User talk:A.Cython/Archive 2

Here are the notes that I took while carefully re-reading this article. I think that a GA reviewer would be likely to make comments and ask for changes in line with these comments. While I don't rule out that I may have misunderstood a few points, I think work is needed to get this to GA and in fact to satisfy criterion b2 for B class. (Yet, b1 appears to be met as it now stands.) Note, as I put on the assessment page, my time online will be limited for next several days.

The phrase “a day from Ravenna” should be clarified; is it a day's march (which in turn might lead to the question of the number of miles and kilometers)

The context for “lifted the siege of Rome” could be explained. Why did the siege of Rome “lead to a Byzantine victory” at Arminium. Because the garrison there was undermanned?

After Belisarius took Arminium, apparently Witigis returned to besiege the Byzantines there in turn. And Narses apparently joined the Byzantines despite the siege at an unspecified date but this is not clear.

The “psychological warfare tactics” used by Belisarius to break the siege at Arminium could be more precisely definied. The link to the article about these tactics provides only general information, not exactly what Belisarius did.

How did the division of Byzantine leadership lead to the destruction of Milan. Forces in the wrong place? Divided forces not strong enough to contest the Gothic attack? Some other reason? Whatever it was, Narses was apparently blamed at least in part leading Narses to be recalled and Belisarius to be given sole command of the Byzantine forces. This should be mentioned with some more detail.

“a well-fortified town atop a hill about 275 m (902 ft) above the sea and it was approximately 15 km (9.3 mi) from the sea” - sentence structure needs revision.

Who were Martin and John? There is no link to these names and they are not otherwise identified.

Camps “too far apart to send reinforcements” needs clarification such as “for the Byzantines to send reinforcements to camps under attack.” In I am reading this correctly when this is followed a sentence or two later with “The Goths were caught by surprise by the speed of the Byzantine army” a possible contradiction with the preceding sentence and the camps being too far apart needs to be clarified

Out of the blue, the Franks enter Italy to attack both the Goths and the Byzantines. When exactly in the sequence of events did this occur and what effect did it have on the siege of Auximus specifically?

The following seems to need some clarification or rewording: “Khosrow I, the Persian leader (shah), began to deteriorate Byzantine-Sassanian relations to start war. Diplomats sent by the Goths arrived in Persia to request that the shah start hostilities with the Byzantine Empire. Recognizing these treats (treaties? Which the Persians apparently acted on?) the Byzantines tried to make peace with the Goths since for Justinian as the Persians posed more dire threat than the Goths (and transferring Belisarius to the eastern front).”

“more strict guarding” - vigilance would seem to be a better word since the failure was not in the guarding of the camp but in allowing messengers from the city to get through to Witigis.

“the defenders requested help from their king. They succeeded this by loudly shouting...” needs clarification. Also, since the preceding subsection moves away from the siege specifically, it should be noted that the “food shortages” were “at Auximus.”

“However, this allowed” - add “diversion” after “this”?

“keeping the morale of the defenders high” seems to be the wrong phrase in context. Might it be simply “to provide relief to the garrison.”

“which also helped end the siege of Auximus” - because there was also a famine at Auximus or because the Byzantines were reinforced or both?

Common words such as “treasury” do not need links to articles about the subject in general.

You can ask another reviewer to step in if I do not get back to this in what seems like a timely manner or if you think that some of my points are mistaken. As to the mistaken, we can actually discuss them here instead, but again with the caveat that I may not be able to get back to this for more than a week. Donner60 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Donner60 I think I have addressed all your comments. Once you are back from your break, let me know your thoughts. A.Cython(talk) 01:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Ariminum (538) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ajay Platinum -- Ajay Platinum (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Ariminum (538) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ajay Platinum -- Ajay Platinum (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I have changed Siege of Verona from stub to start. Military history project ratings take precedence over all other ratings for the contest and other purposes because of the assessment differences permitted for this project (only). The overall rating should have been changed in 2022 but the bots have at times missed this at lower rating. CEWBOT will now give this project's rating as the overall rating when (if?) it sees it.

I have removed the entry for Siege of Milan. It was assessed in December and eligible to claimed in that month. Intervening and unnecessary changes in the bot's assessment do not make it eligible from a lower entry class in January to an already proper assessment in December. That is one reason why it is advisable to make a tentative entry before the end of the month and let it be checked for accuracy and adjusted accordingly by the reviewer - who is almost always a coordinator or former coordinator. The entry could be confirmed before the end of the month or deferred to the next month depending on the date of the requested assessment is finished. Asking for a human assessment before the end of the month has resulted in a few entries being eligible in a later month if the assessment is not posted in the month of the request.

Another option is simply to keep an eye on the assessments of articles (by the bot most likely) near the end of the month to be sure an assessment has not been made. Admittedly, that might prove difficult to keep up with.

These fine details and nuances are not necessarily evident to new contestants.

As I often mention, if you think I have made a mistake, misinterpretation or other misunderstanding, feel free to ask Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67 (a former lead coordinator and current emeritus coordinator) or other coordinator for another opinion and we can take another look at any of these assessments or opinions.

You are doing quite well for this month in any event. Absent someone making a similar and slightly higher overall points effort, you are now on your way to a high finish this month. Donner60 (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Donner60 Apologies, I did not know the rules well enough. Thank you for making the changes and explaining the rules to me. I think the friendly competition helps with motivation to do more for WP, but only if it is fair to everyone. A.Cython(talk) 13:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem. The wording of the rules is not entirely clear. When I became a coordinator, I asked Peacemaker67 to explain a few of the fine points. I could see the interpretations and applications were not necessarily obvious. I think it may not even be clearly stated that if a request is made close to the end of the month but not acted upon, it can be applied retroactively to the same month - if that month has not been closed yet or carried over to the next month if it has. That exception, which is small and only has applied to a few situations while I have been the coordinator regularly closing the contest for a few years is not obvious at all. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Donner60 I am planning to help as I can in the MHWP because I intent to work on several articles, which will eventually require assessment. If however I misstep somewhere, please do not hesitate to nudge me and remind me the rules and customs of the project. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 04:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I noticed your edit on Battle of Taginae and using Ilkka Syvänne as a source. Just so you know, there was a discussion concerning Syvänne as a reliable source here. Hopefully this keeps you from being blindsided.

Take care, A.Cython. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Thanks for letting me know, but from reading the sources, the arguments presented by Syvänne make a lot more sense. If I am not mistaken, the book by Syvänne is an extension of his PhD and thus valid academic source and thus WP:RS. I do not judge WP:RS based on Amazon reviews, but on the quality of the arguments presented. Even notable historians make terrible or even silly mistakes, even when published at notable publishers. Only the other day, I rejected a GAN because a book from the "Routledge" publisher made an enormous and unacceptable error by claiming that a political party in Greece is centrist when everyone knows that it was far right; it was shocking. So does this mean books from "Routledge" are of low quality?
Another example, it appears incomprehensible when historians say without much good reasoning that the Ostrogoths marched to Rome (537–538) with only 25,000 men (while contemporary Procopius gave 150,000); not to mention everyone is giving different numbers, is it 50,000, 40,000, 25,000, or 20,000. Syvänne does not provide a number but argues that there is no real basis to doubt Procopius's number (meaning that it might be 100,000 or something similar) based on the traditions of the Goths (i.e., all Goth men participated in the army and Gothic strategy was to create one massive army to deal each enemy), which apparently all other historians ignored to mention (should we think of them less of them). So in this instance, Syvänne's argumentation appears more convincing than any other historian that I have read on this topic.
It is insulting when a historian rejects a primary source and rewrites history based on the argument that it makes sense to that particular historian (i.e., no real argument provided), and it is worse when this is coming from top institutions. In one of the reviews, it says that classicists constructed the lower number based on some methodology, making it superior. While in science we have nature to evaluate a proposed methodology, in history such methodologies are only valid so long a small group of academics says so, irrespective whether it is true or not, since evidence is hard to come by.
Yet, such academic consensuses are challenged all the time since these numbers/methods are difficult to evaluate and often rely on subjective interpretations of each historian. Take for example the book about the existence of Amazons, where historians even refused archaeological evidence (some still do) because they were educated that Amazons were imaginary figures of Ancient Greek men. So when burial grounds of warriors (buried with weapons and their horses) were examined, it was found that 1/3 of the graves had smaller skeletons; the historians said these skeletons belonged to small men. However, later it was revealed from DNA testing that these were actually women. Strangely, some of these historians still refute the DNA analysis. This reflects very badly on the review, accusing Syvänne of a lack of evidence, when historians themselves reject evidence. Go figure. There are many such examples in history in which historians weave stories to reinforce their social and nationalist identities, contrary to the evidence. More recently, Anthony Kaldellis that has some fans in WP claims that two centuries of Byzantine studies needs to be thrown out of the window (no small thing) because the word "Byzantine" is a construction only to serve political purposes and proposes the completely purge of the word from everywhere; for him Byzantine Empire is just a Roman Empire and nothing else, see his latest book; there was an extensive discussion at Rhomaioi (endonym) article (former Byzantine Greeks), where the rename was done based on Kaldellis's minority position.
At least Syvänne makes it clear (in the parts I have read) that when it is his opinion, he says it is an educated guess. Historian J. B. Bury, who is used extensively in WP, also does that, and many other historians too. This is again not a reason to disqualify the book. Irrespective of Syvänne's arguments, my approach is to be inclusive by adding all other historians (as many as I can find) in the articles and trying to explain their reasoning whenever such is given. Syvänne's work appears valid (certainly not perfect) to me and is no different from other WP:RS. Either way, we write based on numerous sources from different authors. Also note that Syvänne's book is one of the very few that provide details of the battles/sieges necessary for this type of articles, otherwise I have to rely more on primary sources, which is not a good idea. IMO, the attacks on Syvänne appear more like exclusion tactics in the academic-publishing industry, whether in WP we amplify these tactics remains to be seen; I am familiar with the publishing industry (not history), where sometimes acts worse than the politicians that you see on TV, which is a reminder that we all are human with follies. Anyhow, thank you again for letting me know. Happy editing. A.Cython(talk) 20:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Auximus is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Constantinople (1235–1236) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jon698 -- Jon698 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello A.Cython and thanks for your recent peer review of the article Rule of inference. I've nominated the article for FA status, but it hasn't received enough reviews so far, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in providing some feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rule of inference/archive1. Thank you for taking a look and please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 I will try to have a look over the weekend, but no promises. Your article is very well written and I will struggle to provide comments as I am not experienced in judging nominations for FA articles. In either case, I wish you good luck, you deserved it with the amount of work that placed to write it on such a challenging topic. A.Cython(talk) 06:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Since the article is also intended for general readers, having non-expert feedback would be helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Auximus has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Naples (536) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)