# Talk:Apion family

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apion (family)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 22:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy to review this article.


### Review comments
#### Lead section
Consider unlinking plural (common word).
Sasanian conquest of Egypt – a date added here would be useful.
The lead section does not really cover the main points of the article properly, and could do with being expanded to two paragraphs. See MOS:LEAD for guidance here.


#### History
It would be appropriate for the English version of the map to be included here, instead of the one show, which is in Latin.	
The family's origin – as this text marks the start of the article, I would amend this to something like ‘The origin of the Apion family’.
some time is redundant and can be removed.
add a comma after belonged to the family.
His father, Flavianus, had doesn’t require commas.	
I would give the dates for the Anastasian War, as readers may not be familiar with it	
The sentence beginning He was responsible for provisioning is too long, and requires splitting. The three citations at the end of the first paragraph may need to be moved accordingly.
a relatively obscure figure – why relatively? I would simply say ‘an obscure figure’.
Are all 4 citations needed at the end of the 2nd paragraph? Ref 12 (Hickey) seems adequate.
Is there a date for the reconstruction of the Hagia Sophia?	
ca. 548–550 – I usually try to use {{circa}}. Also, it’s not clear if you mean he was appointed from c. 548 until 550, or he  was appointed in around 548/550, or something else.	
other Apiones – ‘other members of the Apion family’ sounds better imo.
died in 578/9 – in c. 578? Or in 578 or 579?
by an undetermined number of mostly unnamed heirs for eight years – consider simplifying the prose here, to something like ‘for eight years by unnamed heirs’.	
three principal heirs emerge by name sounds strange – ‘there were three main heirs’?	
N he and his family disappear – presumably ‘he and his family disappear from the records’?
The Apion household continues to be in evidence under the Persian occupation, at least until August 626, but is no longer mentioned thereafter. - Consider improving the prose to something like ‘There is evidence that the Apion household existed under the Persian occupation until August 626, but not after this date.’


#### Social position in Egypt
Link contiguous (Geographic contiguity); Gothic.
The family originally belonged – ‘The Apion family originally belonged’ sounds better at the start of a section.
75,000 acres – use {{convert|75000|acres}}.
E.R. Hardy – I would his full name here, Edward Rochie Hardy.
Who is J. Gascou?
The papyri also make clear – it needs to be clear which papyri are being referred to here.
J.K. Keenan (named as James K. Keenan in the References/Sources sections) needs introducing here.
More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Consider unlinking plural (common word).
Done. GuardianH (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Sasanian conquest of Egypt – a date added here would be useful.
The conquest took place in the early 7th century, and that period already mentioned in the previous sentence, so it seems to follow alright. GuardianH (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
It would be appropriate for the English version of the map to be included here, instead of the one show, which is in Latin.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The family's origin – as this text marks the start of the article, I would amend this to something like ‘The origin of the Apion family’.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
some time is redundant and can be removed.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
add a comma after belonged to the family.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
His father, Flavianus, had doesn’t require commas.
The use of commas here does seem grammatically accurate since its briefly mentioning/introducing a character. An example I found of a similar sentence on the web can be seen here: [1] GuardianH (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Not to me, but I happy to acquiesce. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I would give the dates for the Anastasian War, as readers may not be familiar with it
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The sentence beginning He was responsible for provisioning is too long, and requires splitting. The three citations at the end of the first paragraph may need to be moved accordingly.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
a relatively obscure figure – why relatively? I would simply say ‘an obscure figure’.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Are all 4 citations needed at the end of the 2nd paragraph? Ref 12 (Hickey) seems adequate.
I cut one citation — I recall that there are some conflicting sources as to the exact date of his death; the multiple citations solidify a consensus that he died sometime in early 542. GuardianH (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there a date for the reconstruction of the Hagia Sophia?
The reconstruction of the Hagia Sophia occurred over a period of some time — if I recall correctly, the reconstruction happened in a relatively short period since Justinian was eager to start a new architectural campaign across the Empire (Hagia Sophia being a magnum opus of sorts). I think a date might not have to be needed since a reader can click on the page for Hagia Sophia and view the timeline there. GuardianH (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Understood.  Amitchell125 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ca. 548–550 – I usually try to use {{circa}}. Also, it’s not clear if you mean he was appointed from c. 548 until 550, or he was appointed in around 548/550, or something else.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
other Apiones – ‘other members of the Apion family’ sounds better imo.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
died in 578/9 – in c. 578? Or in 578 or 579?
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
by an undetermined number of mostly unnamed heirs for eight years – consider simplifying the prose here, to something like ‘for eight years by unnamed heirs’.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
three principal heirs emerge by name sounds strange – ‘there were three main heirs’?
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
he and his family disappear – presumably ‘he and his family disappear from the records’?
I believe his sources say simply that he disappeared. This implies from the historical record, but—seeing as it was during the Persian conquest of Egypt—it could've likely meant that he and other members of the family perished. I think "disappeared" has a certain amount of style to it that makes it interesting — as if like in a mystery novel, the family "disappeared." GuardianH (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The Apion household continues to be in evidence under the Persian occupation, at least until August 626, but is no longer mentioned thereafter. - Consider improving the prose to something like ‘There is evidence that the Apion household existed under the Persian occupation until August 626, but not after this date.’
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Link contiguous (Geographic contiguity); Gothic.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The family originally belonged – ‘The Apion family originally belonged’ sounds better at the start of a section.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
75,000 acres – use {{convert|75000|acres}}.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
E.R. Hardy – I would his full name here, Edward Rochie Hardy.
Done. GuardianH (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Who is J. Gascou?
Jean Gascou. I've clarified this with his full name and corresponding link. GuardianH (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The papyri also make clear – it needs to be clear which papyri are being referred to here.
The papyri being referenced is the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, but there are multiple individual papyri included in the series. I've changed it to simply 'Papyri' GuardianH (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
J.K. Keenan (named as James K. Keenan in the References/Sources sections) needs introducing here.
This is a mistake; it is supposed to be J.G. Kennan rather than J.K. Keenan—I've corrected this to his full sourced name. Keenan was a classics professor at Loyal University and is used to some degree in other Oxford books of Egyptian history as a reference. You can find his page bibliography here. GuardianH (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it makes more sense now.  Amitchell125 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Ref 11 (Hickey) needs a pp. (not GA)
Fixed. GuardianH (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I would unlink Atiya, Aziz Suryal in Frend. (not GA)
Done. GuardianH (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Sarris has a url here.(not GA)
I've incorporated this into an External links section. GuardianH (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The lead section does not really cover the main points of the article properly, and could do with being expanded to two paragraphs. See MOS:LEAD for guidance here.
Done. I added another sizable paragraph rather than two since much of the content of the article expounds upon individual aspects of the family's history, property, or influence. I think the way it is currently draws in the reader well and encourages them to probe into the more detailed aspects of the family as written below. GuardianH (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I was being unclear, you have done exactly what I meant to ask.  Amitchell125 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


#### References
Ref 11 (Hickey) needs a pp. (not GA)


#### Sources
I would unlink Atiya, Aziz Suryal in Frend.	(not GA)


#### Further reading
Sarris has a url here.(not GA)


### On hold
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 4 December to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your review @Amitchell125. I'll make the changes in the next few days! GuardianH (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Amitchell125 I've addressed the feedback you've given above and believe that the article qualifies well for GA-status. GuardianH (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll cross out addressed issues and add a small cross where they still need to be finally addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Everything looks good, now passing a well-written and interesting article. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In ALT1, Constantinople should be capitalized. The same goes for Sasanian in ALT2. GuardianH (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm interested in the history of letterforms. The consular diptych image is definitely not ancient-I would put it at late eighteenth to early nineteenth century. It's written in lowercase, which didn't exist in the modern form at all at the time of the Apion family. It uses modern letterforms, the two-storey 'a' and especially the level crossbar on the 'e', that weren't popularised until c. 1500. Its style with strong verticals, vertical stress on the letterforms and quite bold strokes looks very like the Didone styles of the second half of the eighteenth century onwards, what Professor James Mosley calls the "pointed pen" style. You'll see it looks very similar to these signboards from an English chapel, probably early nineteenth century. Compare with the consular diptych images on that article, which do look authentic, the lettering is totally different. 
I can give more details and sources if you want, but basically my point is the lettering on these boards is Flintstones-level anachronistic. It could not possibly have been made to pass off as a fake. Maybe it was made to commemorate the family by some antiquarian? I'm planning to contact the uploader. Blythwood (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blythwood There would need to be a source that definitively backs up its authenticity (or lack thereof) before removing it. It could just be a transcription of Strategius' actual consular diptych, in which case the image would likely still be appropriate. GuardianH (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I have got back to it and checked the image source. The uploader probably didn't check the German text describing the picture, it's marked as the inner side, and the text on the previous page says (rough translation with Google translate, I've forgotten most of the German I learned in school) "Later inscriptions: on the inside ...Luke 2:21 in two layers, the lower handwritten, the later layer stencilled". The later of the two overpaints must be what this image is most clearly showing. I checked the Bible quote and it indeed matches the text of Luke 2:21 in the Vulgate. I presume the diptych was repurposed as a devotional aid or something like that.

Here's a picture of the history of letterforms (not vouching for the accuracy of all of this, but it matches my general understanding) which is what raised red flags for me. I guess we need an image of the outside of the diptych (apparently still in the cathedral's collections) which do show the Roman-period designs. Blythwood (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Found it! Here's an image of the outside. (I've requested the photo to be rotated to upright.) Blythwood (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)