Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Constantinople (674–78)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Constantinople (674–678)

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍ 

One of the most important events in the early Middle Ages, even though little is actually known with certainty about it. The "traditional" narrative is presented in detail, but I've also included a very revisionist recent view whose long-term impact on the consensus about these events is yet to be seen. Any input on improving the article further would, as always, be greatly appreciated! Constantine  ✍  12:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Images File:Solidus-Constantine IV-sb1151.jpg needs quite a lot of attention. I'm short of time at the moment, perhaps from previous experience you can see what's wrong and alter it accordingly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that the copyright is a bit unclear, and probably a copyvio. I replaced the image with one from CNG coins, which has a compatible license. Constantine  ✍  21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "This event, hitherto unique": What's unique?
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying to a comment on my talk page: the fact that you've named the article Siege of Constantinople (674–678) means that you personally believe, based on the sources, either that there was a siege or that it's commonly believed there's a siege ... then the content of the lead suggests the former. The last section doesn't make it clear why you believe this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to understand the second part of your response. To make my problem clearer, the standard historiography, as it is found in a huge bibliography including almost every book that touches even remotely on the subject, accepts the narrative of Theophanes. The last section was added a) because it is a fact that the Arab and Syriac sources don't mention a siege in 674-678 but do mention Yazid's attack (which in turn is ignored by Byzantine sources), and b) because Howard-Johnston is a very eminent scholar and his textual analysis of the sources used by medieval historians is, as far as I can tell being a non-expert, flawless. To be honest, his argument makes considerable sense and has almost won me over. I do not have the authority to say that either of the two versions is correct, so I've chosen to present the standard narrative, but include the dissenting view. I am still in search of the best way to present these two, as well as the outline of the situation I gave you just now, which is why I left you the note. Constantine   ✍  22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how the reader would get from the text what you just said. I stick to prose; I'll leave the NPOV issues to you and other reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Support
 * I don't see any issues remaining other than Dank's comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for taking the time to review the article. Dank, I've modified the sentence (and a few others) to be clearer. Thanks again, Constantine  ✍  10:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * One dab link :
 * Stephen Turnbull
 * External links check out (no action required).
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Images are all public domain or licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations (only comes up with a wiki mirror) (no action required).
 * This seems a little clumsy in its construction (to my ear anyway): "Following the disastrous Battle of Yarmouk in 636, the Byzantine Empire withdrew the bulk of its remaining forces from the Levant into Asia Minor, protected by the Taurus Mountains from the Muslim expansion." Perhaps consider "Following the disastrous Battle of Yarmouk in 636, the Byzantine Empire withdrew the bulk of its remaining forces from the Levant into Asia Minor, where they would be protected from the Muslim expansion by the Taurus Mountains. (suggestion only)
 * The use of a semi-colon here makes the sentence seem abrupt: "Arab troops under Fadhala ibn 'Ubayd arrived too late to assist Saborios, who had died after falling from his horse; they spent the winter in the Hexapolis around Melitene awaiting reinforcements." Consider instead something like: "Arab troops under Fadhala ibn 'Ubayd arrived too late to assist Saborios, who had died after falling from his horse and they spent the winter in the Hexapolis around Melitene awaiting reinforcements." (also only a suggestion)
 * Is the use of a contraction here IAW the MOS: "and the Arab chroniclers don't mention"? Pretty sure we write these in full per WP:CONTRACTION.
 * Repetition in language here: "Constantine IV resolved to confront the Arab besiegers in a head-on confrontation". Specifically "confront" in a "confrontation", perhaps reword?
 * Contraction here too: "Arab and Syriac sources don't mention any siege. Anotherclown (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review this article! I've implemented your suggestions, including alt text (although I was never very good at that). Any other suggestions? Constantine  ✍  10:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Before closing this, I'd like to know from the reviewers how the last section on the "modern reassessment" appears and what they understand from it. My chief worry with this article is whether the ambiguity of the historicity of the events itself comes across clearly enough. Plus, having to follow the "standard" account of the events did not leave me much room for the Arab-Syriac tradition, which is condensed in this section. Constantine  ✍  10:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Everything looks good to me, and I like the inclusion of the revisionist section. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.