Talk:Problem of two emperors/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b Y
2
2.a Y

2.b Y

2.c Y

2.d Y (Very large number of comparison to one source, but this is due almost entirely to sharing a quote which is properly formatted here.)
3
3.a Y

3.b Y
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

No DAB links Y Fixed the few issues as it was evident from text which the correct link was.
No dead links Y But recommend using WaybackMachine to archive a lot of them; archiving the Google books is probably unnecesary, but the other elements could do with it.
No missing citations Y

Discussion

Prose Suggestions

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

Lede

In a medieval Christian worldview suggest In the view of medieval Christians...

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

even those who did not formally live within the imperial borders suggest even over Christians who did not live within the formal borders of the empire.

Isn't this already accomplished by "in regards to all Christians, even those who did not formally live within the imperial borders"? Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just thought this worked better. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

momentarily in barbarian hands, but still formally in their hands through a system of recognition and honors bestowed on the western kings by the emperor suggest momentarily in barbarian hands, but still formally under their control through a system of recognition and honors bestowed on the western kings by the emperor. to avoid double usage of hands.

Yeah, sounds better. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman–Byzantine dispute

His titling of the Byzantine emperor as an emperor in the letter may simply be a courtesy, not implying acceptance of what the title implied suggest His titling of the Byzantine emperor as an emperor in the letter may simply be a courtesy, rather than an implication that he truly accepted his imperial rule.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liutprand attempted to diplomatically excuse the Pope by stating that the Pope had believed that the Byzantines would not like the term "Romans" since they had moved to Constantinople no suggestion here I just find this hilarious.

You should read Liutprand's entire account (linked at the bottom of the article) if you have the time! It illustrates his views more in-depth than could be fit into this article and is also really funny; it is abundantly clear that Liutprand really dislikes the Byzantines and that the Byzantines really dislike him back, leading to constant bickering, mistreatment of the German envoys and eventually threats by Nikephoros Phokas himself of destroying the HRE. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the recent events, Barbarossa still apparently believed that Isaac was not hostile against him and refused invitations from the enemies of the Byzantines to join an alliance against them suggest despite these issues...

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: That is all my suggestions, passing now. Apologies for taking so long. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about taking so long, thanks for having a look through this one and passing! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]