Talk:Gelimer/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 20:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 02:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

After the success of the nominator's article on the Battle of Tricamarum, where I had the privilege to undertake a similar review, it is interesting that I have been chosen to review this one on one of the main participants. I will be reviewing this article as part of Good article review circle #112. simongraham (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• First, some general comments.
• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 1,440 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 157 words.
• Authorship is 77% from the nominator with contributions from 54 bots and other editors.
• GPTZero is highly confident this text is entirely human.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text to the image in the infobox for accessibility. The other images already have an ALT tag.
  •  Done (added alt text to the reinserted image by another editor as well)

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
     • Y noted
   • Suggest placing commas around the phrase "in total" in "in total 30,000 sailors", "as a result" in "as a result he did not gain the patrikius title" and "with the main army" in "At this point Gelimer with the main army arrived and engaged with the Huns, who retreated". I suggest it may be worth considering a comma after "Gelimer" in the last example.
     •  Done
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources are mainly books published by reputable publishers, including icon works like Gibbon and Procopius.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks:
     • 2 Martindale 1992, p. 506 confirms the family lineage. Notably, the language is very similar to Hughes p. 71.
     • 6 Hughes 2009, p. 71 confirms the claims.
     • 11 Bury 1958, p. 130 confirms the claims.
     • 22 Heather 2018 seems to have 332 pages before it gets to things like appendices, a bibliography and the index.
       •  Done the correct page was 335 (in the appendix where the Timeline is provided, see here), not 533 my bad typo, the source provides the date of the battle 15 December: Battle of Tricamarum and destruction of Vandal military.
     • 25 Procopius, Book IV.vi.20 (p. 263 in English) confirms the comment.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 5.7% chance of copyright violation, which means it is very unlikely. The common text is proper names like book titles.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • Please add any information on where he was born and died to the body.
     • Comment: Before my edits it had 480 AD as the year of birth and 553 AD as the year of death . Unfortunately these were not linked to any of provided sources and I could not find any source that provided those dates or any other; I already had the following The year of his death is unknown.
     •  Done I added an explicit statement that we do not know this information.
   • There are three pages of information on Gelimer in Martindale (pages 506 to 508). Is there any more useful information here?
     • Comment: Anything on Martindale is already on the article, I do not think I missed something from this source. The only exception was the allegation about seizing the seizure of wealth of others. If I missed something please let me know, Martindale source can be found here.
     •  Done added a brief statement it.
   • Deleted content also makes reference to sources like Gieseche 1939 for comment on his religion. Is this worth expanding?
     • Comment: I tried to preserve what existed before my editing, Gieseche 1939 is still mentioned in the "b" footnote. Unfortunately I do not have access to Gieseche 1939 so I do not know much about it. The source, from my limited understanding, may provide deeper insights into about the early Christianity views and conflicts. It is of course a bit old source and perhaps a replacement is warranted; though the ecclesiastical history is not my strong suit. If you think it does not adds value then I will remove it.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article balances the need for sufficient information on his life and the wider political and military situation to give context while retaining a summary style.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • Although one primary source is quoted, it is used sparingly. The article seems generally balanced and avoids obvious propaganda.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.
     • Y noted

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • Münze 50 Denari - Gelimer - König der Vandalen (cropped).jpg and Gelimer-surrenders-to-belisarius.jpg lack a US PD tag,
     •  Done added
   • The other image (Vandalic War campaign map.png) has an appropriate CC license.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are relevant and enhance the article. The infobox image is a coin illustrating the subject.
   • The images are appropriately captioned.
     • Y noted

@A.Cython Thank you for writing another interesting and well-written article. Please take a look at my review above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Simongraham Thank you for your excellent review. I believe I have addressed your comments. If I missed something please let me know. A.Cython(talk) 17:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython: That looks great. Congratulations. I believe that this article also meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)