Thanks. What I say in the article is that "there was Aristotle’s conservative, aristocratic view that while virtue is crucial to being happy, external, material goods such as wealth, pleasure, and fame contribute to happiness too. Thus, poor people couldn’t be ethically praiseworthy or happy."

So the difference in virtue theories, according to that encyclopedia article, is about the function of external, material goods. Are they necessary, not necessary but preferred or not so preferred, or are they injurious? That's what separates Aristiotle from the Stoics and the Cynics, respectively.

Here's what Aristotle says from Nichomachean Ethics: "Yet evidently, as we said, it needs the external goods as well; for it is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without the proper equipment. In many actions we use friends and riches and political power as instruments; and there are some things the lack of which takes the lustre from happiness, as good birth, goodly children, beauty; for the man who is very ugly in appearance or ill-born or solitary and childless is not very likely to be happy, and perhaps a man would be still less likely if he had thoroughly bad children or friends or had lost good children or friends by death. As we said, then, happiness seems to need this sort of prosperity in addition; for which reason some identify happiness with good fortune, though others identify it with virtue."

Goodness and hapiness go together, for virtue theorists. So the question about poor people is whether they can be fully happy given that they lack the external goods, even if they have all the internal ones (virtues). Character would have to do with the internal goods, although we might also suspect that some people lack the external goods because they lack virtues too. Some folks might earn their poverty or their friendlessness or lack of education. Other times these are accidental outcomes.