Talk:Palladius (Caesar)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The lazy mouse (talk · contribs) 14:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can pass this article in good faith as long as the first thing I notice is this large font typo right at the top: "Reign 17 March – 31 May AD."

Done

There should be an explanation of what the title caesar meant. The subject's father was emperor and as caesar Palladius was heir to the throne. In most cases, you can use English and call him "heir to the throne" instead of caesar. Also, there is no reason to italicize the word caesar.

It is standard practice to use caesar, and to italicize it. In this instance in history, caesar was equivalent to heir, yes, but it varied heavily through history. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palladus was caesar when the Vandals sacked Rome. This fact should be mentioned in the opening of the article. After all, this is the incident that gave us the word "vandalism." Currently, the opening focuses on the exact length of his tenure, which strikes me as a detail.

Done

You should check out Thomas Hodkin's Italy and Her Invaders (1892), which is the classic account of this corner of history. Hodkin has several details that can be added to the article. In his telling, Eudoxia "was one of the loveliest women of her time," a Roman Helen who launched a thousand Vandal ships. Even if this is a romantic conceit, it should be mentioned.

If it is romantic conceit, it should not be added, per Wikipedia's policy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written. Fail. Notable typos and fails to explain the reason for the subject notability.
All fixed, subject notability is obviously given by WP:POLITICIAN. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research: pass
3. Broad in its coverage: fails. focus on detail and misses the larger picture
What larger picture do you desire here? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral Fail. Doesn't give the tradition view mentioned above.
Neutrality has nothing to do with traditional views. It has to do with bias. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable pass. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]
6. Illustrated Fail. No illustrations.
@The lazy mouse: please note that the criteria contains the "if possible". There are no images which can be added that are directly related, as the subject died before the invasion itself, so an image of such cannot be added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for once again addressing my concerns. (Really, I am not stalking you. We just both seem to have an interest in ancient Rome.) I think we are ready to pass this article now.

1. Well written. pass
2. Verifiable with no original research. Pass
3. Broad in its coverage. Pass
4. Neutral. Pass
5. Stable. Pass.
6. Illustrated. Pass. The lazy mouse (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]