# Talk:Vitalian (consul)

Hey Constantine, I saw the article on DYK and I'd be glad to review it. Date and length are okay of course, but there's some stuff I'd like you to elaborate on about the hook.
In the hook, you say it was a three-year revolt, and indeed, it lasted from 513 to 515. I could not locate in the article any hints as to when in 513 the rebellion started (I suppose this may be unknown). If that was towards the end of the year, then the rebellion would have lasted from late 513 to late 515 (the time of Vitalian's Constantinople battle), i.e. around two years. The duration would be a full three years only if the rebellion began in early 513. I suppose the quickest measure would be to reword the hook rather than dig for any details as to the start of the uprising.
Also, are there any details about the birthplace of Vitalian? A quick online check seems to indicate that (mostly unreliable) Bulgarian sources are quick to identify Zaldaba (Zalbada?) with Shumen.
Best, Todor→Bozhinov 13:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Todor! The exact date of the uprising's start is not known, although it must have been in early 513, since the battles with Hypatius occurred in the autumn, and before that there was the descent to Constantinople etc. So roughly three years would be correct. IF necessary, I'll reword it. As for the identity of Zaldaba/Zalpada, it is mostly identified with Abrit [1]. Constantine   ✍  16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, Constantine! I'll accept your arguments and I'll leave it to you to decide as to whether to reword the hook. My personal persuasion is that the current wording is a bit inaccurate, as the uprising did not last for a full three years, and should be reworded at least slightly.
Indeed, reliable source seem to identify Zaldapa with the site near the confusingly-named modern village of Abrit in Dobrich Province. I'll take that.
Best and thanks for another quality article, Todor→Bozhinov 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vitalian (consul 520)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Buchraeumer (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Nice article! No problems. I would only question the recent move from "general" to "consul", as most people, myself included, would know him as a rebel leader and not recognize him as a consul. PASS! Buchraeumer (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass and the tweaks. As for the title, it appears that there is a tendency to use the "highest office held" as disambiguation factor for Roman people. Personally, I agree with your remark, but... Constantine   ✍  12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)