Talk:Hadrian/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 08:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this. Might be 24 hours before I get you any substantial comments, though. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, I've started to go through this (and made some minor copyedits). Some initial commentary:

Sources

• What is meant by "non-continuous sources"?
• The article says that Dio's account of Hadrian's reign was epitomised by Xiphilinius. Is that a typo for Xiphilinus? And is it worth wikilinking him?
• "However, this particular biography is generally considered relatively free of fictional additions": presumably this means the biography of Hadrian in Historia Augusta? Maybe rewrite to make this clearer?
• What is the distinction between writing about Hadrian's politics and his policies?

Early life

• "Against this is the argument of Canto, who argues that only one ancient source gives Hadrian's birth as Rome, opposite to 25 ancient authors who affirm that he was born in Italica." the phrase "opposite to" reads very strangely here.
• "which remained in the famous Antigonus of Nicaea's collection": I can't tell whether Antigonus or his collection is meant to be the famous thing here, but I'm not convinced that famous accurately describes either.
• "(the republican Hispania Ulterior)": 1. do we need to specify what the province had been called 200 years ago? 2. if so, why do we wikilink Hispania rather than Hispania Ulterior? (3. This implies that Hispania Baetica and Hispania Ulterior were the same region with a different name, which isn't quite accurate, as I understand it)
• "near the present-day location of Seville, Spain.": "city", not "location"; but simply "near modern Seville" is probably enough, and more concise

Public service

• Do we know when Hadrian got his first position in the vigntivirate? or as a tribune?
• Wikilink cursus honorum?
• Do we know why Hadrian in particular was chosen to inform Trajan of his adoption by Nerva?
• Hadrian's three military tribunates: is the exceptional thing that he decided to, or that he was selected?
• "When Nerva died in 98, Hadrian rushed to inform Trajan personally, coming in advance of the official envoy sent by the governor, Hadrian's brother-in-law and rival Lucius Julius Ursus Servianus – but this may be a fiction coined by Hadrian himself" Where does the story come from?
• When the article says "chosen quaestor": is the quaestorship appointed by the emperor at this point? or was Hadrian elected?
• "and by this gift he [Hadrian] was encouraged in his hopes of succeeding to the throne": emphasis original? Or added?
• "As the prospects of Hadrian's rise were firstly a way to keep power in Trajan's family, by marrying Sabina, Hadrian also counted on the support not only of Plotina, but of his bride's mother, Trajan's niece Salonina Matidia, daughter of Trajan's sister Ulpia Marciana." I'm not exactly sure what this sentence is trying to say
• "and was elected an Athenian citizen": this is cited to "inscription in footnote 1", but the correct footnote is (currently) 2. Would it be better just to cite it to IG II² 3286?
• It seems strange to have the list of offices that Hadrian held in the middle of a section.
• "Trajan's bogus adoption": only three sentences before, the adoption of Hadrian "might" have happened after Trajan's death; in the next section we have "if Trajan's adoption of Hadrian was genuine". "bogus" is a strong word here!

I've only got up to the end of the section on public service so far. Nonetheless, that gives you something to work on. I'll try to crack on with this, but it's a 14,000 word article: it's going to take me some time to do it justice... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

Emperor

Securing power

• Hadrian's adoption was dated to after Trajan's death? Why then is there debate about whether the adoption was legitimate?
• Why is "discovered" in "he 'discovered' a conspiracy" in scare quotes?
• Footnote 60 cites a claim to "Elizabeth Speller" with no more details. Presumably this is Speller 2003, which is mentioned in the bibliography, but this should be made clear. And preferably something more specific than an entire book should be given.
• "former conqueror of": rewrite
• "consular" as a noun reads bizarrely and is uncommon: I would try to avoid this as it looks like an error.
• "Nigrinus' ambiguous relationship with Hadrian would outlive him" what is this meant to mean in plain English?
• "dies imperiii" fairly sure this should be "imperii"?
• "According to Syme, it is a disguised account of Hadrian's authoritarian Principate that is to be found in Tacitus' account of the rise and accession of Tiberius." needlessly convoluted sentence. Why not just "According to Syme, Tacitus' description of the rise and accession of Tiberius is a disguised account of Hadrian's authoritarian Principate."?

Hadrian and the military

• Why did Hadrian give away Dacia to the Samartians? Did he not think that they were worth defending?
• "Proof of this": "proof" is a very strong word for a claim which is merely asserted as "more probable". "evidence of this", perhaps?
• "These defensive activities are seldom mentioned in literary records" why is "literary" italicised?
• Is there epigraphic or other non-literary evidence that the border fortifications were built under Hadrian?

Cultural pursuits and patronage

• "Hadrian was first described, in an ancient anonymous source later echoed by Ronald Syme, among others, as the most versatile of all the Roman Emperors." I suspect the point here is that the phrase "most versatile of all the emperors" originates in an anonymous ancient source, but this sentence is ambiguous.
• "well- received" copyedit
• "When Hadrian's predecessor, Trajan, consulted Apollodorus about an architectural problem, Hadrian interrupted to give advice, to which Apollodorus replied, "Go away and draw your pumpkins. You know nothing about these problems."" this is given in wikipedia's voice as something that happened, and yet the rest of the paragraph suggests that the story is doubtful. which is it?
• Do we know what happened to Hadrian's supposed autobiography?
• "As a cultural Hellenophile Hadrian was familiar with the work of the philosophers Epictetus, Heliodorus and Favorinus. At home, he attended to social needs." I can't work out what the first sentence here has to do with the rest of the paragraph, and reading the articles on Epictetus and Favorinus hasn't cleared matters up.
• "He built libraries, aqueducts, baths and theatres. Hadrian is considered by many historians to have been wise and just." Again, not sure why the first sentence is part of this paragraph.
• not sure why the last two paragraphs of this section are here rather than in the section on Hadrian's death, below.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Managed to work my way through the rest of the article. More commentary:

Hadrian's travels

Purpose

• "At the same time, as in later times all the way through the European Renaissance, kings were welcomed into their cities or lands, and the financial burden was completely on them, and only indirectly on the poorer class." Assuming "them" refers to "kings", this seems to contradict the previous paragraph.

Greece, Asia, and Egypt

• "who, as a merchant, was probably snubbed upon as unfit for civic prominence": this doesn't make sense at the moment and needs rewriting

Legal reforms and state apparatus

• why is this subsection under §Travels rather than §Emperor?

Hadrian and Judea

• "Therefore, the Romans appear to have been surprised by the outbreak of the uprising." I'm not exactly sure what this "therefore" follows from.
• "The evidence for this failure to integrate Judaism into a unified religious system lies in the fact that, after the war, Hadrian even renamed Jerusalem itself, as Aelia Capitolina after himself and Jupiter Capitolinus, the chief Roman deity" not sure how this follows

In Rabbinic literature

• Again, why is this a subsection of §Travels. I would expect it either to be a subsection of §Hadrian and Judea or to be part of §Historiography

Final years

Succession

• "The marriage was childless, so in 136 Hadrian adopted one of the ordinary consuls of that year, Lucius Ceionius Commodus, who took the name Lucius Aelius Caesar.": presumably the fact that Hadrian was sixty encouraged him to adopt rather than remarry and try for an heir?

Legacy and modern historiography

• Not sure why the discussion on ancient and modern historiography is so separate; it seems like it might make more sense for them to be grouped together.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And now thinking specifically about the GA criteria:

• Lead section mentions L. Licinius Sura as a significant influence on Hadrian's accession to the imperial throne, but the body of the article doesn't mention him at all. Nor does the body of the article discuss Hadrian's place among the Five Good Emperors – something for the section on Historiography, maybe.
• MOS:LAYOUT says that sections should generally not be very long or very short. Hadrian#Greece and the East; return to Rome (130–133) is a particular offender here: it's less than 150 words long, can it not be folded into another section?
• I shall come back to criterion 2: I should like to spot-check some sources before I comment here.
• The article certainly hits 3a: no obvious omissions. 3b is less sure: 82Kb of readable prose! This is really the point where WP:SUMMARY style would be useful. I'm not going to insist on splitting it out immediately, but that's definitely something to consider.
• Seems neutral enough (cr.4). I shall go through the article again specifically thinking about this, though.
• Criterion 5, stability, is certainly met. Actively developed, but no revert-warring or content disputes.
• Article is certainly thoroughly illustrated. Shall have to take time to go through the image captions and licensing, though; I haven't looked at that at all yet.

Now I've made my way through the whole article, and formed my own impression, I shall also have a look at the previous reviews and quickly check that there's nothing still outstanding that they picked up on and I haven't.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, pictures seem to all be freely licensed or out of copyright. No issues there. Captions seem okay too. I've started to check some of the references, and haven't found any problems there yet. There aren't any obviously inappropriate sources used.

One final concern I have is that there are a few uses of constructions such as "op.cit." and "ibid." in the references, which should generally be avoided in Wikipedia: see WP:IBID for the reasons. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Waiting on improvements to the article per Cerme's comment here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)