Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch. I am not wanting to hurry you, but wondered if you had an idea of when you might be able to start this review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! I've meant to start on this long before now, & then I started a new job which has taken up my spare time. (One reason I haven't made many substantial contributions in recent weeks.) I'll try to get to this before the end of this week. -- llywrch (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi llywrch. There is really no need to hurry. I can sympathise with the new job situation. I only gave a nudge in case you had completely forgotten about this. Please don't feel pressured. If you want to leave it until, say, the Christmas-New Year break, that is fine by me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch writes

Sorry for the long delay in writing up my review, partly due to starting a new job as I wrote above. But I have my feedback for you.

First, I want to start with the positive. I like that you do a good job with the overview of the subject. This is something that I find hard to do, especially with lower-prominence individuals like Piso.

Next, I'm glad you tackled one issue I had noted back in October: the citations used about 3 or 4 different styles. Which you consolidated into one style. (Although I have my own preference in which citation style to use, I'm agnostic about what styles other people use, as long as it's consistent.)

I've also checked the citations of the secondary sources -- Syme's two books & Michael Swan's article -- & they are accurate.

That said, here's where I believe improvements need to be made.

About coverage. Comparing this article with the equivalent article in Pauly-Wissowa (Calpurnius 95), there was only one significant omission: some authorities believe that Cn. Piso was the individual addressed in Horace's Ars Poetica. (Ronald Syme discusses this in his Augustan Aristocracy, pp. 379-381.) Besides Syme, you may want to also use a good commentary on Horace's poem to explicate the importance of this relationship.

The citation of Valerius Maximus really should include the appropriate citation of the Latin text, e.g. book & chapter indices. This helps readers who are using either another translation, or are fluent enough in Latin to consult the original text.

The citation of Mennen to support the assertion that "Becoming a consul was the highest honour of the Roman state" does not fit. Mennen's monograph discusses the Roman Empire of the 3rd century, not the last century Before Christ. Syme's Roman Revolution pp. 334ff is more relevant to this period.

In presenting these two points, it becomes clear more secondary sources are needed to properly flesh out this article. I'd look at Friedrich Münzer's Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families, or Timothy Wiseman's New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.-A.D. 14. Another possibility, as I explain below, would be a biography of the emperor Augustus.

The rest of the points I will cover in order of appearance.

The section "Background" is more accurately about his familial connections, namely his father, his possible wife, & his two known sons. However, much of the information about his father appears in the next section, "Early career". (Which would be better entitled, "Life" since it covers his life up to his consulate. Or maybe, "Life during the Late Republic".) Changes in this section I would make include:
- Rename the section.
- Gather all of the information about his father Cn. Piso into this section.
- Point out that the identity of his wife is based on the inference of Syme. (Syme makes a very plausible argument for this identification, but it is still an opinion based on surmise, not an attested fact.)

The opening paragraph of the next section appears to be full of accumulated cruft as this article evolved over the years. There is no evidence that Piso was ever a member of the Boni -- or, as they are better known, the Optimates. The contrast in his career is that his first documented act was to prosecute one of Pompey's clients (replacing Cicero, who had begun the prosecution, only to chicken out), only several years later to serve as his quaestor when Pompey was proconsul of Hispania Ulterior.

(It is worth pointing out that Piso flipped between factions during the Civil War, first supporting Pompey, then accepting amnesty from Caesar, then joining the Liberators following Caesar's death, then again accepting amnesty from Augustus. I expect at least one expert on this period has looked carefully at Piso's changing political allegiances.)

This cruft has also built up around his motivations behind his transitions between known activities. I looked at the primary sources, & none explain how he arrived at his next recorded appearance. Instead of trying to explain how he came to each, I'd simply state "Next Piso appears in X, where he did Y."

The section on his consulship is probably the most interesting point in his life. By no measure could Piso be considered a loyal supporter of Augustus; at best, I'd consider him neutral towards the new ruler of the emerging Roman Empire. Yet at a critical moment, Augustus appointed him consul, when the office still could provide its incumbent with the prestige & authority to incite a rebellion against Augustus, whose constitutional position was still untested. I think a good biography of Augustus would explain the situation Piso held, & describe the questions we still lack satisfactory answers concerning Piso's appointment.

Again, sorry I took so long to provide this feedback, @Gog the Mild:. I hope the wait was worth what I wrote. Feel free to contact me with any questions. -- llywrch (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi llywrch, not a problem. I realise that real life happens. I hope that the new job is going well. As it happens, RL is going to keep me occupied for a couple of days, but I shall read through your comments and respond as soon as I can. When I do, don't feel under pressure to get straight back to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Several things:

I think Roman consuls should be listed under 'World history', and not 'Warfare'. I missed the listing because of this.
I've been bold and added an 'ancient sources' subsection and reworked the bibliography section, but feel free to change it if you have a better arrangement.
Please add the volume number (like vol. II) for multivolume works like Broughton's.
Replaced boni by the more common optimates.

Suggestions:

Are you sure that the Catiline conspiracy is described as you did in the sources you mention? It looks like Ciceronian propaganda to me ("overthrowing the Roman Republic with the help of foreign armed forces").
Remove the footnote with references inside. I suggest to add its content into the text and remove it from the lede. Syme is just reporting the opinion of Groag, PIR2 C 289 (pp. 61-7), that the pontifex friend of Horace is not a Piso Frugi. Look at it again.
You should definitely include @Llywrch:'s remarks about him being friend to Horace.

It can be passed as GA after you've answered llywrch's points and mine. @Gog the Mild:.T8612 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Gog the Mild, llywrch, where does this review stand now? I don't see any edits by Gog the Mild to address llywrch's review after over two months, nor to address T8612's additional issues. Are there any plans to continue this, or should it be closed? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Entirely my error. One of your colleagues has has recently pinged me. This had slipped through the cracks, but can I beg an extension? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no problem on my end, though as llywrch is running the review, it's ultimately up to them how much time. (Given that they hadn't mentioned anything thus far, I can't imagine there will be an issue so long as work starts reasonably soon.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I was waiting on Gog's response, & I should have been more proactive. As soon as the requested changes are made, I'll review this article once again. -- llywrch (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, it's been another three weeks. Maybe this one just isn't meant to be? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Llywrch: I hate to do this to the reviewer and to Wikipedia, but you are probably correct. RL commitments and other Wikipedia issues are pressing. Llywrch, I much appreciate the review and the patience. Apologies for wasting your time. BlueMoonset, should I kill it off, or is there a formal procedure? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, there's a formal procedure. llywrch will take care of closing the nomination. Do feel free to renominate once RL and other matters become less pressing and you've had a chance to update the article to address the issues raised in this review. Thanks for the quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll close this as a request from the nominator, with no prejudice towards renomination. Good luck with your RL commitments, Gog. -- llywrch (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a technical fail, only because there is no other category to close this review under. Both nominator & reviewer have been unable to give this article suitable attention to complete the GAR process. This article may be submitted for consideration as a Good Article without any prejudice of this action, although the comments above may help in guaranteeing its success in a subsequent review. -- llywrch (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]