Talk:Marcus (son of Basiliscus)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Smoothly passes the GA standards. It is a short article, but complies with the GA standards in all respects and reflects the quantity and focus of the material available in published sources. It is professionally laid out, clearly written, and generally puts the site's best foot forward.

The only observation I have at this stage is the danger of WP:OVERCITE: there are a lot of relatively uncontroversial statements which are cited to multiple sources, sometimes four or five of them. I checked those that I could, and removed a few citations to Elton where Elton's text did not seem to support the assertion made in the article - in each of these cases, however, Elton was one of several sources cited. Similarly, the Brooks 1893 citation was being used entirely as one of five (!) to support the statement about Verina's move against Zeno, and was cited to the entire article - I simply removed that as adding no value and reducing readability. If User:Iazyges has access to all of the sources used, it might be a good move to work out which of the citations can be done without, and cut them down for readability.

That is, however, above the requirements for GA, and so I have no problem with passing it as-is.
 * Thank you very much for your review! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)