Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theodore Komnenos Doukas/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2016 [1].

Theodore Komnenos Doukas[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most fascinating figures of Byzantine history. An ambitious, capable, and quite ruthless man, who sidelined his nephew, captured Thessalonica from the Latins and almost succeeded in recovering Constantinople and restoring the Byzantine Empire, only to be defeated, captured and blinded by the Tsar of Bulgaria. He was then released when the tsar became infatuated with his daughter, deposed his brother to regain Thessalonica, and ruled it via his sons for several years before it was captured by the Empire of Nicaea. In a final act of defiance against Nicaea he urged his nephew the ruler of Epirus (whom he had deposed at the beginning of his reign) to launch a joint attack against Nicaea, where he was finally defeated and captured, ending his career. The article is as comprehensive as it can get, relying on the main biographical work on him (Varzos) and complementing it with several other scholarly histories and articles on specific aspects of the period. It passed GA and MILHIST ACR without problems, and I feel it is ready for FA. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Giovanni Colonna (de)", " William I of Sancerre (fr)": terminate this template (at FAC at least) with extreme prejudice. If you don't want the link to be red and you know there's a reasonable article at de.wp or fr.wp, write a stub on WP.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Dank for your edits and the support. I've created a stub for Colonna, and will go about creating short articles for the other redlinks as well. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear ... a few redlinks at FAC (within reason) is fine. It's the "(de)" template that isn't fine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Theodor_I._Despot_von_Epirus.jpg: need more information on the source - it would appear that the given tags are for the coin itself, but not the photo
    • Hmmm, accoring to its description, it is taken from a catalogue, hence probably scanned. I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of copyright law in this case, but it can be replaced with File:Theodore Comnenus-Ducas cropped.jpg, which is fully licensed.
      • I've replaced the image.
  • File:Stefan_the_First-Crowned,_fresco_from_Mileševa.jpg: source link is dead
    • And what is the recommended solution here? Whatever the source, as a medieval 2d-object it is PD or not?
      • Is an alternate source available, or an archived link? It would be good to have a source available for verifiability purposes, so that someone could check that the description is accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has been archived by the Wayback Machine, link added
  • File:Epir1205-1230.png (original source of the map) - on what data source or pre-existing map is this based?
    • It is itself base on File:Epirus 1205 1230.svg. I don't know the author nor what sources he used, but it more or less matches what is described in the article. I thought about whether to remove this map, but it is evident from its design that it is not meant to be an exhaustively accurate representation of Epirote territorial extent, but to give a general overview. For this role the map is both useful and quite correct. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tsar_Ivan_Asen_II_cropped.png needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks interesting, and I look forward to reading it and adding further comments. In the meantime, may I suggest that you don't use the phrase "fall of Constantinople" in the lead when referring to the city's capture by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, since this term is generally used in connection with its capture by the Ottomans in 1453. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton! Good point regarding the 1204 sack. I'll change it right away. Looking forward to your review! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's The first instalment, taking us to about midway through the Epirus section, and very interesting it is, too. My comments are mostly concerned with prose issues, mostly minor in themselves, but collectively indicating that further attention needs to be given to this aspect. Two recurrent faults are (i) overlong sentences and (ii) a tendency to editorialise rather than observing strict encyclopaedic neautrality:
Lead
  • The first sentence/paragraph is overlong and somewhat convoluted. I suggest a break after "from 1224 to 1230", followed by: "He was also the power..." etc (I'd omit "real" as redundant)
  • How relevant is the "bastard" description? Why not just "half-brother"?
    • Well, Michael was an illegitimate son, and this is often stressed in the sources.
    • Maybe, but we don't have to blindly follow them without reason. However, it's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "advanced as far as" → "advanced to"
  • "In that year, Theodore diverted the army amassed to besiege Constantinople against Bulgaria, an ambivalent ally which threatened his northern flank." Not entirely clear as worded. Perhaps: "In that year, Theodore used the army he had amassed to besiege Constantinople to attack Bulgaria, an ambivalent ally which threatened his northern flank"?
  • "the splitting off of" is clumsy. Perhaps "the dispossession of"?
    • "Disposession" is not what is meant her; I've rephrased for clarity.
  • Who was "John Asen"?
    • The Bulgarian tsar John II Asen, who is mentioned and linked in the previous sentence.
  • "he installed his eldest son John as emperor in his stead" – last three words redundant
    • The "in his stead" was necessary in so far as it linked this act with his own blinding, which disqualified him. I've rephrased for clarity.
  • "suzerainty" needs a link
  • "In 1246 Vatatzes overthrew Theodore's unpopular younger son Demetrios and annexed Thessalonica" – when did Demetrios enter the picture? The last we heard, Thessalonica and its environs had been left to Theodore and John.
    • It is mentioned at the beginning of the lede, where it is implied that Demetrios succeeded John; I've rephrased for clarity.
Early life and career
  • "a daughter of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos" I'd say "Byzantine Emperor"
  • "notably refers to him" – "notably" is editorialising and should be removed.
  • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns (2nd para)
  • "an apologist for Theodore". Better clarify, as the last Theodore mentioned was Laskaris. The sentence is overlong anyway, and would be better split after the end of the quotation.
    • "Theodore" on its own refers throughout to the subject of the article; the distinction is quite clear IMO with "an apologist for Theodore, he provided valuable services to Laskaris," and the continued juxtaposition of the two in Bardanes' text. I've split the sentence up, though.
Ruler of Epirus
  • This single section runs to 2,500 words. It would greatly assist readers to navigate the section if it was divided into subsections
  • I repeat: this section is indigestibly long in its present form, and for the sake of your readers needs to be subdivided. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dyrrhachium and Corfu had been recovered" – when had they been lost? Also I suggest you lose "as well"
  • "As Michael II was illegitimate and too young..." This needlessly repeats information given in the preceding paragraph
    • I prefer to keep it, as the context here is different and I feel it bears repeating.
  • "It must be noted that" – editorialising, remove. The content of these two sentences needs to firmly attributed to sources, e.g. "X and Y have noted that..." etc
    • I moved this to a separate footnote. Regarding to attribution, this is not a matter of opinion or dispute between scholars, it is one of usage and helps clarify the issue for the uninitiated reader who might wonder why, when the main article on the Epirote principality is at Despotate of Epirus, this article goes out of its way to avoid naming it thus.
  • Another overlong sentence beginning "The Principality of Arbanon...", and can you explain what "the Epirote orbit" and "magnate" mean (maybe use a pipe-link for the latter)?
  • And another long one: "Stefan II then sought..."
  • "the homonymous archbishopric": I think you mean "eponymous" (homonyms are words that sound the same but mean different things, like "hole" and "whole"}
    • Quite right, I'm quite embarrassed at getting two Greek words mixed up...
  • The wording "...was particularly important. Indeed..." etc needs to be re-thought (see above re editorialising). Unless you are paraphrasing a specific source it needs to be rephrased neutrally.
    • I've rephrased for clarity and attribution to Varzos.

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton and thanks for taking the time for such a detailed review! I've incorporated/answered the first batch of suggestions. Looking forward to more! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will resume the review shortly. As a matter of procedure, I would prefer to strike my own comments, after I've had the chance to look at your responses. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you prefer, I've removed them :). Constantine ✍ 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of points from the above still needing attention, in particular the non-subdivision of this very long section. Reading on now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to FAC coords: Brian is happy as far as his review went. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "he aspired not only to expand his state against Thessalonica": to me "expand his state against" is not very natural phrasing. How about "acquire more territory from"?
    • I've rephrased this.
  • A map would be useful earlier in the article than the current one, since many readers will be unfamiliar with these names.
  • I think File:Epiro 1205-1230.svg needs to be translated into English to be acceptable on an en-wiki FA.
    • For both of the above, I've begun translating the map and making various corrections/additions using the sources present in this article.
  • "The election was uncanonical and thereby of questionable legitimacy": suggest "therefore" or "hence" rather than "thereby", which tends to imply agency rather than just consequence.
    • Fixed
  • "relations between Theodore and Serbia remained cordial": why "Theodore and Serbia" rather than "Theodore and Stefan" or "Epirus and Serbia"?
    • It reflects more the fact that Theodore had good relations with both Stefan II Nemanjić and his successor Radoslav, but I see your point. I've rephrased it, to follow more closely the biographical POV of Theodore, especially since good relations with Serbia were an important pillar of his foreign policy.
      You have "Despite the quarrels of the churchmen, however, Theodore took care not to let them affect his cordial relations to the Serbian ruler", but Theodore's care was not really despite the quarrels -- it was because of the quarrels, if anything. How about: "Theodore took care not to let the quarrels of the churchmen affect his cordial relations with the Serbian ruler"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Western sources claim that he offered to recognize...": Can we substitute a name for "he"? I'm pretty sure this is Colonna, but the context is complicated and it would help the reader.
  • I'm unclear on the discussion of the difference between Philip Van Tricht's views on the conflict between Theodore and Peter II, and those of other historians. As far as I can see Van Tricht's views relate only to Peter's motivations, not to the course of events. What is this contrasted with? I don't think the earlier discussion explicitly says that Theodore never recognized the suzerainty of the Latin Empire. It sounds like that must be the difference, but I think it could be clearer.
    • Hmm, the issue here is interpreting the political context of Peter's landing. If Theodore was still a Latin vassal, even if in name only, then Peter's landing in Albania, and his readiness to trust Theodore, make much more sense. Theodore also, unlike his brother, had not yet openly confronted the Latins, as the territory in Macedonia he expanded into was held by local (mostly Bulgarian) rulers. Most writers consider that Theodore had a clear anti-Latin policy from the outset, and view all his actions from the lens of his eventual capture of Thessalonica and drive for Constantinople. While, as with any ambitious Greek ruler of the time, these were certainly things he aimed at eventually, a continued Latin vassalage leaves open the possibility that he acted opportunistically only after Peter was considerate enough to present himself on a platter. I'll try to make this clearer.
      • I've split this up, and added the issue of allegiance to the Latin Empire to the brief summary of Michael I's anti-Latin campaigns, and I've expanded on Theodore's motivations behind his clash with Peter based on Van Tricht. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        That's much clearer, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Ruler of Epirus" section needs to be either split or given subsection headings; it's very long for a single section.
    • I've divided it into a section detailing his relations with Serbia and Nicaea, and his wars with the Latins leading to the fall of Thessalonica.
  • "There she quickly appreciated the wealth and strength of the Principality of Achaea": suggest "quickly came to appreciate" as slightly more natural phrasing.
    • Fixed
  • "the hope to be able to assist": suggest "the hope that he might assist" or "that he might be able to assist".
    • Fixed.
  • The discussion of the timing of Theodore's coronation gives the opinions of the various scholars in the past tense. I'd suggest switching to the present tense, which is more usual, and is consistent with the discussion of the conflict with Peter II, where John Van Antwerp Fine and Philip Van Tricht are cited in the present tense.
    • Done.
  • "titelature": I think this should be "titulature" but I hesitate to change it without checking in case there is some shade of meaning I'm unaware of.
    • No, it is an error. Fixed.
  • "to limit the blame on Chomatianos": I think this should be "to", not "on", if I understand the sense correctly.
    • Indeed. Fixed.
  • "the presumption of Chomatianos to usurp the patriarchal privilege": suggest either "the presumption of Chomatianos in usurping the patriarchal privilege" or "Chomatianos presuming to usurp the patriarchal privilege" or "Chomatianos' presumption in usurping the patriarchal privilege".
  • "i.e. for Theodore the right to appoint bishops": suggest "i.e. the right for Theodore to appoint bishops".
  • "Nevertheless, for reasons that are unknown": why "nevertheless"?
  • "Manuel soon lost Epirus to Michael I's bastard son Michael II. Returning from exile, Michael quickly succeeded, apparently with the support of the local population, in taking over control of Epirus." These two sentences say almost the same thing. Can they be combined?
  • "According to a recently discovered letter": better to give the date of discovery in the text, I think. "Recently" won't always mean the same thing.
    • Good point, but Fine does not give a date. I've removed this altogether, given that Fine's book is itself not that "recent" any more. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. These are all pretty minor issues. I will do another read through once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie and thanks for the review! I'll go over it today and over the weekend. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike Christie! I've finally found some time to work through the rest of your comments. I'll do the map over the rest of the weekend as well. Best, Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck everything except the points about the map. I'll read through again to see if I can spot anything else. I expect to support once you've fixed the map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • "Manuel was unable to prevent the loss of Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became, nor the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control": I don't think "nor" works by itself here, because the previous negative is hidden in "unable" and the syntactic parallelism is too weak. How about: "Manuel lost Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became; and was also unable to prevent the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control"?
  • You have "disquieted" twice in a short span in the paragraph about Alexius Slav.

-- Once these two minor points are fixed, and the maps are addressed, I am sure I will be supporting promotion. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New map added and both of the above points fixed. A sincere thank you for a very detailed review, and for your suggestions. Constantine ✍ 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An outstanding article. Note to the coords: I have not reviewed sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good. Agree with Mike's points above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'' the rulers of Epirus would continue to challenge the revived empire "for what they believed to be their own right to the throne" - I think this can be rewritten so it doesn't have quote marks and uses words more distant from source

Hi Cas Liber! I've rewritten this. Anything else? Going beyond prose issues, my worry is always whether the article is accessible and understandable by the average reader, who is probably bombarded with unknown names and concepts... Constantine ✍ 11:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was waiting until Mike Christie had finished above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nothing else to add Mike's suggestions tweaked the prose nicely and nothing else jumps out at me prose-wise...and I suspect it's comprehensive. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Victoriaearle[edit]

Looks interesting. Working my way through - it's a long one.

Lead
  • "The scion of a distinguished Byzantine aristocratic family related to the imperial Komnenos, Doukas, and Angelos dynasties, Theodore's life is unknown before the conquest of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204." Too much going on in this sentence. Perhaps split in some way, telling us that he's the scion of a distinguished family, but the details of his early life are unknown. "Theodore's life is unknown" is awkward as written. Also, with the links there's a sea-of-blue.
    • I've broken the two sentences up and rephrased it a bit. I can't do anything about the "sea of blue" in this case, nor do I consider it a valid objection here, as there are commas etc. separating the links. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicaean emperor Theodore I Laskaris > another sea of blue
  • Second para: second and third sentence both start with "After ... " > try varying
  • "In the meantime, he was succeeded by his brother Manuel. Manuel quickly lost Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became; and was also unable to prevent the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control. " > I can get through this sentence but there's a lot stuffed into it. Suggest trying to split.
Early life
  • "According to a letter of the Metropolitan of Corfu, George Bardanes, an apologist for Theodore, he provided valuable services to Laskaris. Bardanes writes that he "took many dangers for his sake and wrested many fortresses from the enemies and subdued them to Laskaris' rule", distinguishing himself through his valour and receiving many rewards from the Nicaean ruler.[8]" > difficult to parse. Can this be simplified and perhaps put Theodore's accomplishments in a sentence and then have another sentence about the chronicler, perhaps with an explanation of which Theodore he's an apologist for, and then the quote?
  • Yes, I think it's better too. Victoria (tk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 1210, Theodore joined his half-brother Michael I Komnenos Doukas in Epirus" >> I've rewritten this a little to try to simplify but it's ok to revert if you don't like it. I'd suggest a new paragraph here.
  • "The reason was that Michael's sole surviving son, the future Michael II Komnenos Doukas, was underage and illegitimate, while his other brothers were considered to lack the ability to rule." > a little awkward. Do the brothers refer to Theodore's brothers or to the underage illegitimate son? Maybe try to tighten so it reads something like, "Michael's only son was underage and illegitimate ..." and then straighten it out from there.
  • Suggest separating the info at the bottom of the second para, about the scholarly debate, re which Theodore is which, into its own paragraph.
    • Regarding all three of the above, I've rewritten and restructured this a bit, mostly to allow the move to Epirus to stand alone as a separate paragraph, and moved the discussion about a possible role in the Peloponnese to the "Nicaean period", as this is where it belongs chronologically and context-wise. The "brothers" obviously refers to Michael's and Theodore's brothers, since Michael II was the only son. I've clarified this again, though.
Relations with Serbia
  • "The marriage fell through due to the refusal of the Archbishop of Ohrid, Demetrios Chomatianos, to sanction it, as Theodora was closely related to the bridegroom through his mother, Eudokia Angelina, a daughter of Alexios III Angelos." > another sentence that's hard to parse because of its length and because it contains a lot of information. I'd suggest leading with the Archbishop, i.,e "The Archbishop of Ohrid, Demetrios Chomatianos, refused to sanction the marriage on the grounds of .... " and take it from there. I believe there's a term (and probably a link) for the degree of separation required for such marriages?
  • Second paragraph begins with a pronoun, but should use the subject's name - particularly in an article like this, so stuffed with names.
  • "the capture of Ohrid, seat of the eponymous archbishopric, was particularly important for the standing of the Epirote state and Theodore's aspirations." Why? Also, perhaps "eponymous" isn't necessary (certainly it doesn't mean anything to me, but it might to a subject specialist)
    • The Archbishop of Ohrid is mentioned one paragraph above. The see was the most senior see of the Byzantine Balkans outside Constantinople, and enjoyed an immense prestige, which in the hands of Chomatianos was used to bolster Theodore's claims of independence from Nicaea and the exiled Patriarch of Constantinople based there. Explaining why Ohrid was prestigious is beyond the scope of this article, but the role it played through Chomatianos is, I think, amply demonstrated in the rest of the article. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. Victoria (tk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this article because it's fascinating. But it is difficult to read and I'd like to see some more work done to trim the prose. Also it would be better if the sections weren't quite so long. I'll try to get back to it; am on the fence at the moment. I've made a few minor edits; please feel free to revert. Victoria (tk) 01:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Victoria and thank you for taking the time for this. I like thorough reviews, and as indicated above, I am always worried about the readability of my articles, especially given the relative obscurity of the subject matter at hand. I've tried to fix/address the issues you have raised so far. Take your time for the rest and thanks again. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Constantine, I'm working my way through and will post as I go along. Generally I think the prose needs some tightening to improve the flow and readability. I went through a few paragraphs and hacked out some words, diff is here, but because I'm not familiar enough with the topic I'm worried I'll hack out something that's important, so it's probably best for you to tackle. I suggest trying to minimize words such as "however", "indeed", and others like that and generally anything that's not absolutely necessary. I also think the article can benefit from splitting the long-ish paragraphs throughout - I've made a few suggestions below. At this point I'm leaning support but would like to read through to the end.
Expansion against the Latin states of Greece
  • First para in this section could be split, maybe a new para with “After a few days, Theodore …”; and another with the various interpretations of what actually happened there, i.e, para break with “Akropolites, the chronicler …. “.
    • Good idea for the split, although narrative-wise I've adopted slightly different places for the new paragraphs. I've preferred to keep the two main versions in one para, and have split off Van Tricht's commentary into a separate paragraph. I've also split the section in two, and pulled in some text from the previous section. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe make a separate para for the female regents and Yolanda.
  • Fourth para in the section can also benefit from splitting
Emperor of Thessalonica
  • “According to Byzantine custom, the coronation of an emperor could only take place in Constantinople and be performed by the Patriarch, but Constantinople was still in Latin hands and the Patriarch (now Germanus II, 1223–40) resided in Nicaea; Theodore thus turned to the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, Constantine Mesopotamites, whom he had just restored to his see after removing the Latin prelate.” >> too much info I think and can benefit from a split
  • Fourth para, beginning with “John Vatatzes initially reacted … “ could benefit from a para break, maybe at the point about the synod, “In 1227 … “ Victoria (tk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • All four of the above are done. I've also split this section up in two. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last batch:

Klotkotnitsa
  • “Contemporary and later historians like Akropolites denounced this as a sign of Theodore's duplicity and treachery, but a more likely suggestion is that Theodore, hitherto undefeated in battle, desired to check Bulgarian power and avoid the possibility of the Bulgarians striking in his rear while he was engaged in besieging Constantinople.” > Split after “treachery”, start new sentence as “A more likely suggestion … “
  • Good point. Done. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The throne in Thessalonica was now occupied by Theodore's brother Manuel” > Theodore’s brother Manuel occupied the throne in Thessalonica” or something like that, so as to have Manuel the subject of the sentence instead of the throne.
  • Tsar or tsar? Uppercase or lowercase. It occurs in both forms in this section
    • As in all cases this is an indirect reference to John Asen, it should be uppercase; thanks for pointing that out. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery of Thessalonica
  • I think it would be helpful to have date for when he was freed. The capture and seven years occurs in the previous section, so reminding the reader here of the date isn’t a bad idea
    • Good point, but as I couldn't find an elegant way of inserting it, I circumvented it by adding his sons' regnal dates. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Before the spectre of civil war,” > “At the possibility of civil war” (?) or something like that. It’s another sentence with a lot of information but I have no suggestions for fixing it.
    • Rephrased and split it up in two sentences, with some tweaking. I've also split this section up in three parts. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I apologize Constantine for the delay. To be honest, I forgot to paste these in. I hadn't read the earlier part of the review, so I don't think these comments should make much of a difference. Essentially, for a lay reader the prose is a little difficult to get through, but the article is really interesting and obviously very well researched. Victoria (tk) 20:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, no worries re the delay, I too am rather busy in RL. Again, thanks a lot for the thorough review :). I'll go through your comments over the next couple of days. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay Victoriaearle, I didn't have much time on my hands to sit down and work on this without distractions. I've made most of the suggested changes, and, in view of other reviewers' comments as well, tried to create more sub-sections. Please have a look. I am aware that the article is not for the casual reader; the dramatis personae alone is a lot to take in. But that is inherent in the subject, and one cannot expect otherwise. That being said, I fully agree that we don't need to make matters worse by bad or convoluted prose, so if you have any suggestions for streamlining the prose further, whether within or beyond the confines of this FAC, I'd be glad to have them. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hi Constantine, somehow I missed your earlier comment of 3 July (either I didn't see it, or the ping didn't work). Anyway, apologies for that. I don't have a lot of time either and sorry to have kept you waiting for so long. Essentially I think breaking the sections up as you have is helpful to a lay reader. Yes, I agree about what you say in regards to the dramatis personae - at risk of making too terrible of a pun, it's all very Byzantine. I think it's fine to promote as is. If I get a chance I might take a swing through to copyedit a bit, either before or after promotion. Will that be ok with you? Victoria (tk) 23:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victoria, it is definitely fine with me whenever you have time. Much appreciated. Constantine ✍ 11:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I think we still need a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently and appropriately cited, except as follows:

  • Book sources for which no ISBN is available might profitably have an OCLC.
  • Is "Paris 1948" part of the title on Lognon? If not, it need not be italicized.
  • You include publisher for at least one journal, and doi for another, but you're not consistent in this regard.
  • Since you are using the 13 digit ISBN, you may as well use that for the further reading as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Theodore_Komnenos_Doukas/archive1&oldid=731102256"