all the sources); and this Bleicken book I've hunted down that is referenced in modern scholarship I've come across is referenced in other articles (ie, Principate) and now that I've read half of it says something completely different to what people think it says (ie, terms like principate/dominate need to be dropped, it was the same legal system since Augustus, there was no hellenistic autocracy change in the emperor which nomos empsychos has been used to represent, etc). Biz (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I went down a nomos empsychos rabbit hole, reaching out to academics as it's a multi-disciplinary issue across history, jurisprudence and philosophy. As for why, I've come to realise it's important for this topic, as it underpins narrative bias historians have (ie, Prinzipat und Dominat, Bleicken 1978, 22–24 uses it for periodisation of the Roman Empire that others refer to; Kaldellis all together rejects it; and it separately has had a huge impact on medieval and modern law but that's beyond the scope of this article though it does link to the section about law as it was in Justinian's code). If someone can help me obtain access to Bleicken which I've had trouble with, I would appreciate that. UPDATE: it only took a few hours and two months but I found this out-of-print book that all the scholars reference; now I just need to learn German...
 * Military is a complex topic I'm reading about now and plan to draft new copy hopefully this month when I get some free time. Biz (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am free once again, and expect progress to be made swiftly and efficiently over the next month. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)