Wikipedia:Peer review/Basiliscus/archive1

Basiliscus

Hello.

I recently improved this article. I would like to know if there are weak points, if it is unbalanced, if the citations are numerous enough, if the references used are authoritative.

Furthermore, I looked for information about Basiliscus relationship to Aspar, but found very sketchy hints suggesting an involvment of Basiliscus in Aspar death, buth nothing more.

It looks decent, but could use a little work. Here's some comments:

A short introduction can be an issue in the FAC process. I suggest making it at least 2-3 paragraphs.
The organization of the contents seems a little odd with a single big section called "Life". I suggest getting rid of that and moving the other sections up one level. So the main sections would then be "Origins", "Early career", ...
Pardon me for saying so, but much of the page could use a careful editing. The writing is somewhat awkward in places. An example would be the sentence, "The position of Basiliscus rose in Leo consideration, probably also because of Verina support." Paragraphs such as: "Probably of Balkanic origin, Basiliscus was brother of Aelia Verina, wife of Leo I, had a wife, Zenonis, and a son, Marcus," can be confusing due to ambiguity.
The External links section should be at the end of the article, per the MoS.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the introduction, briefly sketching B.'s life and importance.

I removed the "Life" heading

As regards the "careful editing", it is needed both because some of my sources are "old", and because English is not my first language. I partially reworded the sentences, but I would leave further "cleaning" to someone else.

I also reordered the sections accordinf to the Manual of Style.

--BlaiseMuhaddib 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, man. But if you ever go for FA or even GAC you'll have to fix a lot of things. Some basic remarks:

The lead is still inadequate. You must add one or two sentences. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole text. See WP:LEAD.
Nice photos and captions. But you'll find out that there are some infoboxes for military persons you might like to use. After this peer-review you can also ask from a peer-review by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. There are some excellent reviewers there, doing an excellent job.
Don't we have any clue about when Basiliscus was born? I saw that this topic is obscure in the article.
When did the "Disastrous expedition against the Vandals" happen? I saw no chronology. Sometimes I feel like losing the chronological order in the article!
You have placed the sub-section "Disastrous expedition against the Vandals" under "Early Years". Are you sure about that? Shouldn't be a seperate section? And If we assume not, why you have the first two paragraphs of the section "Early Years" without a title. As it is now, you have a huge sub-section ("Disastrous expedition against the Vandals") and two orphan paragraphs before that. Personally, I do not like this structure.
If you ever nominate the article for GA or FA, you'll find that many users donot like one-sentence paragraphs. You have some of them. I think they need fixing.
Citations! Citations! Citations! The trend is now in Wikipedia to citate as much as we can. Some example of statements that need reference: "Probably of Balkan origin (who says that?)", "It has been argued that Basiliscus was uncle to the chieftain of the Heruli, Odoacer by whom?)", "The invasion of the kingdom of the Vandals was one of the greatest military undertakings recorded in the annals of history, a combined amphibious operation with over ten thousand ships and one hundred thousand soldiers (Who gives these numbers?)", "The number of ships and troops under the command of Basiliscus, as well as the expenses of the expedition, have been differently calculated by historians. Both were enormous; the account of Nicephorus Gregoras, who speaks of one hundred thousand ships, can be rejected as either an error of the copyists or a gross exaggeration. According to the more reliable opinion of Cedrenus, the fleet that attacked Carthage consisted of eleven hundred and thirteen ships, having each one hundred men on board (the historians you mention say that in which of their works? Be more specific!)", "Byzantine emperors were at the same time heads of the State and of the Church. Therefore, they had the power of issuing edicts regarding the Christian faith. At the same time, religious matters were very important for the Byzantine people, and those suspected of eresy, or simply supporters of the "wrong" interpretation of articles of faith, had not easy lives (Says who?)"
You have a full paragraph of Bury. Is this paragraph so important? Can't you just rephrase what he says and incorporate that in your prose? And fix the citation (Bury, p. 392). Put it in the end along with the other references and notes.
Be more clear about what is the "Chalcedonian faith". I had to go two links further to go to the COuncil of Chalcedon and then I kept reading your article, and I found that you indeed clarify the whole matter, but in tha next paragraph. I think you should rewrite both paragraphs, so that the reader avoids the needless confuse.

Manuel I Komnenos is a FA about a Byzantine imperor. If you go there, I think you could get some more ideas. Good luck!--Yannismarou 08:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for the useful review. I did change the article to address your points, in the following way:

I tried to expande the leading section, summarizing B. life and why he is important;
I added an infobox used for military figures, but I am not sure it fits with B., since he is mostly noteworthy as emperor, rather than as commander;
I find no reference to his date of birth;
The article does not cite frequently years, because only two events are noteworthy in B.'s life, the operation in Africa (468) and his rise-rule-fall (475-476). So the section about Africa is set in 468 and his rise-rule-fall are from january 475 to august 476. Note that also the sources are quite vague, with such a short rule, always reporting statements as "at the beginning of his reign", rather than the month/year;
I voluntarly adopted the style "a paragraph and then the subsection(s)" for each section. However it looks like you do not like it, so I removed the stray paragraphs;
I did not think it was necessary to add a citation for each paragraph, when I carefully listed my references in the relative section. I added the citations as you requested, but I find they obstacle the flow of the reading. Let me know what you think;
I removed the citation by Bury;
I wanted to avoid a lengthy discussion about the Monophysite/Chalcedonian positions, as the exact matter of the contemption is not important in the story as the fact that there was a contemption. However, I reworded that part, let me know what you think.
Manuel I is quite a larger figure than Basiliscus, I do not think there exists such a quantity of material on the latter. However, I shall take a look to Manuel article.

Thanks again for your comments, and let me know what you think of the "new" version. --BlaiseMuhaddib 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks much much better. First of all, let me tell you that my suggestions are not by default right! They are just based on my short experience with GA and FAC. Thereby, in certain points I may be wrong. When I say that one-phrase sentences are not preferred my some Wikipedia users, this is not necessarily my opinion, but If you attempt to qualify your article as FA or GA, you may face such criticisms. Because I did face! Now, some additional remarks:

The structure seems neat to me now. As far as I am concerned it is OK. I'm not against one paragraph before the sub-sections of a section. But two long introductory paragraphs and just one too long sub-section seemed to me a bit peculiar. Again, another user may have a different view!
References: To have an idea about what is the trend in Wikipedia about refs, check User:Robth/Citation spot checks. I quote: "I will then check these references to see if the cited source contains text supporting the claim to which the citation applies ... I will be opposing FACs which lack sufficient inline citations, lack sufficient detail in their citations (page numbers are key), or which I find serious problems with while doing the spot check." I quote again: "page numbers are key". In the "new" version you do not have page numbers in the citations!
Try to have the citations at the end of the sentences, so as not to obstruct the flow of the reading. You're right about that. But the balance between good flow and adequate citations is always tricky. You may be right that "it was not necessary to add a citation for each paragraph", but as you see, you may be criticised that you "lack sufficient inline citations".
The infobox:military person or the Infobox:Biography was just a suggestion. If you donot like it, OK! But if you get criticised for not having one, have a good reasonig to respond these critics.
In the captions of the mints, mention that these are byzantine coin depicting him or her. For instance, "Zeno on a coin celebrating his victories." It is very nice that your captions are explanative. Just make sure that you donot repeat what you've already analysed in the prose. I think, in most cases, you do not repeat, but just make sure!
The lead: You may have expanded it too much, but this is not a big deal. If you get criticised for the length, you merge or erase one or two sentences and it is OK.
Even more sources would be well-comed. I checked the word "Basiliscus" in Google Book Search and I think there is a variety of books about him.

In any case, the article is getting better and better. And if you follow my advice and have it peer-reviewed in the two Wikipedia-projects I mentioned, it will get even better.--Yannismarou 09:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I addressed your points. I plan to submit this article for a peer reviw in both the projects you suggested. Thanks!--BlaiseMuhaddib 13:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]