Jump to content

Talk:Theodosius I/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: Smallchief (talk · contribs) 10:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a thorough and good article -- but, of course, I have a few suggestions and nitpicks. It wouldn't be a review if I didn't. So, here are my comments:

Summary section. In my opinion, this opening section has to be clearly written, thus more comments on it than on the remaining sections.

Para 1

  • I would move the last sentence in your summary paragraphs: "He was the last Roman emperor to rule over a united empire but died without having completely consolidated control of his armies or of his Gothic allies" up to paragraph one, as I think it deserves more prominence. You might adapt that sentence and reference it with something like the following sentence. "Although he had co-emperors, "Theodosius is generally acknowledged by scholars as the last man to rule" both the Eastern and the Western Roman Empires. (Galsworthy, How Rome Fell, page 264)

Para 2

  • "to imperial rank". I doubt the average reader understands that "imperial rank" is the same as emperor, nor how one emperor can appoint another. Why not a simpler and more comprehensible formulation. "The senior emperor Gratian appointed Theodosius as the Eastern Roman emperor." Or something similar.
  • "victory"? Was it really a victory if Theodosius offered "highly favorable" terms to the Goths. The Romans always claimed victory over barbarians.

Background and career section, para one sentence two.

Accession section

  • I doubt that the average reader knows that "augustus" means "emperor." Why not the word "emperor" throughout the article instead of a less familiar term? Or if you think the title augustus is important, explain it.
    • Okay, I went through the article and changed all the uses of augustus to emperor, but it is less accurate, so someone may come along at some point and change them all back. It's  Done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Under this section, I would be inclined to add a paraphrase of "Theodosius I was based in Constantinople, and for his own dynastic reasons (he wanted his two sons each eventually to inherit half of the empire) refused to appoint a recognized counterpart in the west. As a result he was faced with rumbling discontent there, as well as dangerous usurpers, who found plentiful support among the bureaucrats and military officers who felt they were not getting a fair share of the imperial cake." (Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire, pages 29-30)

First Civil War sub-section

  • Seems to me that the main point in this section is obscured by too much detail. Do we really need to know about Gratian and his wives? Rather the important points are that Maximus was a rebel (a usurper?). And that Theodosius didn't have the resources to deal with him immediately. And who "acclaimed" Maximus as an emperor?
    • Perhaps you can answer a question that has been in my mind since I first came to this article. These sections were written more by what happened within the years they reference than by the title claimed. We could change the section titles to represent that, or we could move all the personal material to the background and career section, and retitle it Life and career. I'm glad you said something since it has bothered me since I got here! What do you think is the best approach? I vote for Life and career if you care! :-) Then all the extraneous data will be gone. It should be somewhere though imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre sub-section

  • In this section the format of the footnotes changes, and the format is mixed during the remainder of the article. I'm not much bothered by that, as the sources are clear -- which is the most important characteristic of footnotes, but it may be a deal-breaker for some in declaring an article "good."
    • This section is the first section written by me; art and religion follow. I always use the citation templates. The previous sections were written before I got here, and several have been revised by my wonderful companion at arms, Avilich, but I have no idea what citation method he uses. I wanted him included in this nomination as he has been so helpful and cooperative and a stickler for accuracy - which I adore - but the GAN template isn't set up to include two nominees. I knew that a FAN would never pass this mix of citation styles but did not think that was part of the criteria for GAN. I will go through and change them all to the Templates if you think it's necessary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third civil war sub-section

  • You might make clear here that Eugenius was a pagan, or appealed to pagans, for support. And that this was probably the last time that pagans competed for power with Christianity in the Empire. That makes it clearer what the alleged divine favor was about.
  • I'm not the formal nominator, and I don't know who exactly is allowed to comment in GAN, but it must be said that this section needs a complete rewrite. The idea of a pagan revival is a fabrication, and there was no religious dimension to the war. I'm busy this week so I can't spend too much time on wp. Avilich (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey Avilich! Normally anyone can comment, but it is restricted to those who have not contributed to the article, so unfortunately that leaves you out. However, since neither one of us wrote this section, I very much need your expert input on what should be included here. Please come to my talk page and let's put something together that will improve this section. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath subsection

  • There are several dashes in this sub-section which seem unnecessary.
    • Dashes unnecessary?!? What?! DUDE! Dashes rock!  :-) Okay fine. I used them because they made it clear three words were one phrase, but as you wish. They are gone now.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

  • Footnote 71 leads to a dead link.
    • I do not know what the problem is, but it is not a dead link when I click it. It leads directly to the article in question. 71, right? "How the obelisks reached Rome: evidence of Roman double-ships" at [[1]]? Could you mean another number? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religious policy section

  • This lengthy section looks excellent to me after a quick reading, but possibly comments after I look at it more thoroughly.

Smallchief (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • Take your time. I'm bothered by one sentence in this section: 'Modern scholarship sees the notion of pagan aristocrats united in a "heroic and cultured resistance" who rose up against the ruthless advance of Christianity in a final battle near Frigidus in 394, as romantic myth.' That seems a bit magisterial, as interpretations of history to me are never settled science, but always subject to changing (and not necessarily better) opinions by historians. Anyway, I'll consult an authority or two on this subject, and be prepared to respond to your redraft (although I'll be hiding out in the wilderness, a long ways from my computer, next week).
      • I think also I would characterize the Battle of Frigidus as "bloody" or some similar adjective to give the reader the insight that this was a major battle and not just a skirmish. Cheers. And good work. Smallchief (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I changed that sentence so that it is attributed only to the scholar who says it. It's heavily discussed in more than one source - who invented the idea after WWII and why -- but I can't remember these other sources off the top of my head. I can find them if needs be, but I do believe the claim is the current one. You know how things shift and change.
        • I added bloody, but it is a swear word for the Brits, so I also added extremely. I hope that works. It already says thousands of Goths died the first day. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Smallchief I think I have completed those revisions for now - unless you fund something else that needs redoing! :-) There is no third civil war: sections have been retitled accordingly. I have no idea how that happened. It does seem that whenever I redo an article and leave sections alone, it always creates problems for ≠me. I should not have missed this one, but I did. Sorry. It is fixed now hopefully.
          • Did you make a decision on the citation styles? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see one minor problem. The last para of the summary says Theodosius fought three civil wars, but the present text only describes two. Changing the summary to say "two civil wars" seems like the easy solution if that doesn't conflict with the references. And way down the page in the second civil war section is the word "senator's." I don't think the apostrophe is correct.

With that first correction (if my reading of it is correct), I'll declare the article "good." However, I generally find wikipedia instructions incomprehensible -- and right now I am attempting to decipher the instructions for declaring an article good. (I'd probably function better in Theo's Rome than in the 21st century.) So, I'll try to fill out the template, etc., but I may need technical assistance.

Congrats! This was a monumental effort on your part. Smallchief (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (I think.) It's a hell of a good article.Smallchief (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theodosius_I/GA1&oldid=1026862296"