Talk:Vitalian (consul)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Buchraeumer (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 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:

Nice article! No problems. I would only question the recent move from "general" to "consul", as most people, myself included, would know him as a rebel leader and not recognize him as a consul. PASS! Buchraeumer (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pass and the tweaks. As for the title, it appears that there is a tendency to use the "highest office held" as disambiguation factor for Roman people. Personally, I agree with your remark, but... Constantine  ✍  12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)