Talk:Leo Tornikios

Please clarify

Per: "During Leo's tenure in the East a revolt broke out in Macedonia among some of his supporters." What was his tenure? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: His tenure as "patrikios and commander (doux) of Melitene or Iberia". I have attempted to clarify this, but I did so before I saw this note on the talk page. Is it any clearer? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild yes, clearer; though on another point of clarity, the text should not rely on links for clarity and there should be consistency in how contemporaneous terms are explained (ie which term goes in brackets). Per: "He was named patrikios and commander (doux) of Melitene (according to Michael Attaleiates) or Iberia (according to Michael Psellos), both themes on the far eastern frontier of Byzantine territory." Patrikious is a member of the "partrician" class. As a lay reader, I may not know what a partrician is exactly but I am at least (more) likely to have come across the word previously. A themes is a province? This sentence is starting to get a bit complex. Suggest breaking it in two: "He was named patrikios (patrician) and doux (commander) of a theme (province) on the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. This was either Melitene (according to Michael Attaleiates) or Iberia (according to Michael Psellos)." (far eastern is redundant - unless there was a near eastern frontier?) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Good points. Thank you. I have worked on them. I am not helping myself my repeatedly finding new information, so it has not been stable enough for a proper copy edit. I think that I will pass it on to GOCE for that. All I wanted was to get Cplakidas' baby up to B class. Now I suspect that there is a GA in there if I can do the work.

Any more thoughts would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, ping me when you are happier with the product and I will look at it again. This is not an area of expertise for me per content matter but I can (and will) cast a critical eye. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I worked as a reviewer wit Cp on getting Junayd of Aydın to A class. I think it was rewarding for both of us. There was a bit of a lag in communication but this was not unreasonable. Can I suggest a collaboration with Cp to get it to GA? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: You certainly can. I have crossed paths with Cplakidas a few times, our interests are similar, and he seems a helpful and friendly sort. I sent him a courtesy note when I started working on Leo and he responded "thanks for the heads up, and for taking this on. I am unfortunately rather swamped in real life, so go ahead with my blessing :)." I will see if he is any less busy. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Let me know when you have a "final" product (unless I have misunderstood you). I would rather look at a stable product. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Following your advice Cplakidas has gone through the article. Following his advice I am about to put it up for GAN, co-nominating. Unless you advise me that it is not ready yet. Or perhaps you would care to assess it for GA? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I have been having a closer look at it since you pinged me.

• "systematically undermining it for years,": an unspecified number of years comes under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Simply omitting "for years" would resolve the issue without compromising accuracy? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "perhaps expecting a civic delegation to crown him emperor without the embarrassment": "perhaps" is speculation and uncertainty. If it is to be used, it should be directly attributed (per above - words to watch): "Person X opinions that Tornikios was ..." is suggested. "Embarrassment" is an unusual phrase and expresses a judgement. So unusual that it should be quoted. "Necessity" could be simply substituted.

@Cinderella157: Thank you. Too easy to carry over the sources PoV. Eg, Norwich has the undermining as going on "for some years". Sorted. Taken up your suggestion re attributing speculation directly to historians. Any more? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, still working through this as I get a chance. Will let you know when I have. I will go back and have a look at your responses. I have done a few A class but not GAs. A class are a panel of reviewers while a GA is a single reviewer. Having said that, I think I can do this. We can get the hack work out of the road here. That should, I think, just leave a copy vio and image check. Having said that, I would have to do a final review of the criteria. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Thanks. I have done 7 or 8 in the past 6 weeks. I find that a good template walks me through the process. I like GAHybrid; eg Talk:Leo IV the Khazar/GA1. Of course, that still leaves the actual decision making.

I have just kicked the references into shape. Ready to go now, so far as I can see. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Bewildered he withdrew his army westwards in early October." Peacockish? Suggest: "In early October, He withdrew his army westwards."

@Cinderella157: Spoilsport. It's the word the source uses. "Thwarted"?

Taken well both ways me thinks. Thwarted would be acceptable. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• "At this point most of his remaining followers melted away.[2] The army of Anatolia arrived at Constantinople and set out in pursuit. Abandoned by all of his erstwhile adherents apart from his principal supporter, an old companion named John Vatatzes". "Melted away" is a bit of a cliche. "Abandoned by all": pretty much a repetition of most having melted away. "erstwhile": peacockish. "an old companion": was he a companion who was old, a companion of long-standing or both - ambiguous. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cliché removed. The sources indicate a gradual thinning of his army rather than a single event causing it to desert him and I am trying to reflect that. Sources describe Vatatzes variously as an old companion-at-arms or a principal supporter. Amended.

• "Its ruthless sack is evidenced by, probably exaggerated, contemporary reports of 150,000 dead." A word to watch and it makes for a difficult sentence structure. Suggest: "Its ruthless sack is evidenced by contemporary reports of 150,000 dead. However, author, XXX, observes this figure is probably exaggerated." Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As this is off the topic I don't want to write too much here, so rather than quote the various sources I have taken that out.

• Finlay, George (1906) [1853]. History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 – 1057. London: William Blackwood & Sons. ISBN 978-1165515721.
• Kurkjian, Vahan M. (2014) [1958]. A History of Armenia. New York: Armenian General Benevolent Union of America. ISBN 9781604447712.
• Ostrogorsky, George (1957). History of The Byzantine State. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-0599-2.
  • The bibliographic detail as it stands appearsincorrect. For instance, the ISBN attributed to the first reference is for a Kessinger Publishing (10 September 2010) reprint. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Two of them are too old to have isbn's. I wish there was an oclc finder. I will track them down. Obviously my hard copies don't have oclc numbers in them.

I think that the oclc site helps you find bibliographic details for different versions of a work. If it is problematic, I wil look more closely for you? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I will look at it again soon to see what you have done with these comments. Having said that, I think it is probably pretty close to as good as it will get. Looked at the template you recommended TY. Will get back to you. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I have assigned appropriate OCLC numbers to the four pre-ISBN sources. I hope - this is a new one for me.

Let me know if/when I should formally submit it for GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• "he reeked of Macedonian arrogance". suggest an appropriate link. It has always bugged me.

Hi @Gog the Mild, you will note that edited per "rump". I could explain in detail. I have reviewed your edits. I think you can put it up for GA now. I do want to read it through in full but want give a small break so I am seeing it fresh eyes. Ping me in a few days and I will do the review. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: "Rump"; much better. Thank you. I think that I have been staring at this for too long too. Now GA nominated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• "and having no military experience, showed unexpected courage and energy in this extremity." This is a potential POV issue. If this is a quote, then it should be placed in quote marks. It need not be otherwise reworded, since the citation sufficiently implies the attribution. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• "Following the failure of their assaults Tornikios' men were disillusioned, having expected an easy victory." Pls confirm that my edit per the quote is consistent with the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Hi @Nikkimaria:, I am doing the GA review. I would like to ask your opinion per the image "Tornikios' attack". The original work has no copyright, though it appears to have been taken from a work ca 1980. This is attributed. My impression is that a photo copy (particularly of a 2D original work) that simply faithfully reproduces the original work has no claim to intellectual property and copyright. Provided the source of the third party image is acknowledged (as it is), there is no copyright issue? Your advice would be appreciated, specifically, that the use of the image is acceptable wrt a GA review. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• If you're referring to Leo_Tornikios_1047.jpg, you're correct that a copy of a 2D work garners no additional copyright, but the image does need an explicit tag identifying why it is PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• The date that the map represents should be made explicit and, where this varies (as it does) from the events of the article, its relevance should be put in context (ie that it is still relevant). Regards

Hi @Gog the Mild, you will see that with fresh eyes, I have made a few more edits. I just want to confirm that these are consistent with the sources (per above). I have asked for a third opinion per one of the images and have indicated a minor issue with the caption for the map. If not minor matters, they are certainly easily resolved. Withstanding these, I would be happy to pass the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Cinderella157:

• POV issue. This is a close paraphrase of two sources. I am aware that it is a bit PoV, which is why there is a mid-paragraph citation straight after it. I could add the second cite, which would be my preference; I could remove "unexpected"; or I could quote one of the sources. Which do you think would be most appropriate? These are, obviously, not mutually exclusive options.
• "easy victory". Yes, this matches my reading of the various sources.
• Image. This features in a number of articles. (Just for information.)
• Caption. Amended. Is this what you were looking for?
• Other edits. Entirely consistent with the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest "showed courage and energy in defense of the city" being a compilation from two sources. I would also suggest adding the second source.
• On the image, I appreciate your comment and that it is used in "good faith". This is just my "due diligence" and I have opted to "phone a friend".
• Per the map caption, a link to the annexation would be good, if it exists.

Other issues are resolved. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Cinderella157: Wording changed. I am away for Easter; I will add the cite once I can access the source. (Monday.) Second reference found and inserted.
• No, I entirely agree that Wikipedia needs to nail down image copyrights. (Although this is one of my weakest areas in terms of knowledge.) I wanted to flag up that if there was an issue it also existed in a number of other articles.
• Link - yes, for reasons outside the scope of this article the annexation was a major event and I can think of three sources off hand. I have used one which I can find online. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leo Tornikios/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) 22:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)		Pass
(b) (MoS)		Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)		Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)		Pass
(c) (original research)		Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	checked	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)		Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Leo_Tornikios_1047.jpg now tagged for PD US	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)		Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A tight little article. It has been a pleasure to collaborate with the nominator. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

See pre review discussion on talk page

Britannica title

@Gog the Mild: Hi, could you please add the Britannica title? Regards, --Ján Kepler (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ján Ján Kepler, yes, of course. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)