Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Eucherius (son of Stilicho)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Eucherius (son of Stilicho)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it relates to my work with Roman/Byzantine people, and I believe it meets the standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review looks fine (t · c) buidhe 10:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support

I'll look at this tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 04:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"From this, Historian J. B. Bury suggested that Eucherius was born c. 388" - lowercase historian here
Done
" Historian Peter Heather suggests" - Again, historian isn't a real formal title, so I think this should be lowercase
Done
Is it possible to briefly indicate what exactly the role of tribune of the notaries was? The redlink isn't helpful for explaining, and all the average reader will know is that they're told it was a lower rank
Done
Should Gibbon have an |orig-year parameter to indicate that this is actually a very old work, rather than one from 2009? Also recommend linking the title to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Done
The link for ThayerE is dead
Fixed
Since the Thayer works are all used as sources, move them up from external links to the sources.
Done
"here he described Rome as being the place where Eucherius "first beheld the light"" - is there a secondary source that also has this interpretation? The source itself is a work of Claudian, and this appears to be interpretation of the phrase found in the primary source
Done

That's it for the first pass. Hog Farm _Talk 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Caption: "An ivory diptych believed to be that of Eucherius (left bottom) with his father Stilicho (right) and mother Serena (middle), c. 395". Delete "that".
Done
As he didn't take a regnal name, do we need his birth name in the infobox?
Done
"(Aged 19-20)" → 'Aged 19 or 20'.
Done
"which was written before his death in 404". Delete "before his death". Otherwise it reads as if he died in 404.
Done
"historian Clare Coombe" → 'the historian Clare Coombe', to avoid false title. There are other similar cases.
Done
"at this time during a narrative of Theodosius' visit to Rome". "during" → 'in'.
Done
The first paragraph of "Later life" is rather long. It also has "However" three times.
Done
"held by young elites". What is a young elite?
Changed to "young members of the nobility"
"but to guard Gaul such as to allow him to". Delete "such as".
Done
Introduce Sarus.
Done
"a revolt soon broke out against Stilicho". Delete "soon".
Done
Both the lead and the infobox state that Eucherius died on 22 August 408. But the main article doesn't.
Seems I misunderstood how "soon" the death of Eucherius was from the sources, changed to amend that. Exact date of death seems unknown.
This article has the appearance of not much material being stretched thinly. For example, in "Later life" the last half and all of the second make no mention of Eucherius and don't seem very relevant to this article.
Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly where to trim the fat. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article tagged as MilHist? What military role did Eucherius fulfil?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Responding to the last comment first per relevancy; I think I slapped it in there as a force of habit more than anything else; I will add that a lot of rulers get added to MilHist, but I'm willing to withdraw this in regards to relevancy if its deemed appropriate. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I rather regret flagging it up now. Can I suggest that we finish this nomination, which is well in hand, without worrying too much which side of the invisible and debatable line the topic falls, but that you double check all future noms for MilHistness©. And maybe that we reviewers be a little more on our toes in that respect. Does that work? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Just saw this; yes, I definitely will be more careful in future. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and support from Vami

Quality of the sources checks out. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 05:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check good. Supporting. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 05:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.