# Talk:Megas logothetes

This review is transcluded from Talk:Megas logothetes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 05:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll be looking at this. HaEr48 (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally, well written in an encyclopedic style according to MoS guidelines. See specific feedback below to improve the article. Well sourced with inline citation, I spot-checked some sources and they checked out. No OR or copyvio is detected. Covers the topic's main aspects without veering to unnecessary details. Written in neutral manner and the article is stable. My detailed feedback below:
We’re told that the term means “grand Logothete”, but the meaning of logothete itself is unclear throughout the article
added a footnote, as this is not really relevant to the topic
In the lead, the article says megas logothetes served “frequently as the head of the civil administration (mesazōn)”. Where is this supported in the article body? In fact the body seems to often contrast M.L. and mesazon, suggesting that the office of mesazon existed independently of M. L?
Exactly, the megas logothetes could be the mesazon, but was not always so. It is a common misconception that the megas logothetes was always the prime minister, due to the meaning of the title. The point is that by the time Kodinos wrote, the megas logothetes had no actual functions, these having been assumed by however happened to be the mesazon. I've rephrased this a bit, hopefully it is clearer
Can you add some explanation on the transition between the “logothetēs tōn sekretōn” to the “megas logothetes” title? E.g. why wss the title changed, does it imply any change in significance or function?
He was the senior logothete, hence he was titled "grand logothete"; rephrased slightly to highlight this.
I noticed sometimes vowels have bars above it (e.g. ō) but they’re interchangeable with the normal o. What does it mean?
This is transcription from Greek. ō is omega, ē is eta.
“as president of the imperial tribunal”: is here a proper link for “imperial tribunal”? Its meaning is unclear here.
Have added some info to clarify.
First paragraph mentions Theodore Kastamonites as the first official megas logothetes, but the infobox and the “list of known” table mentions Strategopoulos? Please clarify this discrepancy
Have rephrased to clarify.
“and the holders of the post frequently functioned as the chief minister of the Empire” too long, maybe just say “the purviews of the  logothetēs tou dromou (short description here) and the mesazōn (the chief minister)
Have added some additional explanations on the distinctive nature of the two offices of megas logothetes and mesazon.
“exercised the functions of the former Eparch”: what are the functions of the eparch and why did they no longer exist? 
Have at long last managed to track down the origin of this, and where Guilland got it from. It appears to be a misreading/misinterpretation by an earlier scholar.
“by the time pseudo-Kodinos compiled his Book of Offices”: for non experts, terms such as “pseudo-Kodinos” and “Book of Offices” as well as their relevance to the previous sentence are not obvious. Some clarification is needed here.
Have tried to rephrase a bit; Kodinos gives evidence as to the other logothetes losing any active function and being relegated to purely honorary offices.
Kabbadion, skiadion, klapōton, skaranikon : these terms are not obvious and without understanding what the mean the second-to-last paragraph of the “history”  section is very hard to understand and relate to. Please clarify.
Have added some descriptive terms, but this is not the place to delve into peculiarities of late Byzantine court costume. These are by necessity technical terms, that are not always translateable; eventually there will be articles on them.
Thanks, the the brief descriptions you added help a lot for me to understand the article. HaEr48 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
There are chronological gaps in the list: does it mean that the post was vacant, or just it was held by an unknown person?
Vacant, which is why the lists are headed "List of known megaloi logothetai".
Can it be clarified in the article whether the gaps are vacancies or unknown person? Only do it if/when you're sure & backed up by sources. HaEr48 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my brain was probably somewhere off when writing my previous response, not *vacant* but *unknown*. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Ah, I see. Now your reply makes sense. HaEr48 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The history section could use one or two images, e.g. portraits of key figures?
Any chance for some pictures?
@Cplakidas: Just a reminder, you haven't responded to this one feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, apart from Metochites, whose image I added, I am not aware of images for other holders of the office, nor of any office-relevant imagery, such as seals of office etc
In general, I feel that the article is obscured by a lot of Greek terms whose meanings are not obvious to non-experts. Please mitigate this by adding english equivalent or translation, if possible.
@Cplakidas: It's an interesting and well written article. Hope my feedback helps. HaEr48 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48, thanks for a detailed and thorough review! I will go over your recommendations during the next few days. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  21:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi HaEr48, I am in the process of going through the questions/recommendations. Constantine   ✍  11:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Friendly reminder to look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks HaEr48, I'll get to it over the next few days, I've been looking up on the Eparch question. Constantine   ✍  10:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello HaEr48, at long last I've managed to address the issues raised above. The issue of the relationship between the megas logothetes, the mesazon, and the Eparch has now been examined with recourse to more topic-specific literature, and some of Guilland's statements have been amended/corrected, or otherwise qualified. This is one of the rare cases where I find him to have been less than careful in his work, since the academic consensus was there long before he published his study in 1971. On the multitude of Greek technical terms, I agree, but this is a rather technical subject. Have a look. Any feedback would be welcome, of course. Sorry for the delay, but scrounging up the sources wasn't easy. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  11:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Thanks for taking the time to look at the source. Another question, your recent edits mention some earlier scholarly opinion that according to the article were debunked (see [1]). Whose judgement is it? If it's your own judgement (I hope not), it would be WP:OR, if it's the opinion of later scholars please cite some examples of such scholars. HaEr48 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. The scholars are, of course, those that are cited at the end of each relevant section. I have explicitly named them only in one case; in the other, it should be evident that the "later studies" are those that are cited at the end, if one simply has a look at their title. Constantine   ✍  14:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clarifying. IMO, naming them in-text is useful because the name in the citation can either mean "This is an opinion of author X" or "This is an opinion of someone else, reported by author X". HaEr48 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
As per the review and addressed feedback above, passing this nomination now. HaEr48 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your time and patience HaEr48! The article is now much improved thanks to your suggestions. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  12:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)