Wikipedia:Peer review/Helmichis/archive1

Helmichis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The main reasons behind this request is that I want to submit this article to GAN (and maybe eventually FAC process), but before doing that I need external views on what may not be OK and should be mended. This article is a sort of spin-off of my last FA Alboin; I've wanted to try using a little known and badly documented figure try to make a solid article, a bit like so often has done Mike Christie in his Anglo-Saxon articles. I would in particular like advice regarding the lead and how to better the prose: I'm not a native speaker, so I expect problems especially in that context. Also, I wouldn't mind opinions regarding the insertion of a section (the first) entirely dedicated to discussing the primary sources available: was it a good idea? Does it stand well? And the conclusion, does is flow well enough?

Thanks, Aldux (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments.

• You say five primary sources mention Helmichis by name, but there seem to be six:
  1. Marius of Avenches' Chronica
  2. Continuatio Havniensis Prosperi
  3. Origo Gentis Langobardorum
  4. Paul the Deacon's Historia Langobardorum
  5. Historia Langobardorum Codicis Gothani
  6. Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis
  • Thanks for catching that one, I had forgot the CHP, but that too is actually mentioned in the same page in an abbreviated form. Corrected now.Aldux (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Generally the article structure looks right to me. I think the section on sources works well -- the reader can't help but understand how limited the data is that we have to deal with. The main problem is prose -- it's very well done for a non-native speaker but does need a fair bit copyediting to make it flow more smoothly. I'll jot a couple of specific points down below, but there are little infelicities sprinkled throughout, so I think the next step is to get a good copyeditor to go through it, and then try for good article status. (I don't think I'll have time to do a copyedit myself, I'm afraid, but I'll keep it on my list in case.)
• "This is the first work to have transmitted to us the name of Rosamund": I think "first" would be more natural than "earliest" here.
• "was further on updated till 671" -- should be something like "continued to be updated till 671".
• " This view is different by Wolfram's" -- "by" isn't the right preposition; people use "to", "from" and "than", but I'd rephrase to something like "Wolfram argues instead that".
• A MOS note: en dashes should be unspaced in page ranges in the notes. You have some spaced dashes and some unspaced hyphens.
• "The following year the Lombards left their homeland and migrated to Italy": I am not expert on this period of history, but as I understand it this was a slow process and we shouldn't give the reader the impression they took over Italy in a year. I think this should be rephrased to give a little more detail.
• The infobox lists Helmichis as a king, with a successor and predecessor, but the text says he was unsuccessful in his attempt to usurp the kingdom. Do historians generally regard him as a king? Should the text just say that his usurpation was shortlived?
• Why do you call the Origo the earliest narrative sources? Doesn't it postdate Marius's Chronica?
• "according to Paolo Delogu, it was Helmichis who was seduced by the queen": Delogu is apparently a modern historian, so this doesn't seem to make sense as it stands -- Delogu must be interpreting the texts here but it's not clear how. Maybe you could just say "Historian Paol Delogu's interpretation is that" but I think it would be helpful to know a little about Delogu's reasoning. Or is Delogu just following Agnellus's version? The passage cited in support of Delogu's opinion actually comes from Paul, so that doesn't seem right either.

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments and edits, as you noticed I'll need to find a copyeditor to make it good enough for a GA or FA; probably, I'll try submitting it to the guild of copyeditors.

• Regarding the context, I'll add some more on the Lombard takeover in the 569 - 72 years. concerning being a king or not and the infobox, *I've not read of a single source, primary or secondary, that considers Helmichis a king. All early sources are pretty adamant in stating that his usurpation failed and failed fast, and the Lombard kinglists do not mention him. So what do you say, it's better if I avoid any infobox as it may be misleading?
• As for the Origo, well I wrote "the Lombards' earliest narrative source": that is, the earliest source of Lombard origin. Do you feel it isn't clear enough, and the point should be made better?
• Delogu's point is that the story of assassin's seduction by Rosmunda and the taking of the sword reflct Germanic myths that have arrived down to us through Paul in a deformed version that doesn't reflect in a fully correct way the original tradition. Hope it's better now. Aldux (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, those look like improvements; and I think you were right to remove the infobox -- it's confusing. I went to Grierson and Blackburn's Medieval European Coinage to see if there was any coinage from his (presumably brief) reign; it was the infobox that made me think it was a possibility. So I'm glad it's gone. Re the Origo; yes, I wasn't clear that you meant it was the earliest narrative souce of Lombard origins; I took it as "the earliest Lombard narrative source": that is, the earliest narrative source that mentions the Lombards. Why is it necessary to mention this at that point in the article, though? You've already described the Origo in the sources section; couldn't you move this fact to that section, if you need it at all? Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • OK, removed Origo note; you're probably right, it's not all that necessary especially with a section dedicated to sources.Aldux (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)