Talk:Marcus (son of Basiliscus)

Marcus (son of Basiliscus) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 28, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Top‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marcus (son of Basiliscus)/GA1. 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)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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.

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you very much for your review! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]