Talk:Aelia Eudocia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a fascinating subject worth reviewing. Llywrch (talk · contribs) 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay in writing this review: work & family commitments have kept me busy. But here are some comments, both critical & constructive.

• A general observation here is that often this article repeats statements taken from its sources, but without fully understanding what these statements mean, or considering that these statements might be one person's opinion. I find that this is a common problem with Wikipedia articles; I do this, far too often. If I sound a bit grouchy at places, it's because I encountered this flaw here. (I can be very snide if I'm not careful. I worry by daughters will need years of therapy thanks to me.)
• A solid opening paragraph. However, here she is called the Greek wife of Emperor Theodosius which comes across as odd -- especially as this information is repeated in the body of the article below. But what bothers me most about having this detail in the article is that it doesn't really address the reason why it may be important: at this point in the history of the Roman Empire, the Eastern part (which was Greek in language & culture) had evolved notably from the Western part (which was Latin in language & culture), something that was to become an increasingly important point of contention not only between the two parts of the Empire, but of Western civilization which succeeded it. The best way to handle this issue would be by linking "Greek" to an article that discusses it, but I wasn't able to quickly find one. You may be able to find some way to handle this issue, but until then it's probably best to remove this from the lead.
• Twice you cite Encyclopædia Britannica in this article, something I always cringe at when I see it in Wikipedia. At the best, doing that implies EB is more reliable than Wikipedia; at worst, it overlooks the fact that EB has its own issues about reliability. (Harvey Einbinder has proven its weaknesses far better than I could, even given enough space.) In any case, both times EB is cited only to establish Eudocia's date of birth & her death, both of which could be taken from more reliable sources; for example, Holum states the date of her death on p. 224 of his book. Looking at the entry for her on De Imperatoribus Romanus (about which a note below), I found a citation there for the date of her birth, "born into a pagan family probably around the start of the fifth century", which is as likely as good as we will get. If you can find better sources for these dates, feel free to use them.
• Looking at the other footnotes to the first sentence of the opening paragraph in this section, all of them hammer on the point of Eudocia/Athenais' Greek heritage. IMHO, only one is needed, especially if the reader is going to be presented with lengthy quotations.
• The opening of the second paragraph of the section "Early life" reads "When Athenais was 12 years old, her mother died and she became her father's comfort, taking on the responsibilities of household chores, raising her siblings and tending to her father." The part about "she became her father's comfort" sounds like something taken from an overwritten 19th century novel & means nothing to the modern reader. (She comforted her father? Like the daughters of Noah? Woah!) Simply taking it out makes the writing crisper & improves understanding.
• The story about receiving only 100 coins from her father's estate appears to come from the World Chronicle of John Malalas; if so, we need a cite here. See my next point about Malalas.
• The first paragraph of the section "Life as an Empress -> Marriage" begins "Legend has it that..." This is a red flag to me: who says it is a legend? Some random contributor to Wikipedia? (Sorry to be brusque, but these are the thoughts a critical reader of this article will have.) A bit of research gave me the answer: it is a story that first appeared in the World Chronicle of John Malalas, of whom Kenneth Holum wrote he "did not always distinguish between authentic history and a popular memory of events infused with folk-tale motifs." (Holum cites a German scholar, W. Weber, for this opinion, BTW.) I would rephrase this opening along the lines of "John Malalas, writing a century later, relates that..." because it provides the source of the information, provides an important qualifying fact (just how reliable is an account of an event recorded a century after it transpired?), & avoids making a judgment on how reliable the story is.

  Actually the two paragraphs in this section repeat a lot of information, as well as quotes Holum's judgment on Malalas as a source. So this section could be rewritten to be more concise.

• The discussion of the origins of Eudocia's father (which appears in the section "Blending Christianity with classical culture") would be better located in the section on about her "Early life".
• IMHO, I'd move the sub-section about her children to the end of the section "Life as an Empress". In it's current location, it breaks the flow of the narrative.
• The section "Life as an Empress -> Pilgrimage to Jerusalem (438-439)" is very awkwardly written. Take the sentence, "The relationship between the two women consisted of rivalry over power" -- why not write "The two women were rivals in influencing the Emperor Theodosius"? And some examples of their conflict would improve this section. I can understand keeping this section short if the emphasis of this article is best put on her writing, but re-reading Holum's book I found a passage he quotes (on p. 130) from the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor that describes their relationship marvelously:

Theodosius was unsure of himself, carried along by every breeze. Often he signed documents that had not been read to him first. Once Pulcheria, a very clever woman, placed a contract of gift before him granting her his wife Eudocia to be sold into slavery. He signed it unread, and Pulcheria gave him a mighty scolding.

While this story is apocryphal, Holum admits, he suspects it has its roots in "contemporary gossip" & thus contains a germ of truth. And makes for delightful reading.

• Twice you cite the website at www.roman-emperors.org as "An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors. University of Ottawa." I've always known this site (which is a very reliable one) as De Imperatoribus Romanis, & as far as I can tell, that is its name. BTW, having looked at several of its pages, it has no overt relationship to the University of Ottawa, but is the creation of a group that calls itself "DIR Collegium Editorum". And the website is hosted at Loyola University in Chicago.
• The opening of the first paragraph of the section "Life as an Empress -> Banishment" begins "Rumor has it that..." I believe this also comes from John Malalas. In any case, state the primary source this came from, & if not Malalas why experts believe it was a popular memory of events.

When it comes to the portion of this essay about her writing, I'm on less firm ground. She writes a genre I have no grounding in or appreciation for. But there are a few points I believe need to be made.

• The section "Literary work" begins "While Eudocia could have written a lot of literature after leaving the court, only some of her work survived." -- That is true; she could have done a lot of things after leaving the court. (Saying anything more would just be unproductive snark.) What I suspect the point of this sentence is that we have no idea how much she wrote. I would replace this unfortunate sentence with a citation from one of your sources about how much experts think she wrote. If no speculation exists, all that needs to be said is something along the lines of "Eudocia's surviving writings comprise part her Martyrdom of St. Cyprian, of which 900 lines are known, an inscription of a poem on the baths at Hamat Gader, and her Homeric cento which is perhaps her most studied work."
• The same paragraph ends "Eudocia is an understudied poet and has been neglected due to "'lack of complete and authoritative text.'" -- Saying she is an "understudied poet" is an opinion, & unless a source is explicitly provided this violates WP:NPOV. Further, it starts one down a slippy slope: how many studies are needed to qualify someone as an "adequately studied poet"? If either Ussher or Sower opined this, state it as their opinion.
• The section on her cento promise, but don't deliver. There is this statement -- "These centos are a clear representation of who Eudocia was, and what she believed in" -- but nothing that explains what this statement means. What does this poem tell us about Eudocia? If a critic is good, she/he will explicate how style reflects the author's personality. (Consider how Shakespeare's plays reflect the values of a 16th-century Englishman, with his petty bigotries & obsessions about class & place. Contrast this with his contemporary Marlowe, who always stuck me as a guy who was too smart for his own good, & always eager to show off his learning & wit.)

I hope these comments -- at least most of them -- are useful. Feel free to ask for explanations &/or expansions on any of these comments. -- llywrch (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Llywrch, your review was posted over a month ago. I don't see any response here or edits to the article from nominator Theban Halberd; perhaps it is time either to close the nomination or set a deadline for such a response. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked on the GA Talk page what to do with this review, & the result was to wait until the end of this month to see if the nominator reappears. That deadline is almost here, so I'll be closing this in the next few days if TH doesn't reappear. -- llywrch (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Llywrch, it's now September. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)