# Talk:Coronation of the Byzantine emperor

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coronation of the Byzantine emperor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I intend to review this article over the next few days.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
According to the edit history, the article is stable (no edit wars etc.)--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The fact that a usurper—usually an army officer—could successfully install himself on the throne and become accepted as a legitimate emperor led modern historians to describe the government of the later Roman Empire as "absolutism tempered by the right of revolution". Is there a consensus on this among the modern historians, or is this a majority view or only a minority view. Who is quoted in the end of the sentence? --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK it is very much the common view (at least among scholars, the public view, such as it is, of Byzantium is an exaggerated parody of the actual state); there are even historians, like Kaldellis who is listed in further reading, who go further that the emperors were still subject to quasi-democratic pressures from the people and quasi-constitutional restrictions on their exercise of power. The phrase comes from Charanis, and I've added him in the text. Constantine   ✍  09:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
In The coronation of Leo I took place in Constantinople's Campus Martius outside the city walls... Campus Martius is linked to the article on Rome's Campus Martius where nothing is said on the Constantinople's Campus Martius. This is against WP:EGG and such links should not be there. --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Redlinked to an article on Constantinople's analogue Constantine   ✍  09:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Buskins should be wikilinked. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I would also suggest having piped wikilinks for taper and ambo for easier reference as some readers might find it useful to look up the terms.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
In The patriarch said a prayer, and the emperor was crowned with the diadem, which by this time had evolved to an elaborate gem-encrusted circlet., I assume that "by this time" means the 5th or 6th century. Is that correct? In either case, readers would probably benefit from explicit reference to the time. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point, done. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
In ...he retired to a nearby hall in the Great Palace for this part of the ceremony..., it is not quite clear where from. I assume it is the Hippodrome, but upon reading the sentence I was not sure. Could you please clarify? --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarified. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the Great Palace of Constantinople article and assuming it is correct, I am under the impression that the palace was adjacent to the Hippodrome. If so, I believe the word "adjacent" (or a synonym) could be added to ...the new emperor proceeded from the Great Palace to the imperial box (kathisma) in the Hippodrome... or another appropriate place for clarity. On the first reading I got the impression of an imperial procession along streets or something along those lines. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point, clarified. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Now that I have taken a closer look at the palace, I remembered reading After Leo I, the ceremonies described in the sources took place at the Hippodrome,[31] except for Justinian I, who was crowned in a hall of the Great Palace known as the Delphax. At the first glance I interpreted this to mean that the Great Palace was known as the Delphax. Suggest rewording "crowned in the Delphax hall of the Great Palace" or something along those lines for clarity. --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
What is meant by ...in twelver groups...? --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Groups of twelve, reworded. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The link to a section of the same article found in ...considerable scholarly debate as to its origins. violates MOS:CIRCULAR and should be removed. This appears as a summary/introduction of a different section and it appears odd that unction is discussed at three different places (apart from the lead) with two separate and non-contiguous sections on the topic, especially having a single sentence not really offering much except a preview of the section further below. If this sentence is meant as introduction, I'd suggest moving it to the first following 'unction' section. If unction should be discussed at this particular point, I suggest you move the appropriate prose here. If the topic of unction / unction debate is too complex to address in summary style, I'd suggest splitting the topic per WP:SUMMARY. The current solution makes it difficult to navigate the topic. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the section. The disjointed structure is because the section 'Unction' refers to the procedure of the unction during the ritual, while the later section is about the scholarly debate. I don't want to amalgamate the two as in my view they serve different purposes. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Link Circlet --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
While linked, allowing quick lookup, Before the trisagion, he and other church dignitaries mounted the ambo... would be easier to read of the beginning read like "Before the trisagion hymn..." or something along those lines as it would let casual readers to find out at a glance it was a chanted or sung hymn and then XYZ moved on. Not really a dealbreaker since it is linked, but a suggestion. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point, added. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Does "until then" in The crown, which until then was kept in the sanctuary by the deacons... mean until after unction or until the late period? Could you clarify this in the text? --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Since it is in the first sentence in a section, in place of "now" in Both emperor and empress now mounted the imperial platform... there should be "after crowning" or something to that effect to avoid the need to consult the previous section to determine what is meant in this section. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The imperial couple remains seated... should be "The imperial couple remained seated..." --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Link censer --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Is the word "Great" missing before "Entrance" in Thus dressed, the emperor led the Entrance procession...? --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted, added. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Is "during" (or similar) missing from ...seated apart from the Nicene Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Elevation. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarified. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Should ...laity began received the communion... be "...laity began receiving the communion..." or "...laity received the communion..."?
"Fixed. Constantine   ✍  09:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Spell out and link Wilhelm Ensslin. --Tomobe03 (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Constantine   ✍  12:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The reference to M. Manojlović is incorrect in the first name initial (correctly taken over from the referenced work, but the error is in the cited work). Namely, the referenced work (Charanis) specifies "9 M. Manojlovió, " Le peuple de Constantinople, de 400 à 800 après J.-C. Etude spéciale de ses forces armées, des éléments qui le composaient et de son rôle constitutionnel pendant cette période," translated from the Croatian by Henri Grégoire, Byzantion , XI (Brussels, 1936), 617. This work was originally published in Nastavni Vjesnik, XII (Zagreb, 1904), 1-91." However, the referenced author is Gavro Manojlović as confirmed here [1] where it is said that his doctoral thesis was "Zur Erklärung der Widerstandskraft des späteren römischen Reiches (400–800 n. Chr.). Das römisch-griechische Volk: Das Volk (Demos) von Konstantinopel (printed in Croatian language in: Nastavni vjesnik, 1904; French translation in: Byzantion, Bruxelles 1936, p. o. 1937) (italicised text is my translation). Correct the initial "M." to first name and link using the ill template.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for tracing him, corrected now. Constantine   ✍  12:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Drop "Peter" fron ...but Peter Charanis has pointed out that... per MOS:SURNAME --Tomobe03 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Constantine   ✍  12:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Even though his year of coronation/reign was noted above, I'd repeat it in This is first recorded in the coronation of Anastasius I... since this place is far below in the text and there's lot of years mentioned in between. Not a dealbreaker though, just a suggestion. The same applies to similarly spaced mentions of coronations as you might see fit. --Tomobe03 (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point, especially since the years are mostly given for other emperors; added. Constantine   ✍  12:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
There should be no duplicate wikilinks. Currently there are proskynesis, Patrikios, John VI Kantakouzenos, Caesar (title), and George Ostrogorsky.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done.
Images appear suitable for the purpose. As regards their sources and licensing:

What is the source for the map in Constantinople imperial district.png other than Constantinople center.svg (which also indicates no source), i.e. where can one find a published map of the relevant area to verify the contents of this map?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC) --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The map derives from a classic work by Müller-Wiener, which was the first to actually use archaeological evidence. To my knowledge it has not yet been superseded. I have added it to the description. Constantine   ✍  12:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:IUPC Coronation of a Byzantine co-emperor on a shield, Madrid Skylitzes.jpg, Manuel II Helena sons.JPG, and Paris psaulter gr139 fol3v.jpg are slavish copies and are ok in terms of copyright, so no issues in terms of sourcing and licensing here. --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:IUPC the photo of the carving at Porphyrogenetus.jpg creates a new copyright and there should be the source (and appropriate license) specified for the image at its commons page to be acceptable. --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
No idea about the actual source of the photo. Would File:Arte costantinopolitana, frammento di placca con imp costantino VII porfirogenito incoronato da cristo, 945.JPG be acceptable as replacement, since I assume the photo was taken directly at the museum?  Constantine   ✍  12:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely. That image has appropriate source information and licencing at the Commons. It does not matter for this purpose where the photo was taken (or even if it depicts a replica), just that there is an identified Wiki Commons user who took the photo and licensed its use appropriately.-- Tomobe03 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Done. Constantine   ✍  08:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
No issues for the remaining images in terms of sourcing and licensing. --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Image captions appear to be in order. --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The lede seems too short. The article is of considerable length and covers the topic comprehensively and per MOS:LEAD the lede should summarize it appropritely. The lede as is gives the briefest possible summary, which is fine, although a bit more should be there to introduce the topic better to especially to readers who will read the lede and nothing else. Guideline MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends three or four paragraphs long lede for articles having 30,000 characters of prose or more (and this one has more than 43 thousand). Granted, the present lede could be split in two, but I would urge you to expand a bit on it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Overall the article appears sufficiently broad and free of POV.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
All prose appears well-referenced, but I'll continue the review (source spotchecks) later and hope to conclude it tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Earwig's Copyvio Detector returns all clear, so no issues on that point.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Referencing spotchecks all turned out fine, AGF on the rest. I believe only change of the image is left to do.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Good to go, passing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)