Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel I Comnenus/archive1

Manuel Comnenus
The subject matter of this article seems particularly compelling at the moment, given the current world focus on the issues surrounding the clash of Islam and the west; and the struggle today between Israel and the Palestinians over the 'Holy Land', which in some ways echoes that of the era of Manuel Comnenus and the Crusaders. Over the past couple of months this article has expanded and changed hugely, and I believe it is now at a stage where a little constructive feed-back would go a long way towards helping the article to eventually become a FA. Proof-readers and comments would be much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Just getting started with this nice long article.  An obvious point to begin with is the introduction should probably be closer to three paragraphs for an article of this length.  See Wayne Gretzky for a recent example, or Isaac Newton for one that is a FA.  Kaisershatner 17:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The intro definitely needs to address his significance among the rules of the Byzantine Empire. Try to answer the question, "Why have an article about this guy."  (other than obviously because he was emperor of a huge state).  I think the "Character" section is awkward in its placement, but actually might work as the basis for one of your introduction paragraphs.  Try moving it directly into the introduction instead of having it as a separate section.  Also, is anything known about his early life?  Where was he born, what was the Empire like at that time, etc.  Kaisershatner 17:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also,it will be a lot of work, but inline citations are becoming increasingly required to achieve FA status, although there is somewhat of a debate on this. You might look at the discussions at WP:FAC for an idea of what people have to say about this and other subjects.  Kaisershatner 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! I've tried to make all the changes mentioned here, so I was wondering, what's the next step on the way to making this article a FA? :D Bigdaddy1204 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, it looks better. WP:FAC has a list of criteria you might find helpful before nominating this for FA status.  Also, compare with Epaminondas, a FA on a comparable subject, for an idea about footnoting.  Kaisershatner 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)  Oh, also the lead sentence claims he was the last "great" Byzantine Emperor.  From whose POV?  (Cite!)  Kaisershatner 20:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with seeing ManuelI as the last great Byzantine emperor. In lieu of what he achieved he seems to be unable to focus on any area of his frontier long enough to re build the empire or generally strengthin it. He was at least a competant emperor but is he worthy to be considered a great emperor? He managed to hold the emperor together but then again Myriokephalon occurred and the empire was dealt another death stroke and within serveral decadesof his death the fourth crusade occurred. Yamam


 * Firstly, thanks to Kaisershatner for pointing out the article on Epaminondas, I found it very helpful to compare with this article, and was impressed when Epaminondas appeared on the Wikipedia main page.


 * Secondly, about the sentence

"Manuel I Comnenus (November 28, 1118 – September 24, 1180), called Megas ("the Great"), was the last of the truly 'great' Byzantine Emperors."

I agree with Yamam that Manuel had the failings mentioned, which were an important feature of his character as in many ways it was these failings which caused the ultimate failure of the Comnenian recovery of the empire. Since the cohesion of the Comnenus family was not going to hold together after his death, in many ways Manuel's reign was a crucial window of opportunity, in which the Byzantine Empire had a chance to recover from Manzikert and achieve lasting greatness again, or if it failed to do so, face another period of decline after Manuel's death.

More specifically, in the opening sentence I wanted to convey his importance as the last Byzantine Emperor to rule over an Empire that was an empire. After Manuel, Byzantium would only linger on as a shadow of its former self, not really large or powerful enough to merit the description of 'empire' at all, except as a description that helps to identify it as the remnant of the greatness that had passed away. But if he should not be called the last of the great emperors, what can we do with that lead sentence, which I think is very important to the article? We need a way of explaining his importance here, without necessarily using the term 'great'. Ideas on this would be very much appreciated! Bigdaddy1204 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The last significant, important emperor that still managed to project Byzantine power and influence. could be a good way to start. (Yamam 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

Can someone tell me how I can fix my footnotes? I'm about to nominate the article for FA but I think this last simple technical issue needs fixing first. Bigdaddy1204 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)