Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:41, 29 August 2009 [1].

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, on one of the most crucial conflicts in Byzantine history, went through a thorough and productive WPMILHIST peer review, while no major problems were raised during the subsequent A-class review. I therefore feel the article is in very good shape in terms of content, citations, style, etc, as well as covering the new alt text requirement. Constantine ✍ 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see a history article here. I'm kind of new and will try and do my best to review this soon, but one thing I notice dis that lots of the images are stacked to the right. I think that th e Manual of Styles allows for images to be left aligned under level 2 headings, so you can stagger them more and it will make it look more attractive and wieghted. Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I moved the images around a bit. How does it look? Also awaiting the review. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Based entirely on prose, I've not much knowledge of the Romans.

Lead:

Despite this seeming victory, Kantakouzenos was forced to abdicate and retire as a monk in 1354, following another civil war, although he remained active as a counselor until his death in 1383. - I comprehend it, but the phrasing is awkward. I would remove the first clause, and perhaps replace it, though I have no suggestions.

Background:

In 1341, the once-mighty Byzantine Empire was in a state of flux: restored to its capital and a measure of power under the energetic Michael VIII Palaiologos (r. 1259–1282), its strength waned under his successor, Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282–1328). - Cite please

Otherwise, the prose is outstanding and I support. ceranthor 12:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed both points (hopefully). As you say you are unfamiliar with the subject, I would greatly appreciate your opinion on the comprehensiveness of the material covered. Did any points remain unclear? Are there any places where you feel I should elaborate more? On the whole, was the article accessible and understandable? Regards, Constantine ✍ 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per te criterion 1a of the FAC list. The prose looks pretty good but I'am concerned about the overall readability, which is rather low. I think this is in part due to some rather convoluted sentences that should be broken up and excessive textual fluff, which breaks down the flow. Spme examples:
- "The Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 was an internal conflict within the Byzantine Empire between John VI Kantakouzenos, who crowned himself emperor as John VI, and the regency for the infant son of Andronikos III, John V Palaiologos, which was headed by the Empress-dowager Anna of Savoy, the Patriarch John Kalekas, and the megas doux Alexios Apokaukos. " That really should be broken down; stringing all that info with commas just doesn't work. How about cutting it off after John V. Palaiologos? Only one or two of the members of the regency are mentioned later on in the lead, and only one (as I see it) is really important and can be introduced when he's killed off.
- There's some locations where cutting down fluff will help, for example "As the chief aide and closest friend of Emperor Andronikos III, Kantakouzenos initially assumed the regency for John V, doing so upon Andronikos' death in June 1341." → "As the chief aide and closest friend of Emperor Andronikos III, Kantakouzenos ~~initially~~ assumed the regency for John V~~, doing so~~ upon Andronikos' death in June 1341."
- Also, random aside comme t, are the dates adjusted for modern gregorian calendars or are these still Julian dates? If the latter, perhaps a footnote would be nice to explain the difference to relative newbies, or just an inline parenthetical aside.
- "The consequences of this prolonged conflict were ~~nothing short of~~ disastrous for the Empire, which had regained a measure of stability under Andronikos III."
- Another aside, why is there a ref for the last sentence of the lead? It's covered in the body which means it doesn't need a citation.

I think running the article through Tony1's redundancy exercises are a good idea, I hear he's a good copyeditor too. Martin Raybourne (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to run through the prose tomorrow. As for the Gregorian calendar, since it was not adopted until two centuries later, it is irrelevant here. Constantine ✍ 21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged in some copyediting, both in terms of reducing redundancies and on streamlining some awkward sentences. I will go over it again, just in case. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prose needs a polish, especially as the topic is very convoluted, with nearly all those involved unknown to most English readers. I agree with the comments above; also the "given that..."s should be rephrased; was it new that the magnates in Thrace "now" administered in a "fuedal manner", & so on. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased the phrase on the "feudal manner". I am afraid that I cannot go into more details in the article itself for reasons of balance. In short, the Byzantine state had always exercised tight control over the provinces and especially the tax revenue generated by them. This centralized bureaucracy broke down, both as a result of war and as the result of Kantakouzenos' dependence on the nobles, who essentially became autonomous barons in their lands, rarely heeding what Constantinople had to say or paying the taxes that were needed to sustain (or rather, revive) the imperial administration, army, navy etc. If there are any other obscure areas, please tell me. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid I have to agree that this interesting and informative article has multiple prose issues that could do with a thorough copyedit. I wish I had more time at the moment to do a line-by-line listing, but it would take a lot of time and space. I would advise that you contact a copyeditor from the Guild of Copy Editors and see if one will do a speedy run through of the article. Xandar 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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