Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vitalian (general)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalian (general) edit

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

This is an old article, being created and having passed GA back in 2010. I always intended to nominate it for ACR, but never got around to doing it. It was expanded by a helpful IP editor in 2012 with info on Vitalian's ethnic background, but remains otherwise largely the same, with the exception of some copyediting. It is quite complete in coverage, detailing Vitalian's rebellion, defeat and subsequent fate. Constantine ✍ 11:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: sorry it's taken so long for a review. Overall, I found the article well written, well referenced and comprehensive (although I say this purely as someone with no knowledge of the topic). I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps link "Thrace" in the lead;
this seems a little awkward: "...members of his family seem to have been related, expressed any kinship, by blood or spiritual...". Perhaps this might work: "...members of his family seem to have been related, expressed any kinship, by blood or spiritually..."?
"...and marched onto Constantinople..." --> "...and marched on Constantinople..."?
"...Patricius then invited him and his officers for negotiations in the city itself." --> Patricius then invited him and his officers into the city itself for negotiations."?
not sure about the language here: "resolved to treat again with Vitalian". (Specifically, "treat" --> this seems a little old fashioned)
"returned to their sees" (is there a link that could be provided for "sees" to aid reader understanding in this context? Episcopal see seems a possibility?)
I think you are using British English, if so I believe the word "theater" should be changed to "theatre". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and for the prose suggestions, they have been implemented. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This is a very high quality article, and I have only the following comments:

"angering the Empire's Chalcedonian population, already alienated by his strict financial policies" - is "alienated" the right word here? - if the strict financial policies weren't applied to only the Chalcedonians it's probably not appropriate and something broader would be better.
Did Vitalian personally bribe his way into Cyril's camp and kill his opponent? This is a bit unclear at present.
Who was holding Anastasius's nephew?
"the old rebel" - given that we don't know when Vitalian was born, is it OK to refer to him as being old in 520? "Former rebel" might work better. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the relevant spots, please let me know if the new versions are clearer. I've also added a list of the primary sources for this article. Though I've used chiefly secondary sources, I've used the primary ones to check the facts, and it should help anyone wanting to consult them. Constantine ✍ 10:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed: great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (just short of support at this stage)

"he followed his father into the imperial army" - would be worth saying "into the East Roman imperial army", as its in the lead, and we haven't clarified for a casual reader that there was an empire of any sort yet.
"to quickly win over large parts of the army and people of Thrace to his cause." - is there an article missing before "people"? It read odd to me without being "and the people of Thrace"?
" who feared in him a rival for the throne." this felt a little archaic as a construction; "who was concerned he might try to claim the throne"?
"His sons too became generals" - "His sons also became generals"?
"He is called a "Goth" or a "Scythian" in the sources." - you say "the sources", but which sources? "contemporary sources"? "Roman sources"? etc.
"classicizing " - worth linking
"Anastasius had changed the form of the Trisagion and officially adopted the Miaphysite dogma, angering the Empire's Chalcedonian population, adding to the disaffection caused by his strict financial policies" - without clicking on the link, I'd have no clue what the Trisagion is. Could you add something in to help the average reader? (e.g. "the Trisagion divine liturgy"?)
"chroniclers" - worth linking
"Charles, R.H. (1916). The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu. London: Williams & Norgate. pp. 131–134. " - is this used as a source? I can't see it cited anywhere.
"Jeffreys, Elizabeth; Jeffreys, Michael; Scott, Roger (1986). The Chronicle of John Malalas: A Translation. Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. pp. 225–227, 231–233." - ditto.
"Whitby, Michael (2000). Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. pp. 193–194, 200–203." -ditto Hchc2009 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the review and the suggestions. I have emended the problematic points, please have a look. As for the sources, as I said above, most of them were used to double-check the information of the secondary literature, and they have been included as a reference point for any interested reader. Constantine ✍ 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob's. My advice would be to either put the uncited primary sources into a further reading section, as per Wikipedia:Further reading, or to separate them out as general references, as per WP:GENREF. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure how to implement WP:GENREF. Perhaps if I changed the "Sources" to "Bibliography" it would be clearer? It is a bit like cheating, but I really don't want to separate the handful of primary sources into "cited in this article" and "not-cited" ones. Constantine ✍ 08:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.