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.

---

Close as consensus to promote Woody (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Aldux (talk)

This article is fruit of my interest for the 6th century, unfortunately a very unpopular century in wikipedia. My first major effort regarding the period has been my article on Alboin that thanks to kind help I was able to bring to FA status. This article can be considered a sort of companion to the latter, but differently from Alboin it has had the advantage of obtaining a lot of input from WP:PR, MILHIST and BIOPR, while other helped the English flow better. The major change for me has been to put a section dedicated to the discussion of primary sources: that's quite new for me, but it was proposed both in Alboin's FAC and during the peer review. Also it had been applied with success by other editors, thus I couldn't resist the temptation to try with it. Aldux (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments: looks pretty good to me, but I have no knowledge of this topic, so I can't really give a full review, sorry. I have the following comments for the sake of the review:
  • according to the Featured tools there are no dab links, ext links work and the images all have alt text (no action required);
  • "File:Paulus diaconus.jpg" - while I'm confident that it is in the public domain, I think it probably needs some sort of date added to the description page so it can be confirmed (e.g. when was the painting/drawing/etc created - even an approx date would probably do) [not a requirement for my support here, but you will probably get asked this at FAC];

As you correctly observed, it will be asked sooner or later, so I opted for changing the image.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • the other images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations of online sources (no action required);
  • in the infobox, I think there is a space here that should be removed: "c. 548 –560" (in front of the hyphen);

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • the article doesn't mention when Thurisind was born, or what sort of family he grew up in (was he nobility, etc.) A brief sentence or two after the first sentence of the Rise to power section would suffice, IMO, if the sources mention it (suggestion only);

Not fixed, and really don't know how to: your suggestions make perfect sense, it's just that I (or anybody else) can't answer to these questions as his age, his family (sons excluded), his background are all completely unknown, sadly. At most I could write something like "nothing is known of his origins", do you think it would be better to add it?Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry - if its not known, that's fine. My suggestion would be in this case to add a brief clause stating this. For instance, something like this (in the Rise to power section - you could just tweak the second sentence of the first paragraph): "Although the details of his early life are not known, Thurisind is believed to have risen to power in about 548..." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, followed your advice.Aldux (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • not sure about the first comma here: "Sometime during 546,[22]–548," (I think it should be removed);

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • this reads awkwardly and I think should be changed slightly: "Most of the army never reached the war zone, as they were diverted by a revolt erupted in Ulpiana" (perhaps try "...a revolt that erupted in Ulpiana...");

Fixed, I think.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • this reads awkwardly to me: "the third Lombard-Gepid war must have already by then ended" (perhaps try: "...the third Lombard-Gepid war must have already ended by then");

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • this reads awkwardly to me: "his turn to have Ostrogotha given him" (perhaps try: "his turn to have Ostrogotha given to him");

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • in Note # 49, I think there is a space that should be removed here: "386 –387";

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • in the Reference list, I believe that "Christie, Neil" is out of alphabetical order. It should be above "Curta. Florin" (Ch before Cu);;

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • in the Reference list, I believe that "Jarnut, Jorg" is out of alphabetical order. It should be above "Mitchell, Stephen";

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • in the Reference list, I believe that "Maenchen" and "Martindale" should be above "Mitchell" (Ma before Mi). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks a lot for the input.Aldux (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it is an interesting read. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "circa": I substituted "c.", per WP:MOSNUM: "the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, ..."
• "his son": I substituted "the king's son"; it doesn't hurt comprehension and might help.
• Is it Tate, Baldwin, both or neither who considers Procopius "the greatest historian of the 6th century"? One way to make this transparent would be to insert the supporting citation after "6th century".
• "Gepid-Lombard": The Arbcom case concerning en-dashes hasn't finished yet, but the probable result will be to recommend an en-dash here. Ditto for "Lombard-Gepid" later on.
• "the relations among Gepids and Lombards and their kings.": Do you mean how the Gepids got along with Lombards, and also how their kings got along with each other? If so, "between" is much better than "among" for pairwise relations.
• "contemporary source": The word is absolutely blameless if you're writing a journal article targeted at historians, but since the word "contemporary" also means "modern", you can avoid confusion for a general readership with "contemporaneous source" or "source from that time".
• "where" meaning "in which" is a little informal.
• "Paul the Deacon was one of the most important Italian writers of the 8th century.": I'm guessing you're not saying that this is your idea, you're saying this is an opinion of a source or sources you agree with. Sentences that express (or seem to express) opinions should be cited sooner rather than later, ideally at the end of the sentence, so we know which opinions you're relying on. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I should have fixed all the issues raised. Thanks for putting them before my eyes.Aldux (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Hchc2009

Enjoyed the article - some minor points noted below:

• as it endied the danger" - spelling of "ended"

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• " it was to be observed for ten years, surviving both Thurisind and Audoin." - would suggest either "it was observed" or "it was supposed to be observed", thereby making it clear if it was supposed to be observed for ten years, or actually was observed.

Fixed.Aldux (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "both kings secretly murdered their respective guests" - secretly as in no-one knew they'd been murdered, or secretly in that people didn't know the kings were the killers?

The latter you suggested. Changed in "both kings murdered their respective guests but kept secret their involvement in the act".Aldux (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• " an heroic lay " - a lay? I didn't know what this was.

Yes, it's probably not common enough; replaced with "an heroic poem".Aldux (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should have adressed problems know, and thanks for your help! :-)Aldux (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm no expert on this topic but there is, as always, a lack or reviewers so I have read over it and have a few minor points:
  • The citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
  • Excellent use of WP:RS in my opinion, and you use a consistent method of citation throughout (no action required).
  • I made a couple of changes to presentation, re image placement, dashs and refs (please review and revert if you do not like).
  • Presentation of isbns in the references section is a little inconsistent I think as you seem to use hypthens in some but not others, should probably pick one style and use it for all.
  • "Jordanes doesn't explicitly" should be "Jordanes does not explicitly" per WP:CONTRACTION.
  • Overall though this is a very well-written article and I am happy to support. Anotherclown (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, I've now adressed the problems you observed. Thanks a lot for your help! :-)Aldux (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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