Talk:David (son of Heraclius)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Haukurth (talk · contribs) 23:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Haukur (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The word caesar is linked twice and the page it goes to doesn't quickly help the reader trying to get up to speed on what the title meant in the seventh century. Maybe linking to the section Caesar_(title)#Byzantine_Empire would help a bit more. Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Done[reply]

Having a body consisting of one section bothers me a little but I can't find anything in the MOS prohibiting it. Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about balance. First we have an account of Tiberius in 155 words and then we have an account in 278 words, saying the same thing at only slightly greater length. It feels repetitive. If there is little potential for expanding the body then maybe the lead could be shortened a little bit. Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened it as best as I can without removing the actual narrative. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Bellinger & Grierson 1992 deal with coins but presumably poor Tiberius never got around to minting any? And presumably no contemporary artwork or anything like that survives. Maybe we could have an image of Tiberius' name as written in some old source mentioning him? Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grierson does mention him but gets quite a bit wrong about him; you are correct that he lacked coins. Usually coins minted would be used to make portraits, so those are out. I'd love to add in an image, but I both doubt there's an image of his name and doubt its usefulness. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The body

I assume that the article is so short because the primary sources are very scant and this is basically all we know. Maybe this could be explicitly stated somewhere so that the reader doesn't surmise that this is a short summary of vast amounts of data. Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most frustrating part of people where we know very little is virtually no RS will ever straight up say "we don't know much about them." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have some idea of what the primary sources are here? Like, who is alleging that Tiberius was involved in banishing Pyrrhus? Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a list of primary sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are three other languages that have a Wikipedia article on this guy and we should link to them, including de:David Tiberios. Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I note that the German article has Δαβίδ Τιβέριος, should we have that too? Also, is Tiberius totally standard in English works or are there sources using Tiberios as well? Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt to add it. "Tiberios" is a more greek rendering of Tiberius; the usage of Tiberius vs Tiberios is tied into a dispute over whether or not the Byzantines were Greek ethnically, and whether they were the Roman empire. Latin names are usually used for leaders for this reason. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong preference between -us and -os, we should probably go with whatever the most recent English-language sources of highest quality are using. But isn't it a bit surprising to use Tiberius and Martinos for a pair of brothers? Haukur (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair point; I copied the name from the PBMZ source without considering the Germans like to use the greek names. We can CSD the GAN Page, I'll move it to Martinus, and then re-create the GAN page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We might also consider David Tiberius as a title, since David is so common in the sources we are using. But I won't insist on this if you prefer emphasizing the regnal name. Haukur (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually with regnal children it's much more useful to say Name (son of); it's not common practice to put both names together for article titles if a person gains a new name. I think the Tiberius title should stay, but I'm certainly in favor of changing the title of Martinus. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The German article has two possible birth years, presumably reflecting conflicting ancient sources. Can we have something on that here? Can we at least have a range of years for when he might have been born? Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for a source for this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"After Heraclius died on 111 February 641, he declared that Constantine III and Heraklonas would co-rule the empire under the regency of Martina." I don't get it. Who is the 'he' making the declaration? Presumably not the dead guy. Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dead guy in his will; I've clarified. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apparently John of Nikiû is an important primary source here. And apparently "David Tiberios was entirely unsuitable for the role of co-ruler and potential heir to the throne, as he was deaf-mute."[1] This sounds like something that needs to be mentioned. Haukur (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A confusing situations; De Imperatoribus Romanis states that Theodosius, not Tiberius, was deaf-mute. They cite far more sources for this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John of Nikiû apparently says this: "And next he marched with a large force to the city of Byzantium and he captured the palace, and he had Martina and her three sons, Heraclius, David, and Marinus, escorted forth with insolence, and he stripped them of the imperial crown, and he had their noses cut off, and he sent them in exile to Rhodes. ... And the youngest son of Martina was castrated, through fear, as they said, of his becoming emperor when he grew up. But the child could not endure the great wound, and straightway died. And the second of her sons was a deaf-mute, and so was unfit for the throne. For this reason they did him no injury." [2] So now I'm pretty confused about a lot of things. I'll check the secondary sources tomorrow but some sleep might be a good idea now. Haukur (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The son which was not killed was Theodosius and I have secured a source saying such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having read some of the secondary sources today, my understanding is that John of Nikiû is the only primary source we have on the downfall of Martina and her sons. And I'm assuming that the secondary sources are interpreting his not entirely clear account in different ways. So, the deaf-mute child and the child that died of castration could be taken to be David and Marinus - or some previously unmentioned sons 4 and 5. But I have yet to find a source that actually discusses this problem and addresses what ambiguity there may be. Haukur (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added info on it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, one thing we need here is more Stratos. The article currently cites volume V of his Byzantium in the Seventh Century which deals with the years 685–711 and doesn't mention David Tiberius at all. We need the earlier volumes. From snippet viewing on Google Books, I can see that Stratos does discuss details on David Tiberius which we need, including his putative birthday. The Prosopographie also cites Stratos as one of the key studies. Haukur (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the citation, but I don't actually have access to the book so I can't add anything from it. I'll be going to College in about two weeks so I may be able to gain access then. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a convenient overview of Martina's children: [3] Primary sources mentioned include Theophanes, Zonaras and the History of Patriarch Nikeforos. I am not, of course, saying that we should be drawing novel conclusions from primary sources - but that we should use secondary sources that explicitly discuss the primary sources. Haukur (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a link somewhere to Political mutilation in Byzantine culture. Haukur (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Major missing sources

All right, after some more looking into this I think the major problem here is that the article currently lacks most of the sources that discuss David Tiberius in any detail which prevents us from creating an article that is broad in its coverage. The most important missing sources seem to be the following:

Byzantium in the Seventh Century vols. II–III by Stratos
"Pote exethronisthi o autokrator Irakleios B' (Irakleonas)" by Stratos
History of the Byzantine State by George Ostrogorsky
Das geteilte Dossier by Paul Speck

My university library has Ostrogorsky but probably not the others. Haukur (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best to get my hands on these. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll figure this out. Good work so far. Haukur (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now have Ostrogorsky's History (the 1980 English version) and it doesn't have what I thought it did. I need to retrace my steps here. Haukur (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gone through multiple 1000 page tomes on Byzantine history that do not even mention our guy. This is wonderful, I love obscure figures like this. Haukur (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we all. What's worse is with a lot of obscure Roman dudes sources will throw in a "this guy exists" and tell you nothing, so you've got half a dozen good sources vouching for his existence and telling you absolutely nothing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The prose

I found this to be a difficult read, to a large extent it's a soup of names. We should try if we can make it a bit more accessible somehow. Maybe a quote from a primary source could add some color and help break this up? Haukur (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources mentioned on dewiki

Zuckerman 2010, mentioned and linked to on the German Wikipedia, tells us this:

"We now learn that Martinus became Caesar between January 4, 639, the day he was acclaimed as a simple nobilissimus, and November 8 of the same year, since our document cannot be later than November 9, 641. Mitthof’s indication (reproduced by Gonis) that Martinus’ promotion took place between October 10, 639 and October 9, 640—in which case our document would have been dated from his second year—is due to an oversight."

This is presumably the most up-to-date analysis so probably what we should go with, while mentioning the confusion around this. Haukur (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is very confusing, Zuckerman renders the dating of when Martinus became nobilissimus as 4 January 639 instead of 4 July 638, which is a very big change for something that isn't supposed to be interpretable. First have to figure out which of the "start" dates is correct. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is super-confusing! Haukur (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zahnd (2008) deals with the name David and the context in which it was chosen for our prince. This definitely deserves to be summarized and it's available online. [4] Haukur (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak German, but I'll see if I can translate it decently. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaegi (2003) is a whole book on Heraclius, which seems promising. My library has it so I'll see if I can get it later today. Haukur (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have it now. The most interesting thing at first glance is that it has a quotation from a primary source describing the ceremony on July 4, 638, here's a part of it:

"There was prayer for the despotes David as the kamelaukion was placed on his head as he ascended to the rank of Caesar. That having been done, the most glorious Patricians were summoned according to custom, and they entered the Augusteum and received the great emperor and his sons, with the Caesar being present." (Kaegi 2003:265–266)

Done

This is cited to "Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De cerim., ed. J. Reiske (CSHB; Bonn, 1829) 627–628." I think it paints an interesting picture and might be worth quoting in the article. Haukur (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant to add the citation for this one, as it is only being discussed, and the CSHB has some serious issues in the later volumes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This turns out to be De Ceremoniis and the page mentioning David is here: [5] You can see "Davidi despotae" down there in the Latin translation. Haukur (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaegi also cites pages 629-630 for a following ceremony mostly to do with H's daughters. But David is mentioned here too and hailed along with his siblings. The Latin translation reads: David Caesar, tu vincas.[6] "David Caesar, may you be victorious". Haukur (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the tu vincas is actually right there in the Greek text too! Kaegi comments: Scraps of Latin (tu vincas, conquer!) in the Greek text reinforce the echoes of the empire's Roman heritage. The document is reminiscent of much more ancient Roman protocols and public culture, and public spectacles. Heraclius and his family made a point of showing themselves to their subjects in ways that matched public expectations even as illness and age was taking its toll on Heraclius himself." (Kaegi 2003:268). Haukur (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added in. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice at first but Kaegi is available from the usual sources as a pdf. He discusses these ceremonies at some length with commentary on their significance (such as it was). I think this might even be good for a whole section. Heraclius really tried hard to keep this all together but none of it worked in the end. Haukur (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a preview of the book from Google books but I can't see page 266, which I believe has more. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are the usual sources and the usual sources. Or if that's a no-go I could send you scans of a couple of pages. Haukur (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've acquired the PDF; I'll scan through it and see if I can find anything more to add to it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Believe we have gleaned all we can from Kaegi; that said, it marks a 50% increase in prose size. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think we can have some commentary on how these big ceremonies were meant to shore up the credibility and unity of the imperial family. There's a 2019 article which goes into this too: "The shifting importance of dynasty in Heraclian ideology" by Mike Humphreys. I can read most of it at Google Books.[7] Note that Humphreys stresses the importance of David receiving the very same kamelaukion that Heraclonas had used. Message: We're one big happy family. Reality: Tensions boil over as soon as the old man dies. Haukur (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with using the source is that it lacks page numbers. I'll see if I can find a copy with page numbers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is some annoying new thing Google Books does. Haukur (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hahn 1981

I added a citation to Hahn 1981 for the regnal name business. He also has a relatively long discussion on the problems surrounding the coinage of the year 641. He mentions David twice there. The book is available from the usual sources. Haukur (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hennessy 2001

Here's a scholar linking David's name to the David Plates:

"It is worth mentioning that Herakleios had a son who was named David, and he was made co-emperor under the name of Tiberius. The plates are datable from their stamps to between 613 and 630, but most scholars argue for 629 or 630 ... It is conceivable that the plates commemorated his birth, which occurred after several of the children of Herakleios and Martina had been born malformed or died very young. Could the iconography of the boy hero be more suited to the son and namesake than to the father, and therefore suggest that the plates were made for the young prince David?" (p. 131) [8]

This idea might even give us an image to use. Haukur (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done; have added image. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stratos

From searching for 'Marinus', 'David' and 'Martina' on that Stratos book, I'm more and more convinced that he has the content we need to finish the article.[9] I may just go ahead and order the book by interlibrary loan. Haukur (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stratos 1975

I registered for the journal and got the 1975 article by Stratos. He's comparing and evaluating a bunch of primary sources and trying to work out the chronology. He mentions the ascension to the throne of David Tiberius in October 641:

Ἔκ τῶν Βυζαντινῶν Πηγῶν, αἱ ὁποῖαι καὶ αὐταὶ δὲν εἶναι σύγχρονοι, ἡ πλέον σοβαρὰ εἷναι τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Πατριάρχου Νικηφόρου, τὸ ὁποῖον ὅμως σταματᾶ μὲ τὴν φυγὴν τοῦ Πύρρου, τὸν διορισμὸν τοῦ Παύλου ὡς Πατριάρχου (Ὀχτώβριος 644) καὶ τὴν συμφωνίαν Μαρτίνας καὶ ᾿Ἡρακλείου μὲ τὸν στρατηγὸν Βαλεντῖνον, προφανῶς ᾿Οκτώβριον τοῦ 641, διὰ τῆς ὁποίας ἀνεκηρύχθη τὸ ἄλλο παιδὶ τῆς Μαρτίνας ὁ Δαβὶδ-Τιβέριος ὡς τρίτος βασιλεύς. (Stratos 1975:189–190)

So, apparently he's citing Nicephorus for there being an agreement (συμφωνία) between Martina and Valentinus on raising David to the throne. But my Greek is no good and this is hard to work with. The book by Stratos would be a more suitable source and it hopefully incorporates any important points he makes in this article. Haukur (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Synodicon Vetus

I've checked the 1979 critical edition of the Synodicon Vetus (available from the usual sources). David is mentioned briefly on p. 114. The translation on p. 115 runs like this:

"In addition, the thrice-blessed Pope John of Rome – for he had succeeded the monothelete Honorius – assembled a divine and sacred synod and, anathematizing Sergius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, proclaimed two natures and energies in our Master and God Jesus Christ, and afterward he sent a decree of orthodoxy to David and Heraclius, the sons of Heraclius."

The footnotes in the edition maintain that this account is a confused mess and that Constantine and Heraclonas were the recipients of the letter. They cite Histoire des conciles but partly disagree with it: [10]

This is pretty marginal stuff. I guess we could maybe have a footnote mentioning that David is spuriously attested as a recipient of this papal letter. Haukur (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is another interesting example of the use of David. I guess since he was Tiberius for like 15 minutes that name didn't get a lot of circulation. Haukur (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think this can safely be added, as it does add some background. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interlibrary loans

I've filed a request for an interlibrary loan for volume II of Stratos (1973) and for Paul Speck's Das geteilte Dossier (1988). That ought to give us what we need to wrap up Tiberius and Martinus. Now we play the waiting game. Haukur (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We won the waiting game a lot faster than I'd thought due to the very helpful User:Worldbruce. I've sent you an e-mail Haukur (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coinage

We need to figure out the coinage situation. Stratos accepts the identification in Sabotier of a coin with three co-emperors, including David-Tiberius. See here: [11] Haukur (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having now actually read rather than just skimmed the discussion in Hahn (1981:87), this is what he's saying: The mints sometimes resort to type immobilisé, continuing to mint the same coins even after an emperor has passed or the situation has changed in some way. In the case of the 641 coinage this might have been an especially tempting solution since 'three emperors' was (more or less) true for two periods in the year; first Heraclius Constantinus + Heraclonas + David (as Caesar) and then Heraclonas + David Tiberius + Constans II. He notes that this doesn't fit perfectly since the coin has the wrong sort of crown for David (in the period where he is Caesar) and the long beard is not a great fit for Heraclonas. He points to a version of this coin with an epsilon on the back along with the Heraclius monogram (coin #53 in his Heraclius gallery). He suggests the epsilon stands for heteros and that this three-emperor coin represents (awkwardly) Heraclonas and two co-emperors. Haukur (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hahn's coin #53 with the epsilon turns out to be a coin we already have, I've added it here. Haukur (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is clearly not the same coin that Sabotier identifies as showing Heraclonas + David Tiberius + Constans II. Haukur (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Hahn section to the article; not sure how to work in the Stratos bit, or if it is superseded by Hahn's work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've suspected the Sabotier identification was wrong since it doesn't seem to be discussed by recent sources (apart from the reference in Stratos 1972). And now I've finally found a reference to a rebuttal: [12] So the coin referred to by Hahn is probably what little there is. I'll update to reflect. Haukur (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some further notes: Louis Félicien de Saulcy. Rebuttal of id: [13] Haukur (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up

I feel we have enough sources and content now that we can justifiably say that the coverage is broad. And the article is illustrated too! I just want to take a closer look and make sure the text reflects our sources in a balanced way and see if we can improve the prose a little bit. But I think the end is in sight. Haukur (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stratos and the chronology

Stratos 1972 is a real joy to read. He's such a loyalist to the Empire that he even goes out of his way to defend political mutilation as really pretty humane when you think about it and certainly better than what those savages in the West were doing.

But anyway, Stratos discusses the chronology of the fall of Martina's family in much greater detail than our other sources and shows that there is a lot of uncertainty. I'll try to update the article to reflect this. But first I should probably struggle through more of his 1975 article in Greek in case he changed his mind on something. Haukur (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stratos (1975). "Πότε ἐξεθρονίσθη ὁ Αὐτοκράτωρ Ἠράκλειοσ Β'". Byzantina.

Just putting this here so I don't misplace it. Haukur (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I bet you thought this would never happen but I'm done. I now think the article is up to the GA standard. But now that I've edited it so much myself I don't know if it makes sense for me to pass it as a good article. I'll ask a mentor. Haukur (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: Could go either way. You have done a lot, but I don't think you've lost any objectivity in the process. Worst comes to worst, we'll re-nom it together. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: I have added all I can from the Stratos source, I believe we have done all we can. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition. I agree that the article is complete. I may still add a couple of cites to Speck but his book is highly speculative and shouldn't be given undue weight. As I've said before, I'd pass the article except that I feel it would be inappropriate after I've contributed so actively to it. I've asked User:The Rambling Man to take a look but he has his plate full and I don't want to rush him. Haukur (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I will be here soon. I've had a bit of a backlog to cope with, but this is next up. Seriously though, I think we could arguably skip GA and go for FA given the brilliant work done here. I'm happy to go through the motions to smooth the path I suppose, but I don't see anything standing in the way of a bronze star. Give me a couple of days to get this formality done, sorry for the delay. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. Haukur (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Hello, wondering if you know when you will have time to finish off this review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes I sure will. I've just come off the back of the GAN drive and am a little Wiki-weary, and have had some off-wiki things to deal with. But I'll definitely be trying to get through my backlog soonest. Sorry for the delays. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Apologies, do you know how soon you will be available to finish off the review? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges, Haukurth, The Rambling Man hasn't edited since the end of November, and the indications are that he's withdrawn from Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. This review has been sitting so long I think another reviewer will be needed to finish the review here. If Aircorn is willing, which I think was indicated on the companion article review to this one (though I could be mistaken), I would advise going forward that way. If not, perhaps a call for a second opinion to get a new reviewer is probably warranted, since both of the reviews have been open for over four months. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Dweller has stepped forward. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pick this up as and when I can. Do you want my comments/suggestions here on this page? As mentioned, I'm not that familiar with GA processes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would just to keep everything in one place. I have seen these closed and new ones opened though, so that is an option. As long as it is clear what is happening, the history can be followed and everyone agrees there is no set procedure. If you stay on this page you can collapse the old review if you want. See Talk:History of anarchism/GA1 for an example of one I recently took over. AIRcorn (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My time's very pressed but I'm happy to help. If you prepare a space for me, and ping me there, I'll do my stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you were needed there. You are welcome to if you want though (although I have nearly finished it). I was more meaning to give you an example of how you can finish off this review. I saw your message at User talk:Haukurth#Message from User:The Rambling Man, which is why I pinged you in response to Blues ping of me. I am the opposite of you in that I do a reasonable amount of GA reviews, but don't really touch FA. If you need some advice here I can offer it (I have it watchlisted for now). AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, ta --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller's review

This is a really good piece of work. I'm just digesting it and will post queries and comments here. If this is the wrong place, feel free to move it and ping me. If my standards seem excessive, please tell me, I'm more used to FAC. In any case, I'm always open (in any circumstances) to good arguments. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the topic of the first use of "Tiberius" has been a bone of contention, but can't see discussion about it. It is odd and confusing for the reader to have to get so far into an article about someone called Heraclius, without seeing his name mentioned. I'd suggest It opens "David (known to history by his regnal name Tiberius)" or similar.
Done
David's name - we're either too strong in the lead or too weak in the body copy about how certain we are for the reason for his name.
Done
The wikilink to Caesar is unhelpful. Can you choose the right subsection of that article? For a novice to the story it seems odd to counterpoint Caesar and Emperor, when common knowledge would hold them to be the same, and indeed, the article seems initially to support the ambiguity.
Done
"despotes" given in the quote, you might as well explain it before the quote
Done
Hatred of Martina a) was uncle/neice "incestuous" in those times? Pretty banal for classical Roman times b) "her unconventional habits" is just way too vague. What on earth was the woman doing?
Added what I could. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 641 Heraklonas was approx 15 (worth saying that). Why did that make Martina effective ruler? Surely 15 was old enough (how old was seen as old enough?)
He was actually 11 at that time, being born in 630, and becoming "sole ruler" in 641. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Odd to refer to Constans II by that title before he is crowned
@Dweller: Not sure exactly which part this is about?
"further donatives" - no previous donatives mentioned. It's not the most transparent of terms either.
Done
I've seen your response on the name. I think it's a real problem and you need to discuss it more. The opacity you're creating is spotlighted perfectly by this:
"Tiberius as co-emperor The coronation of David"
Not sure what I can do to discuss it more, currently both the lede and the section containing his coronation explain the change. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"One dubious source" - We can't claim a source is dubious without citation - the sourcing follows long after the claim and needs to be moved up
Done
The last mention on the page of Heraklonas seems to call him "Heraclius", which needs correcting or explaining
Done
"Deposed already" What's the significance of the "already"?
Done
Blue faction needs a wikilink
Done
"The fortune of Constantine our God-protected ruler and of the Blues is victorious." is that a quote from an English language source? It's an awful translation
Stratos is Greek, and I'm guessing his translation sounded a lot more fluid in Greek than it did once translated again into English. Sort of a "Chinese whispers" of bad grammar. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you mean by "a certain David" but it's at best ambiguous (David was not very certain about what he was doing) and at worst opaque English to some of our readers
Done
"and defeated first David" unfortunate phraseology where two Davids are on the scene
Done
"The sources report" - they agree?
Done
Citation 53 needs a page number
Can't seem to find the reference except in his 1972 work, appears I put down a Stratos 1975 ref before realizing it was actually his 1972, and forgot to remove the 1975 one.

I'm done now. Great work all --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Believe I've done all you've asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the kind of feedback you're after, to get the article over the line to GA? IMHO it just needs this type of fixes (and not that many more) and it's there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is good! On the name: The thing is that he really isn't known to history as Tiberius but to the extent that he is known at all it is as David. The primary sources have, as far as I can tell, exactly one mention of his regnal name - otherwise the primary sources refer to him as David. The secondary and tertiary sources tend to use either David or some variation of David-Tiberius. Haukur (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry for the delay in returning. If the sources call him David, so should we. I suggest a page move. Otherwise, all good. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Dweller, Haukur, Iazyges, where does this review stand now? It looks like Iazyges has responded to all of Dweller's points; Dweller, are you satisfied? What else is needed for the article to meet the GA criteria? It would be great to get this review concluded as soon as feasible; it's six months old today. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs a page move. Otherwise, I'm happy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller and Iazyges: Does that mean the article should be promoted? We have a backlog at GAN so it would be good to get this closed. b uidhe 22:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did finally read through this again and made some minor changes. I have no objections to promoting the article. Haukur (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting per reviewers Haukur and Dweller. Thank you all for finishing this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]