Talk:Theodosius (son of Maurice)

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

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 22, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Persian ruler Khosrau II used a man who he claimed to be Theodosius, the eldest son of the murdered Byzantine emperor Maurice, as a justification for launching a war against Byzantium?

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 26, 2013, and March 26, 2018.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

GA Review

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)[reply]

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've been on the road, but should be able to get to this this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, passing this article now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]