Talk:Priscus (magister militum)/GA1

GA Review
✅  :''This review is transcluded from Talk:Priscus (general)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tagmatarchos (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is much more fleshed out than the original German article. Congrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagmatarchos (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 March 2010


 * Per a discussion with the nominator (see the relevant talk pages), I'll be conducting a second review on this just to ensure that the article meets GA standards.  Canadian   Paul  15:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's my take on the article:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall very nice. Some comments:
 * 1) Under "Under Marcus" you write "Priscus not only failed to restore order, but was himself attacked and forced to flee to Constantina, while the soldiers elected the dux of Phoenice, Germanus, as their leader." Dux should be wikilinked, as the average reader is not going to know what the means.
 * 2) While not strictly a GA requirement, it would be nice to see alternative text for the images per Alternative text for images
 * 3) Same section: "At the same time however, Priscus also reportedly quarreled with his men over the distribution of the considerable amount of booty captured. Maurice also sent orders for the army to winter north of the river, but this caused great resentment and unrest amongst the soldiers." The doubled use of "also" is a bit awkward, so I would suggest removing one... I believe that the second one is unnecessary.
 * 4) Same section: "It was a remarkable act of aggressive defence, in the words of Michael Whitby, "without parallel in the sixth century" for the Danube frontier, and which essentially wan the decided the war for Byzantium." Aside from the fact that the Whitby citation should come directly after the quotation, I'm assuming that the last part "wan the decided the war" was meant to be either "won the war" or "decided the war". This needs to be fixed.
 * 5) Maurice (emperor) should be linked at least once in his section, as you've done with the other two emperors
 * 6) Under "Under Phocas", "At any rate" is not a very encyclopedic term and should be avoided
 * 7) Like dux, being tonsured is not a conception that is likely to be understood by the average reader, myself included, so at least one Wikilink would be appropriate for this as well.
 * 8) The lead should cover all major sections of the article - right now it's missing any information on the "Assessment" section.

Given the situation with this GA review, I'm going to place the article "on hold" for up to one week to allow for these changes to be made. I'm always open to discussion on any of them items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  01:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and the valid points raised. I think I've covered them, except for the alt texts, which I'll try to do tomorrow... If anything else comes to your attention, please tell me. Regards, Constantine  ✍  14:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One small issue - what you've added to the lead refers to the reader, which should be avoided. It might be better to say "Although the surviving sources...". In any case, it's minor and, since alt text is not a GA requirement, I think we can consider this article passed as a GA and end this little review kerfuffle. So congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian   Paul  04:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)