Jump to content

Talk:Macrinus/GA2

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

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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

Reassessment by: BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was listed prematurely as a Good Article: the original reviewer, Emir of Wikipedia, is still inexperienced and closed the review even though a requested second opinion check of the prose was still underway. A closer reading of the article has found additional prose issues, mostly to meet the "clear and concise" criterion, but also things that affect other aspects of the GA criteria. As should always be the case, the hope of this reassessment is to bring the article to the point that it fully meets all of the criteria.

I am not a fast reviewer, but I try to be thorough. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything, or if there are any questions. Just because I suggest a particular rewording does not mean that you cannot come up with your own, so long as it addresses the issue and otherwise meets the "well written" criteria.

I'm going to start with some general comments, and then look at the individual sections of the article, and do an overall assessment after I've completed the whole.

General comments

[edit]

I didn't click on the link to Diadumenianus until around the third time I read the article, wondering how old he was and how much of a help he would have been to his father. He was four months shy of his ninth birthday, if his own article is accurate, when Macrinus became emperor and made him co-emperor. I have no idea how common that was at that point in the Roman Empire's history; what I do know is that it is absolutely germane to this article. (Also that he was killed before he turned ten.)

  •  Done, I have included an age for Diadumenian upon his accession to empire (8 years old). As for his death, hmm... 8 (could be 8.0 - 8.9) + 14 months = 9.2/10.1 so, I took a little mathematical liberty and effected an "approximate" age at death; "he died at around the age of 10". Mr rnddude (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Macrinus ever go to Rome as emperor? This should be front and center, not left as an afterthought (where I just found it in the final sentence in the Reign section). I would certainly expect it to also be in the lead.

  •  Done, no he didn't, he had to stay in the Eastern half to deal with Caracalla's wars and immediately aimed to enact reforms which earned he discontent of the soldiers. Hence, he gain the title in the East and lived the rest of his life in the East. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The facts here are not always congruent with those in the articles for his predecessor and successor, Caracalla and Elegabalus. (Or for Caracalla's mother, Julia Domna, whose article is unequivocal in stating that she committed suicide.) These could well be because your sources are better, or at least more balanced, but I thought I should mention it, especially in the case of Elegabalus, who was 14 or 15, and whose grandmother Julia Maesa (Julia Domna's eldest [elder?] sister) appears to have instigated the rebellion rather than Elegabalus himself.

  • Comment; This almost doesn't surprise me, even looking through the secondary sources I use I find inconsistencies and gaps. It does, however, worry me that there may be factual inconsistencies between Caracalla and Macrinus since I rewrote both articles myself. I didn't notice anything when looking at the articles, are the inconsistencies minor or major? since it could be that the sources had a disagreement. I'd completed Macrinus first and then moved on to Caracalla, so there may be a source that I haven't taken into account. Though looking at Caracalla's article, there's little mention of Macrinus. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
  • I have removed "equestrian family" from the "Father" line; it is clearly not the name of his father.

Lead

[edit]
  • please give the actual dates of Macrinus's rule, rather than just the years. The latter could be anything from days to nearly two years; in this case, it was about 14 months.
  •  Done, I can be specific up to the month of the start of his reign, I have amended the infobox as well. 8 April is when Caracalla died, not, when Macrinus became emperor. Sometime between 10-11 April is when Macrinus officially became an emperor. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Elegabalus really lead the rebellion? It sounds like his grandmother Julia Maesa was the instigator (and funder), though Gibbons is perhaps more strong on this point than this article.
  •  Done, rewrote this to clarify. Maesa instigated the rebellion in favour of Elagabalus, however, post-battle Elagabalus was apparently calling the shots since he himself ordered Macrinus and Diadumenianus captured and executed. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since per WP:LEAD this section should include important information from the body, I would include a mention of the damnatio memoriae. Perhaps not by name, but that after his death, Macrinus was removed (erased?) from empire records and images (but worded better than that). Since there seems to have been at least one intact bust (the infobox image), be careful not to say that all images were damaged or destroyed.

Background and career

[edit]
  • Family subsection: I would merge this with the main section; the bulk of the information (about Diadumenianus) has already appeared in previous paragraphs, so much of this can be discarded as duplication

Reign (April 217 – June 218)

[edit]
  • I would remove the dates from the header and just title the section "Reign"
  • I was a bit surprised at the word "cheerfully", and then a bit more to find "ratified by the cheerful submission of the Senate and the provinces" in Gibbons, which is awfully close to the article's "cheerfully confirmed into his new role by the Senate and the provinces". Perhaps another source has a more evenly worded account? (Gibbons can be over the top in his descriptions, not to mention opinionated.) In any event, this sentence should be rephrased.
  • Also in the first paragraph, using two variants of "scrutinize" is a bit much. I'd recommend varying the wording, and also aiming for a bit more clarity in the time frame of these various events. And, in addition, this paragraph leaves the sense that Macrinus was not really emperor because he wasn't a senator (despite the fact that the senate had actually ratified him). I think a bit of rewording might be helpful.
  • I'd like to suggest that the second paragraph begin with mentioning both of the major problems facing the empire (and thus Macrinus), beyond the change in rulers: the many wars in train, and the drained (monetary) resources. (Perhaps, if long enough, it could be its own paragraph.) There's also a contradiction, which should really be explained: if Caracalla had emptied the Roman coffers as it says in the second paragraph, how could 200 million sesterces be paid to the Parthians? What was the empire's "income", or how much did Macrinus need to generate?
  •  Done both. It's a figure given by Dio, I looked at both of the cited sources, I'll leave both but amend to "a large indemnity" as the first cited source gives no figure other than "a substantial sum" and the second source does in fact (legalese style) question the validity of Dio's sum; "Dio's unreliability on financial matters... Dio's sum may be overstated for effect ... perhaps did not reflect ... reality of the ... settlement" (pg. 110 of Scott, Andrew work). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph, did Caracalla raise the pay for everyone in the Legions during his rule, or only do this for new recruits? From the description, it sounds like it could be the soldiers who enlisted during his rule, which would let out the veterans from the time of Septimus Severus (whose pay rate was what Macrinus returned to, if I'm reading this right). Can you clarify the situation?
  • Final paragraph: Soon after, Macrinus sent her sister Julia Maesa and her children—this reads like it is Julia Domna's children who were sent—did she have any daughters?—rather than Julia Maesa's children. Please rephrase. Also, be careful not to overuse "soon" here and elsewhere; better to be more clear (if possible) about how much time actually passed between events.

Downfall

[edit]
  • the second sentence needs to be recast; it's unclear as written
  • Comment; I made an attempt at recasting the sentence, won't claim its done without your satisfaction though. 23:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Mr rnddude (talk)
  • "Legio III Gallica" is given with two different italic schemes; please pick one. I think I'd also translate the term the first time it appears and put it in parentheses—(Gallic Third Legion)—because readers are more likely to recognize "Legion".
  • Elegabalus was 14 or 15 at this point, which should be mentioned. Otherwise people will think him significantly older, as a priest.
  • Execution (218) subheader: please drop the date from the subheader.
  • The use of "sensed" in the opening of this section is unusual; another, more direct word is probably more appropriate
  • How far is Immae from Antioch? It would be useful to get an idea of the distance.
  • It's important to have some details about where Macrinus was captured, and how soon after his capture (and where) he was executed. Also, was Elegabalus there, or was this at his orders, or is his grandmother (or mother) calling the shots? There's virtually no information, and it's an important event as it ends Macrinus's life.
  •  Done, I think. Macrinus was captured in Chalcedon and killed in Cappadocia. Elegabalus was in Antioch. Maesa was with Elegabalus, I presume since she's not really mentioned in any of the sources for this particular moment. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was later be": please delete "be" if the above revisions haven't changed this phrase
  • For Diadumenianus, there needs to be more clarity than "suffered a similar fate". Was he still in Antioch? I think it's Gibbons that said he was sent away for safety, though this didn't succeed in saving him. Please expand a bit, though not too much. (Do we know what happened to Nonia Celsa
  • Will work on the Diadumenianus portion, he was sent to Artabanus V in Parthia but captured and killed.
  • Comment: Nonia Celsa probably didn't even exist, since it's a name found in the Augustan History, the problem in saying that in the article is that it is WP:OR. I can barely find more than a couple sentence mention of her and nothing beyond that she was Macrinus' wife and that she had a disreputable character. I can try find the mention in the Augustan History, but, I can practically guarantee that that is all that will be presented there. Nor would anyone acquainted with the AH suggest that it be used as a source on Wikipedia, it is inherently unreliable; "a work of fiction". Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know how difficult it was to find a source to identify Nonia Celsa as possibly fictitious, couldn't even get it to probably. I made a footnote with a citation next to her name. I can't declare Celsa as fictitious, but, I can declare that the letter in the Historia Augusta is fictitious.  Done, good grief. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damnatio Memoriae section: there needs to be an clearer explanation of what "hostes" means, and whether it authorized the damnatio memoriae destruction or if that was spontaneous (or planned by some even if unauthorized); I can't tell based on what's written.
  •  Done; I have reworded it so that hostes is clearly denoted to mean "enemy of the state", I can see confusion arising since the next passage suggested that hostes was a declaration of support, well, that was why it was made but not what it means. Hopefully clear now. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention "Varner", but there's no context, no reason why his opinion should matter. Is he an expert, a scholar? There needs to be something with his first mention.
  • Comment: Well, given that the entire paragraph is cited to Varner's work and he's written an entire book on damnatio memoriae, I sincerely hope he's an expert. He's also an associate professor of Art History at Emeroy University. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)  Done anyway, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this truly by the Republican Senate? I thought the Republican era was pre-Caesar. Wouldn't this have been the Imperial Senate? If this is one of those odd discontinuities between name and actuality, I'd drop "Republican"; if I'm not understanding something, then by all means let me know.
  • Legacy subsection: this is an oddly titled section, since a temple isn't really a legacy. I think of a legacy as a reform or new way of doing things was carried on by successive emperors. Also, did this temple survive the damnatio memoriae? Had it even been finished before Macrinus's death? And does any part of the temple still stand today?

References

[edit]
  • You've linked to a copy of the Gibbons on line, but its pagination does not match the page numbers you've given in the Citations section. For example, citation 13 is said to be from page 179, but it's at page 164 of the online version that came up when I clicked the link. Might there be an online version of the edition you were using for pagination that could be linked to instead, or could you adjust your page numbers to the currently linked version? Thanks.

This reference adds the article to Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. A variant of the same template is repeated in §References which also contributes to the maintenance category.

I remember reading in some guideline or another that references should not be duplicated though at the moment I can't put my finger on where I read that. It seems to me that all of the items listed in §References are duplicates of the citations listed in §Citations.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Further_reading my be what I am thinking of.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trappist the monk, Fixed the first issue with the CS1 citations. The second issue I think is a non-issue; the citations list gives the full details of each source including page numbers for all of the material, the references list is for a list of all sources used in the article and gives a link to where you can find them. They have different functions within this article. The exceptions to this are citation 1 and 33, which I will fix now. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. But, it is not clear to me that such redundancy is beneficial. What is clear to me, is that this style choice is labor intensive and requires much attention to detail to get right. Here are some things that I've noticed; there may be others that I missed:
  1. why do some of the items in §Citations list the source ISBN while others do not?  Done
  2. should Boatwright in §References identify pagination?  Done
  3. in |publisher= the inclusion of corporate designators is discouraged; see Template:Cite book#Publisher and Downey Done
  4. access dates are not necessary for non-ephemeral sources; see Dunstan, Goldsworthy, and Scott in §References  Done
  5. pagination  Done
  6. Harl correctly uses {{cite web}} in §Citations but is incorrectly uses {{cite book}} in §References  Done
  7. is this the same as this? Done
  8. why is this different from this? Done
  9. the separator between the dates in this book title does not match the book's title page  Done, was going by google books.
  10. why is this different from this?  Done
  11. why is the ISBN format here different from Varner in §References? Why are the publishers different?  Done
In §Further reading:
  1. italicized date for Historia Augusta?  Done
  2. rewrite Miller with a cs1 template so that its format matches the format used in §Citations and §References?  Done
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above notes, I'll get to fixing them tomorrow morning. I'll put a {{done}} template next to each point as I fix it. Also a couple notes;
1. Not all sources are from this century, I don't think they'd have ISBNs, would they? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #2; Removed on account of no context. I'm not sure why it was there to begin with. It doesn't seem overly pertinent to have it by comparison to the primary sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. We know that older books usually don't have ISBNs. That wasn't the question. In §Citations, some of the citations listed have ISBNs, some don't. Of those in §Citations that do not have ISBNs listed, several have redundant citations in §References that do have ISBNs; see, for example: Goldworthy, Dunstan, and others.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I believe I have rectified all instances of ISBN missing in the citations list but given in the references section. Let me know if there is anything else. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were it my choice to make, I'd have gone the other way because there is no reason that I can see to maintain two slightly different lists of the same items. I don't understand why you added empty |pages= and |via= parameters. It is my experience that empty parameters serve no purpose. I fear that those editors who place empty parameters in the hopes that missing information will be supplied by other editors, will be disappointed. There are editors who complain vociferously about having to edit around lengthy cs1|2 templates (these same editors argue against list defined references with as much vehemence so there is no pleasing them). Also, |page= and |pages= are mutually exclusive: you will get the red error message if both are used in the same template:
{{cite book |title=Title |page=15 |pages=10–20}}
Title. p. 15. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trappist the monk, the empty paramaters are automatically placed without my input when I use "visual editing". It's also automatically placed when I use the cite book template. I didn't place it there personally. I will, however, remove those empty paramaters as they are indeed useless. I don't really use source editing often, while I can see why there might be complaints, the sheer number of citations that I use, almost 1 for every sentence, would leave them sorely disappointed even if I used an abridged format. Also, I have made an attempt at removing it via visual editing, doesn't work, they are automatically reinstated when I save changes. I managed to get through some of the citations while source editing, but, anybody who does edit a citation through visual editing is going to undo the change. I'm not sure why that is happening but it is. I can however still remove the page and pages duplication and will work on that. I'll undo my edit since it will be undone eventually anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that arises from the settings in the {{cite book}} TemplateData. Both |pages= and |via= are 'suggested' parameters. Apparently, VE inserts these parameters into the wikitext even when an editor has, as you did, elected to leave them blank. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#empty suggested parameters in templates for whatever that is worth.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, didn't realize that the suggested parameter's couldn't easily be removed until I'd tried it before. I thought it was rather strange myself. Thanks for raising the question in the appropriate place. I've added it to my watchlist and may join the discussion as it starts up. Unless there's a speedy resolution for it. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First pass conclusion

[edit]

That should do it for now. The article needs some more detail in places, and some clarifications and prose improvement as well. Once the issues here have been addressed, I'll take another pass through the article and let you know how it stands. Thank you for your patience. I am confident that after some work, it will be able to retain the GA status that was prematurely granted. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I have made attempts to address all of the above, with slightly varied success. Hopefully the current set of issue have been dealt with. Ping me if you have further work for me to do on this article. Thanks for doing the re-assessment. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude, thanks for all of the edits! I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to do the next pass—perhaps not for a week or so—but I will get back to the review when I can. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, how are we getting along with the re-assessment? I had forgotten that the re-assessment hadn't been concluded and just noticed it now. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude, I figured that if you had any time, it would be going to addressing the remaining issues on the Caracalla GA nomination, so I've been holding off. If Caracalla is done—I see you've been making edits this morning, including after your above post—I'll see what I can do this weekend. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, understood, sorry for the many long waits and things. I haven't contributed much in the past month due to life. I had the time to punch through a couple things for Caracalla. I'll be getting back to Caracalla tonight after my initial round of easier fixes - there's two things that will be more complex. Thanks for your patience. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

[edit]

Mr rnddude, I'm very sorry it took me so many months to return to this. Some textual issues still remain, but they should easily be dealt with. I'll be sure to keep up with this reassessment until it can successfully be closed. It's far closer to GA than it was after its initial review.

Lead

[edit]
  • I think it's important when you first mention Julia Maesa, you include the fact that she was Caracalla's aunt. Otherwise, there's no context to why she might be trying to instigate a rebellion.

Background and career

[edit]
  • The article claims that Macrinus "never had the chance to return to Rome as emperor", which seems to be an extraordinary claim. It's one thing if he decided against it or preferred not to, and quite another if events conspired to keep him in the east. Without support for the claim, "never returned to Rome as emperor" is probably a better choice. The "Reign" section reads "Macrinus had decided to remain in Antioch instead of going to Rome upon being declared emperor", which would seem to contradict the "never had the chance" wording.
  • Well, as a point of argument; When Macrinus became emperor he had two immediate wars to deal with, both in the East. He "decided" to remain at Antioch but really he had no choice due to invasion from Parthia and Armenia. I'll rephrase that as well. The settlement with Parthia angered both the Roman citizen and the Roman soldier. Now, possibly in this moment he had the chance to go to Rome, however, if he did then he didn't take it. It was very soon after this that he changed the payments of newly enlisted soldiers and that Maesa hopped on the back of soldier's discontent to incite the rebellion. That said, I agree your re-phrase is better and easier to justify.  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reign

[edit]
  • In the second paragraph, I'm unsure why the third sentence begins "Second", since there are several conflicts mentioned in the previous sentence. Similarly, the use of "In turn" two sentences later doesn't seem to fit either.
  • In the third paragraph, it would help to briefly establish Armenia's status with Rome under Caracalla (the status quo), so we better understand what changes Macrinus was making/agreeing to in the peace treaty.
  • In the fourth paragraph, the second sentence runs on at excessive length. I think it needs recasting, or at the least being made into two or more separate sentences. Remember, "clear and concise" is the goal here.
  • In the middle of that paragraph, there's a phrase "After 209 A.D." that appears disconnected from the subsequent sentence, especially since Macrinus didn't become emperor until 217. If it shouldn't be deleted, then a significant revision is needed.
  • Near the end of that paragraph, you say that Macrinus's fiscal policies angered the military, but you don't say why the soldiers should be angry. Is it because their previous pay/savings is worth less because of the revaluation? Their new pay is in the denarii with more silver in them, which would seem to be good. Or was it because the new soldiers were being paid less than the veterans? Whatever it is needs a bit of explanation.
  • This is a seriously difficult part to explain. You see, you are correct in a sense, but, not sufficiently enough. The new soldiers weren't even the major problem, it was the old ones who assumed they would be next. Even Dio noted the irony of the ill-educated soldiery who saw raw numbers and not value. But, Dio's not reliable for any fiscal statements and I don't recall my other sources bringing this up in any great detail.
  • Let's play for a second with raw numbers and then work out a value. 3000 sesterces at 50.78% purity vs 2000 sesterces at 57.85% purity. Now, it's obvious that 3,000 sesterces even though less pure is more valuable than the more pure 2000 sesterces. If we do a simple raw calculation, 3000 sesterces at half silver are around 1,500 sesterces of pure silver. 2000 sesterces at 57.85% purity are 1,160 sesterces of pure silver. There is an apparent pay drop of 33%, but, the actual pay drop is 22%. I think this is still a significant pay change even if not nearly as bad as the soldiery thought it was. Looking at raw numbers and assuming that the average Roman soldier can't even do %'s the pay change is not 1,000 sesterces (3,000 - 2,000) but 340 sesterces (1,500 100% pure sesterces - 1,160 100% pure sesterces). The other way to look at it is the silver in grams; 3000 sesterces at 1.66grams silver each is a total of 4980 grams of silver per year vs 2000 sesterces at 1.82 grams silver each is a total of 3640 grams of silver per year. At the end of the day, the new soldiers were being paid less.
  • The key source here is Scott; The major problem, of course, was Macrinus’ attempt at military reform. While necessary, such a measure was, at this point, almost impossible to achieve; it has already been noted above that the army would not stand for a curtailment of privileges, even among new recruits. Gibbon himself says The veterans, instead of being flattered by the advantageous distinction, were alarmed by the first steps of the emperor, which they considered as the presage of his future intentions.
  • I've recast the sentence to better reflect the sources.  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall

[edit]
  • I thought Diadumenianus was already co-emperor, and had been since the beginning of the reign (see the final paragraph of Background and career). The last sentence of the first paragraph here would seem to indicate otherwise. If this is just adding a new title, then I think that part needs to be made more clear.
  • This is one of those somewhat awkward things. He granted the title of Caesar which made him an Emperor to be. For example, Presidenct-Elect vs President. This made Diadumenian a "co-emperor" of sorts, but, second in power to the Emperor. Diadumenian was elevated to the title of Augustus at Raphanaea. Caracalla's titles were Antoninus (Antonine dynasty) and Augustus (emperor). Macrinus chose Severus (Severan dynasty - necessary since he was taking over from them and it would be suspicious if he chose a different name) and Augustus (emperor) and gave Diadumenian Antoninus and Caesar (A minor title styled as a Emperor designate) and later changed it to Augustus. Caesar is more akin to "Prince" than anything else. I've re-written the Background to say "thus making him second in command". I'd hoped "Junior emperor" would have that effect, unfortunately that was too vague.  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Execution

[edit]
  • The first two sentences are mutually contradictory: but could not decide upon a course of action in the former is contradicted by Not to remain idle, Macrinus sent Ulpinus Julianus with a force of cavalry to regain control of the rebels. If he sent Ulpinus Julianus to quash the rebellion, he clearly decided upon a course of action, and while I don't know whether Macrinus was idle or not, he certainly wasn't facing the rebels himself. He'd also apparently tried to shore up his own dynasty by conveying another title on his son.
  • It would help if you varied the language a bit here: "fled" and "flee" are overused.
  • If Macrinus's escape attempt injury was such that he could no longer travel, and he was executed for that reason and his head sent to Caracalla rather than being transported as a prisoner, then I think this needs to be revised to be clear about that progression. In any event, starting "Unable to complete the journey" without previously establishing the destination does not work, and a revision is needed.
  • His head was most definitely not sent to Caracalla... but Elagabalus. Though that's not important. You see, the destination is unknown actually. He was being taken to Elagabalus, but, who knows if Elagabalus had left Antioch for Rome. So, I've re-phrased the sentence and omitted any mention of a journey.  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass conclusion

[edit]

The bulk of the issues were ironed out the first time around; it shouldn't take too long to work through these, though as noted above it's important that the revised prose be clear and concise. (The first set of Caracalla revisions had some problems in that regard, which is the only reason I mention it here.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BlueMoonset, ill take a look as soon as I get home. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finishing the updates so quickly, Mr rnddude, and for explaining the facts and thoughts behind them. There were some rough spots in the resulting prose that I've sought to smooth out; please check them to be sure I haven't introduced any inaccuracies or failed to take into account your comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits BlueMoonset they cleaned up the prose quite nicely. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing GAR as "kept"

[edit]

With these latest edits, I think the article now meets the GA criteria, and deserves the status that the original review prematurely bestowed upon it. I am therefore ending this GAR as "kept", and I thank Mr rnddude for his patience with how long it took me to complete the reassessment, his hard work improving the article, and his willingness to explain the facts surrounding Macrinus and the other people of the day. I'll be updating the article talk page accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BlueMoonset, been a pleasure working with you. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macrinus/GA2&oldid=760814096"