Wikipedia:Peer review/Basiliscus (Caesar)/archive1

Basiliscus (Caesar)

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take it to FAC, and I think it needs a little more help than usual in getting there; Basiliscus was only briefly in any sort of official position as a child, and only as a means of swaying his father to betray his uncle (in typical Byzantine function). As more of a bystander of history than anything else, and sharing his name with a much more important and concurrent Emperor Basiliscus, this one is a little trickier than most. Thanks all! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

• At Iazyges' request I'll be giving this a copy edit. If there is anything you disagree with or don't understand why I changed it, feel free to query it here. Or in Iazyges' case, just revert it - I won't care. There are a couple of things I have been asked not to change; so if you see things which are obviously going to cause problems at FAC you should not necessarily assume that I have taken leave of my senses - unless I have, in which case you should. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• In the title, why the upper-case C?

  I could not say; never really thought about it. Been that way since 2014. I'll move it once the PR is done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to get started.

• Wiktionary considers "caesar" to be an English word, meaning "emperor, ruler, dictator". So you may want to remove the lang template.
• Lead: You seemed to have missed describing the fall of Basiliscus senior and the re-enthronement of Zeno.
• "with him being among both the common people and the senatorial class". What does this mean? It may be that I am not understanding how you are using "among".
• "who succeeded in recruiting Illus and Trocundes". They need introducing.
• "viewed as a symbol of divine wrath by himself." Just checking that you want to say that Basiliscus himself considered it a sign of divine wrath.
• "such flaws had not occurred for over a century". What flaws? Usurpation, natural disasters, high taxes ...?
• "who were heavily Chalcedonian". Either explain this or delete it. I recommend cutting it.
• "after the execution of her lover". I think this needs a proper explanation, not just a mention in passing.
• "Illus, possibly buoyed by his hold over Zeno, by way of his brother's imprisonment". Illus's or Zeno's brother?
• "arranged to ally with him". Arranged to, or actually allied with him?
• Illus, possibly buoyed by his hold over Zeno, by way of his brother's imprisonment, arranged to ally with him". Was this after he defected, or an expansion of the act of defecting?
• "and led them against the three". Do you mean led or lead? If led, do you mean by Basiliscus or Armatus? Who were the three. If one was Trocundes, you need to tie him back into the narrative: at the moment he and Zeno are still in Isauria, wondering how Illus is getting on.

I am going to pause here. Apologies for so many queries, but to copy edit, I need to be sure of the facts I am paraphrasing; some of the queries I could have a good guess at, but my best guesses aren't really going to cut it at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Did you see Gog's comments above? Z1720 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

UC

A few thoughts:

• Visually, the article is a bit of a wall of text: I appreciate that it doesn't help having relatively little to put in the infobox. Could a few more images be added to break it up and make it a little more readable?
• The brackets make the first sentence of "background" very difficult going: When Eastern Roman Emperor Leo (r. 457–474) fell ill in 473, he had his grandson, Leo II (r. 474), the son of Zeno (r. 474–475, 476–491), and Ariadne (r. 474–475, 476–515), crowned as emperor in October 473. Do we need all these regnal dates? In particular, I'm not sure how we can have r.474 for Leo II when he was crowned in 473.
• On a similar if smaller note, there are a lot of strings of citations, which aren't great for readability. Could these be trimmed or bundled? I notice for instance the four citations on Emperor Basiliscus quickly lost support in Constantinople due to heavy taxes, heretical ecclesiastical policies, and a natural disaster viewed as a symbol of divine wrath by himself: is there anything in here that's only demonstrated by one of the sources?
• There's a lot of Latin in the article, and I'm told that some of our readers aren't quite fluent in the language. Suggest briefly explaining any term used in Latin, and taking opportunities to translate (e.g. could Vita Danielis Stylite be "Life of Daniel the Stylite"?
  • If not, we should at least use the correct genitive Stylitae.
• The section on his relationship with Leo reads a bit like an essay to me.
• Emdashes don't take spaces; endashes do.

Hope this is helpful: very much a quick pass, I'm afraid. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Due to a lack of activity, I am going to close this PR. A new PR can be opened when the above are addressed in the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)