Wikipedia:Peer review/Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor/archive1

Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor
This peer review discussion has been closed. After a lot of referencing and cleanup work, I have hit a bit of a brick wall and could use further input on possible flaws and additional improvements (a few more refs are still incoming, but the content should be OK as is). I would like to get this article atleast to GA. Any kind of feedback is welcome, some special areas of concern are: 1) Is the article structure OK (logical and accessible)? 2) Is the content understandable for a layman? Which points are unclear or confusing? 3) If any reviewer feels like it, minor tweaks to my suboptimal non-native English would be greatly appreciated (the article had a GOCE review a while ago). But of course I'll try to implement any feedback myself as well. Thanks for any suggestions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * "was emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, reigning as German king from 936 until his death in 973." This could be taken to mean that king and emperor are the same thing. I would suggest "was king of Germany from 936 to 973 and Holy Roman Emperor from 962 to 973".
 * Rephrased. GJ


 * "In control of much of central and southern Europe, the patronage of Otto and his immediate successors caused a limited cultural renaissance of the arts and architecture."This does not sound quite right. Maybe "Control of much of central and southern Europe gave Otto and his immediate successors great wealth, and their patronage caused a limited cultural renaissance of the arts and architecture.
 * The causes are more complex. Relative peace and stability, some economic growth, the revival of the imperial Carolingian idea as well as formal "patronage" probably all contributed to this development. I am not sure, how to summarize this in 1 sentence. GJ
 * Tweaked that one to avoid an absolute statement of causality. A lot of details and influences of this "renaissance" are unknown or a matter of theories, and not really suitable for the lead (the later renaissance section needs a bit of expansion and/or clarification). GJ


 * "died of natural causes in 973." I would leave out "of natural causes" as superfluous.
 * Agree, replaced with place of death to keep the length of this part. GJ


 * "Conrad persuaded his younger brother Duke Eberhard of Franconia, the presumptive heir, to offer the crown to Otto's father Henry on his deathbed." I found this confusing. Perhaps "when Conrad was on his deathbed, he persuaded"
 * Removed the deathbed part. Most chroniclers note the persuasion part, but the details and time of this agreement vastly differ. No reason to give Widukind priority here. GJ


 * "After his death, his lands and wealth were to be divided between his four sons: Thankmar, Otto, Henry, and Bruno.[11] Departing from customary Carolingian inheritance, the King designated Otto as the sole heir apparent without a prior formal election by the various dukes.[12]" This is contradictory. In the first sentence the kingdom is divided, in the second it is not.
 * Lands and wealth refer to his "private" possessions, f.e. his family estates and wealth, excluding the royal fiefs and possessions connected to his office as King. I'll try to clarify that with another source. GJ
 * Timeline and succession details were a bit convoluted. The succession was decided in 2 steps: an informal one without much written evidence in 929, confirmed and secured in a formal Diet several years later shortly before Henry's death. The other 3 sons "only" got estates and treasure. It should be clearer now after the rewrite. GermanJoe (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "King Æthelstan of England sent Henry his two half-sisters Eadgyth and Ælfgifu". The identity of the second half-sister is uncertain. SeeÆthelstan.
 * Fixed, many thanks for spotting this one (linked the wrong sister). The mentioned sister is Eadgifu of Wessex  (or "Edgiva"), covered by the source (Beumann, in Schutz). She is also noted in the Aethelstan article a bit earlier in the text. GJ
 * There is confusion about Æthelstan's half-sisters. The number of them, their names and which one accompanied Eadgyth are all disputed. It definitely was not Eadgifu. She married Charles the Simple in 919 and was the mother of King Louis IV of France. I would just say Æthelstan sent two of his half-sisters and Otto chose Eadgyth.
 * BTW I took Æthelstan to FA and a genealogy expert insisted on saying that the name of the second sister was not known. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Eadgifu was widow at the end of 929 and her retreat to England is also disputed, she could have been presented to Otto as possible bride. However this detail is not important for Otto's bio and I'll took it out as suggested - until historians do agree on it :). GermanJoe (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "According to his biography, Vita Mathildis reginae posterior" His biography, not his mother's?
 * Changed to "her". It contains biographical information about the whole family, but it's still her biography. GermanJoe (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "At the same time, Otto had to settle a dispute with Duke Eberhard of Franconia, the brother of the former king Conrad I of Germany. After the rise of a Saxon to kingship, Bruning, a Saxon noble in the borderland between Franconia and Saxony, refused to swear fealty to any non-Saxon ruler." This is confusing. 1. Not a dispute with Eberhard, but between Eberhard and Bruning. 2. You have not stated that Eberhard was non-Saxon, and that Bruning owed him fealty.
 * 1. Clarified. 2. He is Duke of Franconia, being Saxon would be really exceptional for him (especially the difference between Saxon and non-Saxon was still noticeable in this period). I tried "Frankish Duke of Franconia", but that sounds odd. Regarding the fealty: Widukind isn't clear here, whether this was a new fief or an old relation between Bruning and Eberhard. It's probably an old fief and Bruning rebelled against his former overlord. But Widukind isn't specific about it - I can't clarify that with the available source. GermanJoe (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "freed Otto's brother, Henry, from imprisonment there". You have not said that Henry was imprisoned.
 * Removed unnecessary detail. Henry was almost always in trouble, either against the King or against enemies of the King (when he just reconciled with him) or just against other nobles, time permitting. The detail is a bit out of scope for Otto's biography. GermanJoe (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the valuable feedback, Dudley Miles. That's the kind of errors, an editor just doesn't see anymore after months of looking at the same article over and over. I'll try to fix those points, or explain in more detail where necessary, tomorrow. GermanJoe (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All points above addressed, either tried to fix or explained in more detail. GermanJoe (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More comments
 * "Liudolf's sole right to the throne would not have been militarily enforced." or "would not have to be militarily enforced"?
 * Removed, see above. A peaceful transition is the obvious goal of this meeting, no need to spell it out. GJ


 * "widow of the fallen Gilbert, Duke of Lorraine" I would leave out "the fallen".
 * Done. GJ


 * "But it was not until 950 that the powerful vassal accepted Louis IV as king; both opponents did not fully reconcile until March 953." Who reconciled to who?
 * "... with each other." My bad, I thought this could be omitted here - changed now. GJ


 * " Burgundy was originally a part of Middle Francia," No change needed, but was Middle Francia the same area (approximately) as Lotharingia?
 * Lotharingia was only the northern part of  Middle Francia, which was a very short-lived realm, stretching from Frisia all the way south to Burgundy and to Northern Italy. GJ


 * "Boleslaus' brother Saint Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia". I do not think the title "saint" is appropriate in this context - "brother and predecessor, Wenceslaus I" would be clearer and repitition of "Duke of Bohemia" would then be unnecessary.
 * Done. GJ


 * " After this initial invasion of Bohemia, the war deteriorated" deteriorated does not seem the right word - petered out?
 * "multiple ambassadors" Multiple is an odd word in this context - perhaps "on several occasions"
 * "Byzantine Empire" This section is confusing. In the lead you say conflict with Byzantium solved by marriage of his son, but here you refer to good relations and a failed marriage which you have not previously referred to. Presumably this is in different preiods, but needs explaining.
 * "As Otto was finalizing actions to suppress his brother's rebellion". Giving the year would be helpful.
 * "The submission of the West Slavs allowed the Germans to extend their control into Eastern Europe." This confused me. The heading says that the section is about the eastern Slavs.
 * The tribes were member of the West Slavic  group of Slavic people, but "Eastern" from a German point of view. Removed the confusing "West" here, not all West Slavs were defeated anyway. GJ
 * All previous 5 points rephrased and (hopefully) clarified. GermanJoe (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More comments
 * "had been subdued by Otto's father Henry years before." years before is vague - a date would be better.
 * Done. Date added, rephrased and sourced campaign info. GJ


 * Liudolf invaded Italy at the request of Adelaide's relatives and to strengthen his position against her? Also the details about relatives in this paragraph are excessively complex for a peripheral speculation.
 * This one is problematic. Nobody really knows for sure, why Liudolf invaded Italy on his own, so historians offer a few theories on the possible background. Without detail this would be impossible to understand. If I leave out those theories completely, Liudolf's actions would become even more confusing to readers. Do you have an idea to solve this situation? GJ
 * I would spell it out. It is not known why: historian a suggests b and historian c suggests d. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarified a bit differently: Trimmed details down to necessary info, rephrased motivations to a list of possibilities, merged first 2 paras. GermanJoe (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Henry influenced the Italian aristocrats not to join Liudolf's campaign." Persuaded would be a better word than influenced.
 * Not done. "Persuaded" seems too strong here, sources only mention some kind of influence from Henry, but are vague on the exact details. GJ


 * "angry at his son for his inconsiderate and independent actions." Sounds POV. Why inconsiderate?
 * Removed. In hindsight it seems obvious, that this invasion wasn't the smartest idea, or just not well-prepared. But agree, that it has a slight POV tone. GJ


 * "Despite Otto's plans to claim the imperial title, trouble arose in northern Germany," Why despite? I would leave it out.
 * Trimmed and rephrased. GJ


 * "clerical election became a mere formality in the Ottonian empire" No change needed, but were clerical appointments made by real elections before Otto's time? In Anglo-Saxon England they were always controlled by the king.
 * The situation was a bit more diverse than the quote implies, both before Otto and during the Ottonian dynasty. Some clerical institutions had the privilege to appoint their own leaders and successors. Others were greatly influenced by the interests of neighboring lords or other powerful clerics, or of course of the King himself. The candidate's popularity with his brothers and colleagues also played a role. In general Otto greatly increased the royal influence on such matters and the dependence between church and state, other factors were diminished but not completely removed. Occasional "independent" (atleast in theory) elections or nominations became even more rare. GJ


 * "The city was also the seat of Archbishop Frederick of Mainz, who acted as the spokesman for the rebels and offered himself as a mediator between Otto and the rebels, who quickly arrived in Mainz." Frederick supporter of rebellion and mediator? And who arrived quickly?
 * Trimmed and rephrased for clarity. Initially he was a neutral mediator in that case, but he was frustrated, when his suggested agreement got reversed later. GJ


 * "Otto's actions at the Diet prompted the people of Swabia and Franconia into civil war against their king." I assume against Otto? Perhaps "Otto's actions at the Diet provoked the people of Swabia and Franconia into rebellion."
 * Done as suggested. GJ


 * "but Henry's provocation during the meeting caused the negotiations to break down" What provocation?
 * Sources are not really clear on this one. Seems like he started a heated dispute, probably insulting or belittling the other lords (they were rebels, but still some of the most high-ranking German nobles). "Provocation" is intentionally vague here; historians mention, that it was Henry's fault somehow, but don't know exact details. GJ


 * "After a costly battle, Liudolf agreed to end hostilities against Otto." Costly and indecisive?
 * Done (removed). This part was intended to refer to the losses of the whole rebellion as reason for negotiations. Removed it as too detailed and confusing. GJ


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

More comments
 * "Using the civil war as a cover," How did they use it as a cover? Were they not rather just taking advantage of Otto's weak position?
 * Done, used "Taking advantage". GJ


 * "Previously stripped of his ducal title, Liudolf's allies within Swabia had been persecuted by Otto's followers." Sounds like a non-sequitur.
 * Agree, removed that sentence - the allies part is somewhat self-evident. GJ


 * "The Hungarians knew of the kingdom's civil war and its internal weaknesses" I think you have already made this clear. I would just say they took advantage.
 * Done as suggested. GJ


 * "The Hungarians possibly feigned a retreat in an attempt to lure Otto's men into breaking their line in pursuit," I doubt whether this is significant enough to be in the article.
 * Removed as theory detail. I also weakened the defeat's magnitude a bit - it is unknown, if the defeat was a complete rout. GJ


 * "was able to further consolidate his position throughout present-day Central Europe." I would delete "present-day" as superfluous.
 * Done. GJ


 * "This left Otto's third son by Adelaide, the two-year old Otto, as the kingdom's new heir apparent." Why not Liudolf's son Otto?
 * Otto II was not the only candidate left, albeit the closest choice - rephrased. GJ


 * "Several other influential Italian leaders intervened at Otto's court with similar appeals". Intervened does not seem to me the right word.
 * Changed to "arrived", they travelled to Germany to ask for help. GJ


 * "After the Pope agreed to crown him as Emperor". Presumably the Pope agreed to crown Ottot in return for aid, but I think you need to spell it out.
 * Not done. That's very likely, but exact details of the deal are unknown. It would be OR to spell it out in my opinion - readers can draw that conclusion themselves, based on the evidence. GJ


 * "the Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy were unified into a common realm, later called the Holy Roman Empire." What was he emperor of at the time and when did the title change? How did it relate Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire?
 * Some sourced information about this can be found in Holy Roman Empire . The continuity, or lack thereof, between the Carolingian Empire and the new Ottonian realm is a popular topic for disputes, but would be beyond the scope of this article. GJ


 * "Despite this confirmed claim, Otto never ceded factual control over those additional territories." Factual does not seem the right word - maybe real?
 * Done as suggested. GJ


 * "Being sieged at San Leo, Berengar II surrendered in 963." Being sieged?
 * Oops, that should be besieged - changed. GJ


 * " In February 964, at the provokations of John XII," What does this mean?
 * Removed. Vague out-of-scope detail (typo too). Allegedly, John XII had his followers and friends lobby against the new Pope in Rome. GJ


 * You refer several times to the views of the Roman people, but the article on John XIII says Roman nobility, which sounds more likely. I doubt whether the ordinary Romans had a say.
 * Not sure, that "Roman nobility" is more precise here. The Roman nobility was divided into several competing factions and not powerful enough to rule without additional support. They made the decisions and pulled the strings to further their agendas, but usually not against the will or mood of the common populace. The general "Roman people" including the nobility seems more fitting for this somewhat chaotic situation in Rome. GJ


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to address those very helpful comments in the next few days. GermanJoe (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an idea: Would you mind, if I move remaining questions and suggestions for future improvements to a separate text section? A "final" to-do list of open points would be better to work on. Of course I'll try to address as many suggestions as possible immediately, but some more complex issues and rewrites may need to be postponed till I get more sources. GermanJoe (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem how you arrange things.
 * "With this new relation between East and West, the conflict over southern Italy was finally resolved" new "relation"? perhaps "rapprochement".
 * Done (after looking up "rapprochement" ...). GJ


 * A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the thorough review and your helpful comments, Dudley Miles. I'll finish most points asap and will put a few of the more complex questions, needing more research, on my to-do list. GermanJoe (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Remaining open points (moved from Dudley Miles' comments for clarity) GermanJoe (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "The nobility found it difficult to adapt to Otto, as the kingdom had never before followed individual succession to the throne." "the kingdom had never before been inherited by a single individual" might be clearer.
 * Noted. Will improve/rewrite this part. GJ


 * "Otto refused to accept uncrowned rulers as his equal." This seems superfluous in view of your previous remarks.
 * Noted. Will improve/rewrite this part. This section, like the later "German Church" section, still contains a few bits of essay-ish analysis from the de-Wiki translation, which shouldn't be that detailed in an encyclopedic article (imo). GJ


 * "Beginning in the 950s, Otto changed his internal policy and began to use the Catholic Church as a tool of his dominance." What was his policy before?
 * Noted. See above, the whole "German Church" section needs more work and references, it's on "to-do". GJ


 * General point: There is a good deal unreferenced in the article. This needs to be fixed.
 * Agree. I already added 80 references to the initial version, but some areas still need a few more, see my compiled checklist at User:GermanJoe/Otto I workshop  for pending additional improvements. Although my main concerns are prose and content - referencing is "just" tedious routine work :). GermanJoe (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "had initial success in driving the Slavs back across the Elbe River, but it remained difficult to hold his position." Not sure about this. You say remained difficult, but you have not said there was a problem in the first place. He managed to repel an invasion across the Elbe but the Slavs threatened to invade again?
 * Rudolf of Upper Burgundy forced to flee Italy? Why was a ruler of Burgundy in Italy in the first place. This needs clarifying.
 * "The Byzantines opened peace talks with Otto, despite his expansive course." "expansive course" sounds odd and I am not sure what it means/ Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.
 * "Matilda": I don't know about Germany, but in England at the time, you couldn't turn around without bumping into a Matilda, and it's a hard slog for me to read histories that list all of the women as just "Matilda". I don't know the answer to this problem, but consider something like "Matilda (of Ringelheim)".
 * If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All improvements to my unusual English are welcome, thank you. Unfortunately it's difficult to choose another name for Matilda. "of Ringelheim" was sometimes used in outdated popular history, but is misleading (see Matilda article for details). Afaik, the surname is never used in modern historians' works. The only alternative would be Saint Matilda, which sounds odd for an article about her secular family. Anyway this Matilda is the only "Matilda" in the main text aside from a briefly listed daughter in "Family"; there should be no problems with identification here. GermanJoe (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your English is better even that what I usually see at FAC, which is saying something. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)