Talk:Theodosius (son of Maurice)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Theodosius (son of Maurice) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 1, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theodosius (son of Maurice)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Just a few spots where wording isn't clear
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
  • Specific comments:
  • Life:
    • you like apocrisiarius, but best to give a short description for the unfamiliar term so your readers don't disapper when they click to figure out what the term means.
    • Same for patrikios.
    • Who is Theophylact Simocatta? Brief description as above will help a lot.
    • I'm a bit confused - if the letter from the troops went to Germanus and Theodosius - why do we get "Maurice rejected"? How did Maurice know?
  • Rumors:
    • "...produced a false Theodosius in whose name he fought." I think the "he" means Narses, but best to make this clear.
  • Gah, forgot this one - the lead should probably be expanded slightly to at least cover the fact that there were imposters and who supported them. As it stands, the lead is a bit short for an article of this size and doesn't really summarize the article's contents (as nothing at all is mentioned about the imposters). A bit more from Life might also be useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I have to ask for a few days more to make the necessary changes since I was non-stop busy and virtually without internet access the past week. Constantine 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I've made the suggested changes, although I've tried to be as concise as possible. If you're unhappy with any one, or feel that more elaboration is needed on a point, I'll revisit them. Constantine 20:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been on the road, but should be able to get to this this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Changes look good, passing this article now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Cheers, Constantine 16:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)