Jump to content

Talk:Gaius Antonius Hybrida/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 03:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page to my watchlist, feel free to ping me when you need me or alternatively I'll see any changes to the page when you post comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 1; para 1; Link "Marcus Antonius the Orator", it is available at Marcus Antonius (orator). Also the following the sentence to this, "his brother was Marcus Antonius Creticus", who is "his" in this context, is it Marcus or Gainus, please revise to avoid confusion. The same persists with the following sentence. "He was also the uncle and father-in-law ...", who is "he" here? Also link "Mark Antony".
  • Marcus Antonius is linked in the Lede per WP:BUILD; as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article. This includes the article lede. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 1; bulleted points; There is no need to bullet the points, can be worked up to the prose.
  • Section 1; last sentence; What does "who were a younger", a bit awkward.
  • Rename section 2 as "Military career" because the later section are also a part of his career, they are the political ones.
  • Section 2.1; sentence 1; Link "Lucius Cornelius Sulla".
  • Section 2.1; Link "Cappadocia" and "Bithynia" on the first mention.
  • Section 2.1; It is better to mention Archelaus's rank, may be it is to be "under the command of General Archelaus". Also mention who is "Aristion".
  • Included Archelaus' rank. Aristion has to wait for the moment. Aristion is am inconsequential character for this article, he was a philosopher and ambassador to Mithridates VI. He had no military ranking and was killed by Sulla after Athens fell. I have no reason to believe that Hybrida had ever encountered or interacted with Aristion. There is no need for me to elaborate on Aristion - indeed only one source that I've used mentions him, and it only gives his name without further explanation. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 2.2; It is better to explain the role of "censors" in paranthesis or as a note (such as {{efn}}), because this is topic is an ancient and most of these are unknown to present day readers who are not aware of the Roman history. Also link "praetor" in the next line. Also explain about it as mentioned. The same follows "aedile" in the later sentences. In this context it is mentioned that Hybrida was expelled from the senate, but it is never mentioned in the previous section that he was selected to the senate.
  • It is better to explain the role ... because this is topic is an ancient and most of these are unknown to present day readers who are not aware of the Roman history.; Yes and no, mostly because Hybrida is somebody who would be difficult to come across for the average person. I'll take a look at attempting this for; censosrs, praetors, and aediles though it may take a couple of days as a citation will still be required. Senators are just a select group of 300-500 people, mostly patricians. Hybrida would have been appointed by a consul, which one and when, I haven't been able to find. Note, a lot of what we know about Ancient Rome comes from either writer's of the era (Dio is famous in this regard) and the many inscriptions and objects that survive. So there can and will be many gaps and inconsistencies as that information is lost or damaged. Dio's own works are mostly intact, but, not entirely and sections are missing. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes now included for censors, praetors and aediles -  Done. Praetors and Aediles are loosely defined positions that were subject to changes over the course of the Roman Republic's lifespan. Hopefully the footnotes are useful enough for readers. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 2.2; sentence 1; Link "Gellius" and "Lentulus"
  • Section 2.2; sentence 2; Who is "Kamm"? Mention his profession, something like "author Kamm" or "Kamm, an author" or something similarly. The same follows to "Dustan".
  • Section 2.2; Link "Catiline", "Caesar", "Marcus Licinius Crassus" and "Marcus Tullius Cicero"
  • Already linked in the lede; Catiline's real name is Lucius Sergius Catalina so I clarified this as it may be easily missed.
  • Section 3; " who had supported Catiline and his part and who might join a rebellion against", the use of "and" is more repetitive and confusing.
  • Fixed part -> party. Error on my part. The repetitive and is necessary here. Hopefully clarified with the fix.
  • Section 3.1; para 1; Link "Eturia" on the first mention.
  • Section 3.2; para 2; sentence 1; Link "the alps" and "Gaul"
  • Section 3.2; para 2; "massacred the entire 3000 men army", the phrase "3000 men" is not necessary here. Because in the just before sentence, the strength was mentioned.
  • Section 4; para 1; "Dardanians", "Moesia" and "Cephallenia". At the end of the para; mention who is "Dio".
  • Section 5; "censorship" is dup-linked.
  • The coverage is good enough, but can something about his birth time (approx.) be mentioned? Because that is the most basic information.
  • This is a common problem with many ancient history articles, I have nothing mentioning the existence of Hybrida prior to 87B.C., however, he would have had to have been born at least 20 and up to 35 years earlier in order to have gained the rank of Tribune or Legatus. So I can estimate only that he was born in the period between 122-107 B.C., that would be an OR estimation and thus unreliable. The "Flourished 1st century B.C." is a reference to him becoming known in that time period. This is something that can't be helped. Note, his brother's birth date is equally unknown. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, to bring an article to this level that belongs to a very ancient times is a really worth appreciation. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 05:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will be aiming to cover the last few things tonight or tomorrow night. Thanks for the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I believe I have addressed all of your comments. I've made a few comments on some of the requests to link to another article explaining that this is generally done only at the first instance of the name, place, or term used. I've also made a comment on Aristion and why I think expanding on him is unnecessary. It's not relevant to this article. Other than that, I think I've gone through and dealt with all the other comments appropriately. Feel free to ping if there's anything else you'd like me to look at. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: The think about the linking you've said is OK. But generally, links in the lead are generally considered as different from the entire article, and also WP:REPEATLINK allows the linking after "first occurrence after the lead", and however this is not a war stopper or a strict GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, just to confirm then that you don't have a problem with me abstaining from making those links? additionally are you satisfied with my rationale about leaving the part about Aristion as is - Aristion is a philosopher mainly, his occupation had no bearing on his involvement in the Mithridatic war and it would take far too long to explain such an inconsequential character (I can remove the mention outright if you'd like)? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Of course, the links are not a problem, also nothing wrong with Aristion. I'm good here. All good to go, but presently the Legobot is down and nominations are not updated, will pass once the bot is up again. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - cheers, didn't even know legobot was down. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaius_Antonius_Hybrida/GA1&oldid=749767579"