Talk:Vitalian (consul)/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Cplakidas in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Buchraeumer (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- 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)