Talk:Siege of Ariminum (538)/GA1: Difference between revisions

Line 16: Line 16:

”'[[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|GA]] review”’ (see [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|here for what the criteria are]], and [[Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not|here for what they are not]])

#It is ”’reasonably well written”’.

#:a ”(prose, spelling, and grammar)”: {{GAList/check|~~hold~~}} b ”([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]] for [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|lead]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout|layout]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch|word choice]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction|fiction]], and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists|lists]])”: {{GAList/check|y}}

#:a ”(prose, spelling, and grammar)”: {{GAList/check|}} b ”([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]] for [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|lead]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout|layout]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch|word choice]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction|fiction]], and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists|lists]])”: {{GAList/check|y}}

#: ”’PASS {{strikethrough|EDITS REQUIRED}}”’. The article structure meets the MoS criteria, the prose flows naturally, and the lead is very well written. I will be making some minor edits to the language, some of which I am explicitly mentioning for your reference: (1) I recommend using John’s full name (John the Sanguinary) at first mention and then switching to the mononym as this is standard practice in academic writing, (2) Wiki-linking Rome to [[Roman Empire]], etc.

#:Some comments for you: (1) The infobox vaguely mentions the strength (smaller and larger forces); please see if you can find quantifiable information (number of soldiers/platoons on both sides). (2) Please add a small section before “Capture of Arinimum” that briefly outlines the [[Siege of Rome (537–538)]] as it is heavily mentioned in the article.

Line 27: Line 27:

#: ”’PASS”’. This article is sufficiently cited and uses appropriate sources. I spot-checked both primary references (Procopius, 1919 & 1924) and a secondary reference (Hugher, 2009). All seems to be in order and I verified that the citations are valid and correctly placed.

#It is ”’broad in its coverage”’.

#:a ”([[WP:Out of scope|major aspects]])”: {{GAList/check|~~hold~~}} b ”([[Wikipedia:Article size|focused]])”: {{GAList/check|y}}

#:a ”([[WP:Out of scope|major aspects]])”: {{GAList/check|}} b ”([[Wikipedia:Article size|focused]])”: {{GAList/check|y}}

#: ”’PASS {{strikethrough|MINOR EDITS REQUIRED}}”’. The article breadth is satisfactory. I recommend including a section on the Siege of Rome. Once that is reviewed, this criteria will also pass.

#:: I have added a subsection that briefly describes the Siege of Rome. ”'[[User:A.Cython|A.Cython]][[User talk:A.Cython|(talk)]]”’ 03:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Line 40: Line 40:

#It is illustrated by ”'[[Wikipedia:Images|images]]”’ and other media, where possible and appropriate.

#:a ”(images are tagged and non-free content have [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|non-free use rationales]])”: {{GAList/check|y}} b ”([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature|appropriate use]] with [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions|suitable captions]])”: {{GAList/check|y}}

#: ”’EDIT REQUIRED”’. The article has a good collection of images. I have a comment on this image [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:538_Siege_of_Ariminum.svg#/media/File:538_Siege_of_Ariminum.svg] that you created: please add geographic or demongraphic labels (such as nearby cities, the sea that appears in the top-right corner, a compass/direction of North, etc.). This will make the image easier to comprehend.

#:: It is a schematic to illustrate the battle plan/deception of Belisarius. It is inspired by a similar figure (in black and white colors) found Syvänne’s book (2021) p. 161 (clarification the figure was made from scratch). I cannot do much beyond this as it would be construed [[WP:OR]] since we do not know with precision the army movements with respect to geographical locations. However, I have added a compass/direction and changed the figure caption to make clear that this is ”not” a battle map. ”'[[User:A.Cython|A.Cython]][[User talk:A.Cython|(talk)]]”’ 03:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

#::: Noted. The compass adds a fine touch to the image. [[User:Ajay Platinum|Ajay Platinum]] ([[User talk:Ajay Platinum|talk]]) 05:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

#”’Overall”’:

#”Pass/Fail”: {{GAList/check|hold}}

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

Nominator: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 23:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ajay Platinum (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’ll be reviewing this article. Feel free to push back against anything you want to discuss further. If it isn’t a quick pass, we’ll work together to get this article up to GA level. Any changes too minor to bother you with, I’ll just do directly in the article – but feel free to discuss those as well. Ajay Platinum (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article and providing constructive comments. I will try to address all the issues raised.A.Cython (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2026 (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):

PASS ~~EDITS REQUIRED~~. The article structure meets the MoS criteria, the prose flows naturally, and the lead is very well written. I will be making some minor edits to the language, some of which I am explicitly mentioning for your reference: (1) I recommend using John’s full name (John the Sanguinary) at first mention and then switching to the mononym as this is standard practice in academic writing, (2) Wiki-linking Rome to Roman Empire, etc.

Some comments for you: (1) The infobox vaguely mentions the strength (smaller and larger forces); please see if you can find quantifiable information (number of soldiers/platoons on both sides). (2) Please add a small section before “Capture of Arinimum” that briefly outlines the Siege of Rome (537–538) as it is heavily mentioned in the article.

Thank you for the comments and changes.

(1) I removed the causalities as I am not aware any numbers about them. I added some numbers/estimations for the army sizes, though these are estimations based on numbers provided for the Siege of Rome. I tried to be as faithful to the sources without doing WP:OR.

(2) Added a subsection as requested.A.Cython (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted on the number of casualties/force strength. Thanks for adding the subsection – the article read very naturally now. Changing criterion to PASS. Ajay Platinum (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

PASS. This article is sufficiently cited and uses appropriate sources. I spot-checked both primary references (Procopius, 1919 & 1924) and a secondary reference (Hugher, 2009). All seems to be in order and I verified that the citations are valid and correctly placed.
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

PASS ~~MINOR EDITS REQUIRED~~. The article breadth is satisfactory. I recommend including a section on the Siege of Rome. Once that is reviewed, this criteria will also pass.

I have added a subsection that briefly describes the Siege of Rome. A.Cython (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Criterion changed to PASS. Ajay Platinum (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

CLARIFICATION REQUIRED. I find a slight imbalance in the manner in which the siege is presented, i.e., focusing more on the exploits of the Byzantine forces. Are there no Gothic sources on this siege and the importance of Ariminum? Were there are any Gothic generals to support Vitiges?

The sole primary source that survives is that of Procopius as far as I know. There is another Roman historian Cassiodorus, who worked under the Gothic court, but much of his work has not survived; his lost work on Gothic History was completed before the Justinian‘s Wars so it covers the previous Gothic-Roman wars from the Gothic perspective. As such all secondary sources that I have access rely on Procopius to tell the story. Note that modern authors often attempt to correct Procopius claims based on modern estimations or other evidence. Whenever possible I include these comments in the articles.
I do not recall (and from a quick search) if other Gothic commanders are mentioned. A.Cython (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

PASS. The article appears stable from its recent edit history.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

PASS ~~EDIT REQUIRED~~. The article has a good collection of images. I have a comment on this image [1] that you created: please add geographic or demongraphic labels (such as nearby cities, the sea that appears in the top-right corner, a compass/direction of North, etc.). This will make the image easier to comprehend.

It is a schematic to illustrate the battle plan/deception of Belisarius. It is inspired by a similar figure (in black and white colors) found Syvänne’s book (2021) p. 161 (clarification the figure was made from scratch). I cannot do much beyond this as it would be construed WP:OR since we do not know with precision the army movements with respect to geographical locations. However, I have added a compass/direction and changed the figure caption to make clear that this is not a battle map. A.Cython (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. The compass adds a fine touch to the image. Ajay Platinum (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article is very close to passing the GA criteria. Once you have made the required edits, it should be an easy pass. Overall, very well written!

Ajay Platinum (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An additional comment: The article has very few dates other than those in the Infobox and the date the siege was lifted. Please try to add dates for when John captured Ariminum, when the Gothic siege of Ariminum commenced, and for other critical events. Ajay Platinum (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajay Platinum I added dates wherever possible and addressed your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be tackled. Thank you for your review. A.Cython (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply