Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Avar–Byzantine wars

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Avar–Byzantine wars[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed a GA nomination, and I believe I may be able to take it to FAC, but I wanted input/suggestions beforehand. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I'm afraid I am out of my depth with this era, so can't really comment on the content, sorry. Nevertheless, in the interests of getting this review started, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the Avar–Byzantine Wars campaignbox includes a link to 586 or 597 siege of Thessalonica (labelled as 1st Thessalonica), which does not seem to be mentioned in this article (unless I missed it). Should it? Also, this article mentions sieges in 604 and 615 of the same location, but these aren't included in the campaignbox. Should they be?
if possible, I suggest adding an image to the Avar invasion section to break up the text a little here
Kutrigurs is overlinked, as are Wallachia and Bulgars
the is some US English spellings mixed with British English spellings in the article. For instance, "kilometres" and "meagre" (British) but "labor" (US)
"File:Balkans 6th century.svg": suggest maybe upsizing this a bit, so that it is more useful
there is some text sandwiching in the Siege of Constantinople section with the mural and the map. The map may not be necessary given its size and given that "File:Balkans 6th century.svg" is already presented earlier
in the Bibliography, some ISBNs are hyphenated and some are not. Either is fine, IMO, but it should be consistent
in the Bibliography, is there a page range that could be added for Oman's chapter in Hassall's work?
in the Bibliography, The Avars: a Steppe People in Central Europe, 567-822 AD --> The Avars: A Steppe People in Central Europe, 567–822 AD (endash and title case caps)
in the Bibliography, AD 363-630: a Narrative Sourcebook --> AD 363–630: A Narrative Sourcebook (endash and title case caps)

Comments: I did the GA review and so am well disposed towards the article. I am not a subject expert, but do have a passing interest in it. Input/suggestions:

Mention the first formal contact between the Avars and the Byzantines. (The 558 embassy.)
Mention the 565 embassy.
Much of Byzantine-Avar interaction revolved around payment, or not, of Danegeld by the Byzantines. Offensives and outbreaks of peace were frequently directly related to these payments and their amounts. These seem to be down played in the article.
Similarly it could be argued that your use of “truce” is a little anachronistic. The truces you refer to were more like formal arrangements for protection money with a gang leader with only shaky control over all of his underlings.
It may be worth mentioning that in the wake of the Avar activity many of their subject, Slavic, people settled permanently in parts of the Balkans no longer under, even if temporarily, Byzantine control. Including central Greece and the Peleponese. This was to have repercussions when the Byzantines tried to reoccupy after the Avar’s defeat. They never did regain possession of the north west Balkans and in the eastern Balkans their attempt resulted in the Bulgar revolt. Who in turn eventually did for the Avars. Greece was under Slav control for 200 years. (Ostrogorsky) IMO some of this should be in the currently rather brief aftermath.
The 674 Avar embassy, in which they acknowledged Byzantine suzerainty, seems worth a mention.

I (still) think that this article is a good cover of a big and complex issue, but for A class feel that it needs more context: before; after; and around the edges of the main events. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image licenses/sources check out.
A couple of duplicate links in the article - there's a tool here you can use, if you don't already know about it.

All for now - I'll give it a closer read, but I wonder how invested you are in following up this review. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: - are you planning on addressing the above reviews? Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: I will when possible. I have been very busy IRL, so it may be in the interest of all to close the review, as I am unlikely to be able to focus my attention onto this anytime in the very near future. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I'll post a note at WT:MHCOORD. Hopefully you'll have more free time soon! Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.