Talk:Tiberius Gracchus

Gracchan cippi

@T8612 and Avilich: Are you aware of any images on Wikimedia Commons depicting the Gracchan cippi? I took a look for myself but couldn't find anything. Maybe I'm putting in the wrong search keywords? Ifly6 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

There aren't any, for sure Avilich (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any picture. T8612 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiberius Gracchus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I can have a look at this one. Will do a first read today, and aim to post at least a few comments. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've done a copyedit, and posted a few comments (mostly general) below. I've yet to go through and pick out detailed things, but I'm conscious that there's already a lot for you to get on with here. I'd suggest that image licensing and sourcing should wait until the text is more final. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • In this read-through, I've grouped mission-critical matters at the top; more advisory stuff below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Lots below, so to summarise state of play: the main issues at the moment is quotation and close paraphrase (see here). This is a big job, and potentially runs the risk of walking over a floor we're trying to mop: I propose that the next steps look something like this:

1. Edit for quotation: those where the exact wording is important to the article need to be attributed in-text; those where it isn't need to be paraphrased.

2. CLOP/sourcing check: this obviously needs to wait until the necessary quotations are converted into (non-close) paraphrases.

3. Everything else, particularly criterion 1a. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

As of yesterday I've rewritten a number of sections and removed a series of quotes. Ifly6 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Good job on sorting the quotations, and thank you for doing so as quickly as you have. I'll do some CLOP checks and then, assuming all's well, we can move back to c.2. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I've now been able to go through most of the Tribunate section (not the first subsection), so far checking the references to Roselaar, Beard, Lintott and von Ungern-Sternberg. I'm afraid I have serious concerns here: well over half of my checks are coming back with some concern, either WP:TSI (where the source does not appear to support the material claimed) or WP:CLOP (where the words or phrasing of the source has been adapted so closely as to constitute plagiarism, even with citation. I can't check every source in this article, but I also can't in good faith vouch that the use of those sources is likely to be free of the same errors. I've catalogued a fairly long list of 'hits' that I've spotted below, and moved all non-sourcing issues to a collapse template. I'm sure that these issues are fixable, but it's a big task and I don't have the resources to be able to sign off when it's finally done. The article has improved a huge amount over the last few days, and I'm sure it will continue to do so and become a GA before lnog.

Resolved matters

General The article uses a mix of SFN and <ref> for its references. These should be consistent: my personal preference is for SFN, which I think is much more amenable to expanding the article later on, but the decision is yours as the primary editor: it just needs to be consistent. I use SFN when a source is in the bibliography, which I put in there when it is referenced more than once; otherwise I use ref. This is not a GA criterion. Ifly6 (talk) The bibliography should include all sources cited, regardless of how often: there are some citation styles that make exceptions for certain types of sources (e.g., bibliographise a book but not a newspaper), but I've never met one that discriminates based on the number of citations. The GAN criterion here is 2a: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline That guideline includes: Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article. (emphasis mine) As such, if some sources are cited in brief in SFN tags and in full in the bibliography, all sources (at least of that kind) should follow the same system. Mixing ref and SFN, and footnote-only versus footnote-and-biblio, is not consistent and so doesn't meet 2a. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC) First, the way I write notes is itself a consistent citation method. Second, use of only {{sfn}} is incompatible with |ps= notes and will suppress them on second mention; converting to it would maul existing citation notes. Third, that guideline discusses the lack of preference for CS1 templates (which is itself foolish but leaving that aside); it does not include use of {{sfn}}, {{harvnb}}, etc. Ifly6 (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC) To use shortened footnotes and a quotation, make the link manually: the best way to do this is {{refn|[[#CITEREFSyme1960|Syme 1960]], p. 42: "Octavian was really rather sneaky."}}. I take the point that you've applied a rule consistently, but that isn't enough to consider the citation style consistent if it treats different references differently - in this case, giving a full footnote citation for some, and a shortened footnote for others. I could equally say write an article with even-numbered references in CS1, and odd-numbered references in CS2; that's consistent, but you couldn't say that the citation method was consistent within the article, and I wouldn't be happy passing it under GA as such. Of greater immediate significance: GA criteria require a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. At the moment, we don't actually have a list that fits that bill: we have two lists (the Refs section and the Bibliography), the first of which doesn't fully identify all of its sources (since it relies on the bibliography to give satisfactory details of the sources in shortened notes), the second of which doesn't include all the references used. Moving all sources into the bibliography would resolve this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC) I'm baffled as to why you would think manually writing out the anchors for all the citations is the best way to do it. Just use {{harvnb}}. Moving all full bibliographic references leaving anchors, however it is done, serves merely to pad out the article markup. Ifly6 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Up to you how it's done; all that the GA criteria require is consistency (so if any sources are cited in shortened footnotes, all sources are; conversely, if any sources are cited in full footnotes, all should be) and that at least one of the References or the Bibliography section contains all the cited sources with the necessary bibliographic information (author, title, date and so on). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC) I raised a query on this matter on the GAN talk page. Ifly6 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Thanks; I've seen the answer there. I can identify all the sources used via the References section (though only because the Bibliography section is there as well), so that clears the bar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC) The article is inconsistent about whether to refer to its subject as Tiberius or Gracchus. I'm not a specialist in the Late Republic, but my sense of HQRS is that Gracchus is more usual: I would suggest adopting that throughout the article except where confusion with another Gracchus (particularly Gaius), given that it's unusual to refer to Romans by their praenomina only, and the mononym Tiberius is 'taken' by another famous Roman. In the context of Tiberius Gracchus and the Gracchi brothers, it is usually Tiberius. Context is generally clear in disambiguating him from the emperor. Ifly6 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) I think this is now consistent. Ifly6 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC) There's still a Gracchus near the end of 'Opposition and Death'. A smaller thing, but what's the logic as to when to use Tiberius vs. Tiberius Gracchus? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC) There isn't any logic. The writing was originally done in terms of not wanting to repeat either "Tiberius" or "Gracchus" over and over again. Ifly6 (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Nor does there have to be for GA: moved to resolved. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Military career A map would be helpful here; there's one on the page for Gaius Hostilius Mancinus. I'll consider adding it. Ifly6 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)  Done. Ifly6 (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC) {{!xt|According to Plutarch, Tiberius – along with Gaius Fannius – was among the first to scale Carthage's walls, serving through to the next year.}}: the two halves of this sentence don't quite fit together. My reading is that Plutarch says a) that Gracchus and Fannius were among the first to scale Carthage's walls and b) that Gracchus served from 147 until 146 (or 145?): is that correct? Split. Ifly6 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Tribunate The quotation in the referenced from Flower (2010:101) seems to be ungrammatically truncated: It also has been argued that a rebuff that Tiberius had suffered—when the treaty that he had negotiated as quaestor [with the Numantines]—was a key factor in the way he behaved during his tribunate - there should be something like was rejected after [with the Numantines]. Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) The two blockquotes sit oddly here: they break the flow of the text and, without specific comment, it's not totally clear why they're quoted in full. Are they simply substantiating Tiberius' stubbornness, however, was motivated in part by his need to recover politically from the Numantine affair? If so, I'd make them into references and quote them in the footnote if you feel the need. Done. Ifly6 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) CLOP Tiberius ... quickly changed his position, distancing himself from his own treaty ... Around this time, Tiberius was likely co-opted into the college of augurs: : rather too close to he quickly distanced himself from his commanding officer ... In all probability, Gracchus had been co-opted into the college of augurs by this time.. Brennan doesn't mention Cassius Dio, only "our sources". I disagree. Brennan says The quaestor Ti. Gracchus had developed his own set of elite presumptions by the time of his return to the city. Dio says he had come back to Rome expecting to be positively rewarded for his conduct of the negotiations. There are two reasons why I quoted: the first is that there are not many way to say this; second, it is attributed. Ifly6 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) On the WP:CLOP point: close paraphrasing and then citing isn't enough, unfortunately. Quoting [[WP:CLOP}} (emphasis mine): Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...", together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. See also the section on the same page on quotation - again, emphasis mine: Limited quotation from non-free copyrighted sources is allowed, as discussed in Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. Quotations should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author (see WP:When to cite). With direct quotation, editors should clearly distinguish the quoted material from the original text of the article following the guidelines for quotations. Extensive use of quotation from non-free sources is generally not acceptable. Even if content is attributed, it can still create copyright problems if the taking is too substantial. To avoid this risk, Wikipedia keeps this—like other non-free content—minimal. Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. Examples may include statements made by a person discussed in the article; brief excerpts from a poem, song, or book described in the article; or significant opinions about the subject of the article. Quotation should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language. Thus: Right: Churchill said, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." Right: The New York Times reviewer found the film "pretentious and boring". Wrong: According to Bulgarian Butterflies, "the patient observer may be fortunate enough to glimpse this rare moth flitting along the mossy banks of a woodland stream." Many to most of the quotations in the article are similar to that 'wrong' example, in that they're quoting only in order to extract facts. To sort this out, we need two things: Quotations need to be trimmed: where only the facts are relevant, rather than the precise words, they should be taken out of direct quotation and reduced to those facts. Where quotation or close paraphrase is used, because the precise words are considered important, we need in-text attribution. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Omitted mention of fides and noted only distancing; there are no good synonyms for "distanced himself". He did not repudiate, withdraw, separate, or remove. Nor did he place it far off or disassociate. Ifly6 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This is itself a CLOP problem, then: because the sentence structure is taken directly from the source, we're reduced to hunting for similes, which isn't a good solution. More importantly, if we took the sentence and simply replaced every word or phrase with a simile, that would still be CLOP (see the "unsuccessful literary man" example on WP:CLOP). We therefore need to either rework the sentence more fundamentally, or attribute the quote/paraphrase inline: Brennan has judged that Tiberius "seems to have distanced himself" from Mancinus and his treaty, perhaps. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC) The sentence doesn't exist anymore. It now says Tiberius offered no forceful support for the treaty and seems to have distanced himself from it; it was proposed to send Tiberius in chains along with Mancinus, but that proposal was defeated. Ifly6 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Mancinus argued that his men were undertrained due to his predecessor's defeats; something with which Scipio Aemilianus seemed to agree when he ordered all prostitutes and camp followers out before setting out to Numantia in 133 BC;: compare Potter Mancinus blamed his failure before Numantia on the poor quality of the army that he had inherited from Pompeius, who had been defeated by the Numantines the year before. Scipio Aemilianus, by implication, agreed with him when he ordered all the prostitutes and camp followers away from the army so that he could restore appropriate discipline before setting out for Numantia in 133 BC The first part is a summary of Potter's much longer assessment. I've rephrased the latter. Ifly6 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC) His marriage to Pulcher's daughter, however, did cement the friendship between Tiberius' father and Appius into his generation.: Whose generation: Tiberius', his father's, or Appius'? I'm not clear exactly what 'into his generation' means: does this mean that Tiberius pater and Appius stayed friends after Tiberius' birth, or that both of their sons became friends? Similarly, while motives of Tiberius and his ally and father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher were "doubtless complex" and may also have been motivated not only by a desire to support the state's ability to recruit soldiers or general pro-natalist policymaking: "not only" needs a "but" or similar; more generally, the very Latinate negative is confusing in English. Suggest rephrasing to what they were motivated by, rather than not. Altogether, these trends reduced the opportunities for people in the cities to support themselves, driving them closer to subsistence.: subsistence means the ability to survive; unless I've badly misunderstood, this should say something like starvation (or perhaps "mere subsistence", but that does sound a bit like a Whig politican). Influx into the cities was not high by modern standards: depending on where you live, this could have wildly different meanings: are we talking about the influx into Detroit or Delhi? While it was theoretically Roman property, the land "had been regarded as a sort of beneficium to the allies, who had been allowed to continue to work the land which had been confiscated from them: I have some WP:NFC concerns about this fairly lengthy but also pretty pedestrian quotation; more to the point, we can't just use an untranslated Latin word and expect a general audience to know what it means. The ager publicus was mainly located outside the traditional farmland close to Rome, in places inhabited by non-Roman citizens: perhaps this is simply Roselaar's phrasing, but the territory far from Rome was definitely traditionally farmland; it just wasn't traditionally Romans who farmed it. derived from Appian and Plutarch (two historians writing during the imperial period), the ager publicus was dominated by a "rich commercial elite [that] established large slave-staffed estates on public land": the phrasing here gives the misleading impression that the quoted material is from Appian and Plutarch. army life remained poor: poor is ambiguous in this context: low pay, rough conditions or both? the plunder of the early 2nd century's armies had given way to the conquest of Hispania: this isn't quite grammatical; the implied agent of the first part is the armies, the implied agent of the second is the state, so the overall sentence reads as if the state plundered its own armies. "there was virtually no society or legal precedent to support any argument that a citizen should forfeit his life in an internal political conflict".: this is apparently quoting Flower, but should surely be social? Tiberius' response was to invent a novel legal justification for his violent deposition: borderline, but this grammatically reads as if Tiberius was the one being deposed. Consolidated comments. I rephrased the first and second. My usage of "subsistence" is well attested to in the development economics literature and also supported by the Oxford Dictionary of English. Rephrased beneficium. The traditional farmland close to Rome is a single phrase. Rephrased notice on A&P. Concur on army, Hisp, "society", and "his". Ifly6 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC) I agree that subsistence can mean "having what you need, but no more"; however, driving them closer to subsistence isn't clear; the "and no more" reading is specialised (WP:JARGON: Cambridge gives it as "business English"), and I think a lot of readers would expect that clause to mean improving their living standards. I'm still a little concerned that The ager publicus was mainly located outside of the farmland close to Rome could be read as implying that the ager publicus wasn't in farmland (if, for instance, I say that "the camel is outside the desert by the lake", you wouldn't expect the camel to be in the same desert, just further from the lake), but that's minor; I'll edit if I can come up with a neat way of solving it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I rewrote the entire passage on farmland after consulting Roselaar. People do use – eg Oxford Classical Dictionary sv "poverty" (groups that were permanently closer to subsistence and hence more vulnerable to external shocks than the average inhabitant of antiquity) – closer to subsistence to imply a financial or agricultural fragility. The definition in Cambridge Dictionary for "English" and "Business English" is identical; it is not marked with "rare", "formal", or "archaic". The word is not difficult; I frankly don't see your concern over it. Ifly6 (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Tiberius was claiming the cause of the defeats were related to diminishment of the yeomanry: Potter has "Tiberius Gracchus was claiming that the peasant stock that had made the army great had been ruined by the growth of large estates, necessitating his proposals for land reform": firstly, peasant stock and yeomanry are not synonyms (yeomanry implies a much higher social class); secondly, Tiberius in Potter isn't explicitly joining the dots between land issues and the recent defeats, though you could argue that Potter is. Edited. Ifly6 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Happy here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Similarly, while motives of Tiberius and his ally and father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher were "doubtless complex" and may also have been motivated not only by a desire to support the state's ability to recruit soldiers or general pro-natalist policymaking,: Rich has "Pronatalist manpower anxieties were shared by his contemporaries like Metellus Macedonicus, censor in 131, and by Romans in other periods, notably the emperor Augustus": I don't think this is enough to speak of the state's ... general pro-natalist policymaking". More generally, there's a lot of direct quotation here (about 20% of the paragraph), which could be seen as a problem under WP:NFC. Edited in a separate section. Ifly6 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I think this one's now sorted. 20:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure that the hero of the Second Punic War is quite encyclopaedic: widely regarded as a hero for his service in..., perhaps? Omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

All non-sourcing matters (mostly c1)

1b: MOS compliance Note: as above, this isn't a total MOS screen, only for the pages mandated by GA (MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WORDSTOWATCH, MOS:FICTION and MOS:EMBED His appointment to Hispania Citerior, supposedly by lot, was very obviously manipulated: we're in WP:WORDSTOWATCH here. Was it considered obvious at the time, or has Brennan labelled it as obvious in hindsight? From Brennan, it seems a bit of both: equally, Brennan's talking about appointments 'by lot' in general; he "surmises" that this was an awfully big coincidence, and talks about the general Roman perception that appointments by lot were rigged, but doesn't specifically suggest that this one was or was seen as any more rigged than others. Minor WP:TSI here. Tiberius' negotiations were successful, in part due to his inheriting Spanish connections from his father's honourable and good dealings in the area during his praetorship in 179–178 BC: this is a little unclear to me. So Tiberius the elder was praetor in Spain between 179 and 178, acted honourably and so made friends, and those friends became Tiberius the younger's friends when he came to Spain, and this helped him... somehow?... in the negotiations? The basic gist of the sentence is clear enough, but when you dig into it, it leaves a lot for the reader to supply. We need some sort of explanation on first mention that a quaestor is a financial official; otherwise, the "quaestorian account books" are a strange concept. Explaining how it helps would require diving into the history of the wars there, a broken treaty from some years earlier, and speculations about how Tiberius – by name and family – was more likely to be able to persuade ratification in good faith of any treaty made. Most narratives omit explanation of the client-patron system. On the third, I don't find the idea of an official with most any activities having account books so outlandish to be a strange concept. Even a government employee must keep receipts to justify travel expenses. Ifly6 (talk) That's as may be, but if the meaning of a word is important to the article, and an everyday, non-specialist reader would need to navigate away to look it up, our article isn't clear: we should gloss or explain it, if only in a footnote. quaestor is firmly in that bracket. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I wrote most of the article on the quaestorship. Its lieutenant role is complex, not merely financial (see eg Lucullus), and would require substantial explanation and is much better put at the article on the quaestorship. Someone who is interested in what quaestors do generally can find it there; someone who is not can see the title, know that there are account books which is not outlandish, and be satisfied with that. I don't think the specific duties of the quaestorship beyond "lieutenant" are relevant. Ifly6 (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC) We don't need a full explanation, but we do need some explanation; at the moment, we don't have anything at all. Criterion 1 requires the article to be understandable to an appropriately broad audience; I can't see any way of squaring that with giving readers no help to understand untranslated Latin or technical terms from Roman politics. How much detail you go into is up to you; perhaps a footnote with an appropriate line from the quaestor article, like A junior official with mainly administrative and logistical responsibilities, which could expand to encompass military leadership and command.? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 4. NPOV Note: this is largely going to consist of cases where strong statements of opinion or interpretation are couched as if factual. Overall, the article is generally balanced; this isn't a hagiography or a hit piece, despite its possibly-controversial subject. While Livy's depiction of the middle republic as being "largely devoid of domestic strife" is an overstatement, the political culture in Rome at this time still was able to find solutions through negotiation, peer pressure, and deference to superiors: less seriously, I'm not happy with "is an overstatement" sourced only to a single scholar; Mouritsen has described Livy's depiction ... as overstated, perhaps. Secondly, the word "superiors" is uncomfortable: presumably, Mouritsen means the political domination of those without property by those with it? "Superiors" isn't a WP:NPOV term to describe the landed aristocracy; this would need to be framed as someone's perception/assertion of status. Off the top of my head, Beard similarly makes this point in SPQR. Ifly6 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Mouritsen, when discussing "superiors", is referring to the political elite, not to the landed aristocracy. What is described are social superiors among the political elite; they are not nakedly political superiors (it was rare for any specific person to at the exact time be holding office) nor are they legal – eg lords – ones. Ifly6 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 5a: Image review Licensing quibbles below. Impressive work on the maps, in particular. File:Eugene Guillaume - the Gracchi (cropped).jpg - needs US PD tag. File:Numantia_in_Hispania.png: all good File:Social war (Roman and insurgent territory).svg: the note on Commons includes "background map tiles by Stamen Design": are those PD in themselves? File:Comic History of Rome p 238 Tib Gracchus canvassing.jpg: needs US PD. File:Gracchan land distributions.svg: all good File:François-Noël Babeuf.jpg: all good Stamen design base maps are Creative Commons. How are these source tags added, given that I've already tagged my work as CC? Ifly6 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC) You could put a note to that effect (and a link to Stamen's page, if that's an option) in the description box on Commons. Something like made using background map tiles by Stamen Design, licensed under CC 3.0 (see here for details). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC) The image of Guillaume imo should be removed for anachronism but others seem to want it. Regardless it is tagged with public domain: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eugene_Guillaume_-_the_Gracchi_(cropped).jpg#Licensing. My map of the pre-Social war ager already says Background map tiles by Stamen Design. CC-BY 3.0. Similarly https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comic_History_of_Rome_p_238_Tib_Gracchus_canvassing.jpg also already has a PD tag. Ifly6 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC) The Eugene Guillaume image is tagged {{PD-old-100}}; that template directs you to include a US PD tag as well; I think because it's possible (e.g. if the work was posthumously published) for it not to be PD in the US, even 100 years PMA. The licensing on that image hasn't quite been done correctly: it's a photo of a statue, so needs a tag to show that the original statue is PD ({{PD-art-70-3d}} will do the job), then another tag to show that the photograph is PD in the United States. That shouldn't be a problem, since the book is from 1904, so you can use {{PD-US-expired}}. All very do-able, fortunately. I didn't see that on the Social War map; thank you for pointing it out. I think there does need to be some sort of link or other evidence of the licence terms; at the moment, we just have an assertion that it's under CC. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Done. Ifly6 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Advisory General Text in non-English language (e.g. Latin) should be placed into {{lang}} templates so that it can be properly read by screen readers, and so that the Wiki software can correctly categorise the page. I think I've done this throughout, but you may want to check. It's fine (and often good) to quote from scholarship, but it's confusing for the reader when the narrative voice simply slips into quotations without contextualising them. You can use phrases like According to the historian Roselaar..., if the exact words are important, or simply paraphrase the quotation and reference it. In any case, I'd advise placing citations as close as possible to direct quotations so that readers can see who and what is being quoted. I'm happy to advise on when it's useful to quote versus when it's useful to paraphrase, if that would be helpful. If you have any places of concern I'd be happy to address them. Ifly6 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) A good general principle is that secondary material should be paraphrased and presented in the article's voice, unless: * The exact wording is particularly apt or elegant, and worth preserving on those grounds. * The precise words used by the source are important to your point * It is important to allow the author to represent their views in their own words (usually, because they are controversial). * The author is particularly famous, and so the quotation is worth preserving as a record of their thoughts and words. * Some other particularly compelling reason exists. In the absence of those, it's most clear and most readable (criterion 1a) to paraphrase. Where direct quotes are made, it's best for the same reason to introduce them and (on first mention) their sources: either the historian Ronald Syme considered that... or Gracchus has been described as "a great reformer".... Under WP:NFC, we are required to keep direct quotation of non-free-use sources to a minimum, so should generally look to excise quotations from such sources when we can do so and not harm (or even improve) the article. I'll pick out specific examples as I go through in more detail, but one that stands out from a quick pass is the following: The dispute between Tiberius Gracchus and Octavius was a political dispute which lacked a clear resolution, as the Roman constitution was unwritten and only worked properly when all actors worked cooperatively instead of "making use of their full legal powers". Both men, being tribunes, represented the people writ large. Octavius insisted on maintaining his veto in defiance of the clearly expressed views of his constituents; Tiberius' response was to "[depose] and [manhandle] an elected tribune of the plebs" in a "similarly unprecedented breach of political behaviour". As a whole, while Tiberius had "probably departed from constitutional practice in proposing [the bill] without consulting the senate... Octavius was guilty of a graver impropriety in seeking to hinder the tribes from voting on the proposal" Here, the first quotation is a fairly plain statement of fact, and so much better paraphrased; the second is awkward as a quotation, since it requires abridgement and square brackets, and the last is a value judgement (guilty of a graver impropriety) which should be made explicit as a scholar's point of view. I'd suggest that this would be much better as: The dispute between Tiberius Gracchus and Octavius was a political dispute which lacked a clear resolution, as the unwritten Roman constitution only worked properly when all actors worked cooperatively and acted with greater restraint than mandated by law. Both men, being tribunes, represented the people writ large. Octavius insisted on maintaining his veto in defiance of the clearly expressed views of his constituents; in deposing Octavius and employing violence against him, Tiberius similarly broke political norms in an unprecedented way. Gruen judges that, while Tiberius had "probably departed from constitutional practice" by proposing a bill without consulting the senate, Octavius was "guilty of a graver impropriety" in that he tried to prevent a vote on that bill in the Tribal Assembly.UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC) In most cases, this is going to be optional as far as GA goes: when I go through, I'll identify any particular cases where WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUEWEIGHT might come in, if indeed there are any. To a large extent, it's a stylistic choice, and the GA criteria give a lot of latitude there. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This is less optional than I thought; see points above on WP:CLOP and WP:NFC, where quotation must be minimal, there must be a compelling reason to include the source's exact words, and in-text attribution is required (not merely inline citation). NB that for the purposes of copyright and plagiarism, a close paraphrase and a quotation are the same thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Related to the point above, there seem to be a lot of cases here where a scholar's personal opinion or interpretation (particularly as to the motives of various characters, or the importance of various things) are being presented as objective fact. Even if they are commonly agreed, they should be couched as interpretations and judgements: if they are controversial, that should be made clear as well (per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT). I think little in this article is under substantial controversy after the general re-evaluation of the early 2000s and the compromise settlement of the Italian population question. Much of the characterisation of motive emerges itself from tertiary (or 2.5-ish) sources, eg on Tiberius' motives. Ifly6 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) To pick out one example: The senate's continued pursuit of Tiberius Gracchus' supporters also entrenched polarisation in the Roman body politic, while at the same time validating the "distinctly un-Roman notion" that senators as private citizens should use violence to enforce or suppress a group, even a majority, of their fellow countrymen.: distinctly un-Roman is a value judgement, not an objective fact. If the article is going to use that phrase, it should be put into Flower's voice (validating what Flower has called "the distinctly un-Roman notion" that.... I take the point that it might not be controversial, but this is a matter of WP:NPOV: Wikipedia's voice should only be used to present objective matters of fact. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC) As above, I'll pick out any examples that might put WP:NPOV into doubt; otherwise, consider this one a suggestion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC) I'd suggest rethinking the 'After Gracchus' death' and 'Legacy' sections: it's not totally clear what the logic is between the division of ancient and modern material. One way to do this would be to create three level 2 headings: perhaps something like 'Aftermath of the assassination', 'Impact on Roman politics' and 'Post-classical legacy'. There are two legacies. The first is the one of his actual actions and their impact. The second is him in terms of classical reception. Ifly6 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Precisely; it would be clearer if these were broken into two level-2 sections. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC) I have a few concerns throughout about WP:TONE: in many places this reads more like a secondary academic article (pushing its own theses) rather than an impartial tertiary encyclopaedia. I'll fill in specific examples as I go, but I'd pay particular attention to the adjectives and other descriptions used of events and people throughout. If you have any places of concern I'd be happy to address them. Ifly6 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) I'll point out specific examples as I go through. One that stands out at the moment: Obviously, the people possessing more than 500 jugera of land opposed the law strongly: words like obviously, clearly etc are 'words to watch' (and avoid) under criterion 1b. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Primary sources generally shouldn't be included in the bibliography, though there's nothing wrong with mentioning them in a footnote. For the purposes of WP:PRIMARY, it's best to use a secondary source to back up the actual factual claim, followed by a primary source as further reading: something like Syme 1939, p.2: the letter of Cicero he quotes is Ad Atticum 4.. I generally only cite primary sources on Wikipedia when they are themselves cited by a secondary source; I noted this as a best practice in a discussion on WT:CGR; because I use abbreviated citations for primary sources I usually provide full bibliographies for them so they are clear. This is not a GA criterion. Ifly6 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) It's not, provided that the secondary source is cited as well (which means that the citation satisfies WP:VERIFIABILITY, of which WP:PRIMARY is a subset. I think this is all in order as it stands. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Page and date ranges take an en dash (–). Page ranges should always be spelled out: pages 100–102, not pages 100–2 Where is this in the MOS? Ifly6 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) MOS:DASH: For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash I meant the latter portion, which I find extremely irregular: it is very common in scholarship to elide all page numbers of 100–1, except when moving over tens, 100–11, and then when moving over hundreds, 100–200. I pretty much always use en-dashes for separations. Ifly6 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC) MOS:RANGE would be the obvious, but it doesn't mention anything about abbreviating page ranges: whether we take that as permission or an absence of permission to do it is, I suppose, a matter for debate. For year ranges, however, we do have MOS:DATERANGE, which says that you shouldn't abbreviate years (e.g. 1881–8) except in a very narrow range of circumstances, and only when those years are four figures; you could read that by analogy as at least strongly discouraging e.g. pp. 480–3. We could also think about WP:PAPER; the reason to abbreviate in most publications is to save physical space, but Wikipedia doesn't have the same need to do that. At any rate, I think the point is currently moot as far as this article is concerned. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Scholars, historians and so on should be briefly introduced on first mention. Picture captions should only end in a full stop if they are full sentences - not if they are sentence fragments (e.g. "Map of Italy in 240 BCE"). Lead To pass and protect his reforms, Tiberius unprecedentedly had the tribune who opposed his programme deposed from office, usurped the senate's prerogatives over foreign policy, and attempted to stand for a second consecutive tribunate. Fears of Tiberius' popularity and his willingness to break political norms led to his death, along with many supporters, in a riot instigated by his enemies at the elections that year: "that year" is a little unclear, if not ambiguous, as it's quite a long way to the date: suggest later in 133 vel sim. I don't think it's unclear at all. The year is stated at the start of the parargraph. Ifly6 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Military career The Numantines had signed a treaty with Rome a few years earlier under Quintus Pompeius: can we date this treaty to 141, given Pompeius' dates? Explicitly stated per Liv. Per. 54.2. However, the specific date of the treaty doesn't matter; I don't really see the improvement of adding another year for a reader to keep track of. Ifly6 (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC) The benefit is precision and comprehensiveness: we never know what the reader is coming to the article for, so we're in no position to judge whether it's important for them to know the exact year or not. We've already said vaguely when the treaty was signed, so it's a straightforward improvement to be exact, particularly as "a few years" can mean very different things to different people, depending on their cultural background, variety of English and so on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Roman land in the second century I am a little concerned that this huge topic is being presented entirely through Roselaar: I haven't got her book, and I'm sure it's excellent, but the question of exactly what happened to the Italian countryside circa 150-30 BCE has been a major debate for decades and has had some pretty big scholarly beasts (Hopkins, Brunt, Syme) roaming over it. Comprehensiveness isn't a GA criterion, but a wider bibliography would be reassuring (Alessandro Launaro's work, for instance?) My understanding of the debate is that Brunt and the low count are dead (respectfully in more ways than one) in the main and most scholars have instead raced to the middle in a hilarious fashion with one "side" saying "high low count" and other saying "middle" which are, I think, very similar. It's "they're the same picture". I don't have Launaro's monograph on hand, though I could cite reviews thereof; I have Luuk de Ligt's Peasants, Citizens, and Soldiers on hand though. Regardless, I don't want to end up creating an entire article called Historiography of 2nd century BC Italian population estimates. Ifly6 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) That's a fair point; my suggestion was more about introducing more sources of authority than more facts. It's beyond GA criteria, but it would be good to demonstrate that these ideas aren't just Roselaar's. If they're generally agreed, it should be easy enough to make the citations show that. On a separate note, taking a lot of ideas from a single part of a single source makes WP:CLOP much more difficult to avoid, though I haven't yet been able to go through this bit properly (I now have access to the book, so will do so). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Lex agraria The comment about Gracchus and tragedy being linked is cited to a whole paper; for WP:VERIFIABILITY, better to narrow it down (the first page would do fine). The whole five pages of article discusses the death of Gracchus being a tragedy. The best citation is passim. Ifly6 (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Criteria

2c/2d: Source checks

I'm afraid I've got a few concerns here, particularly over WP:CLOP; I'm seeing quite a lot of it in the sources I can verify, and the large sections entirely reliant on single sources that I can't (particularly Roselaar) make me worry that there might be more. I won't be able to fully complete this tonight, I'm afraid, but I'd suggest a general look-over to ensure that the phrasing and distinctive language of sources has not been copied in unquoted text.

Some of my concern in writing this was largely reversion by people who only read Appian and Plutarch. I do see your points on this though; many of the quoted portions can be safely removed and other areas may have been too closely phrased. I'll take a look at this. Ifly6 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Spot-checks

As I can't access these sources myself, could you please provide the quoted material to support the following:

• At the time of Tiberius' tribunate in the late 130s BC, there were a number of economic issues before the Roman people: wage labour was scarce due to a dearth of public building, grain prices were likely high due to the ongoing slave rebellion in Sicily, population growth meant there were more mouths to feed, and declining willingness to serve on long army campaigns had increased migration to the cities (cited Roselaar 2010, p223)

I just confirmed that it is present. I don't think I can quote for you the entire page, which touches on these points in turn; my sentence merely summarises it. Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's fine; simply quoting a sentence or so for each point will do. There's no expectation that citations will refer to a continuous passage of text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Both men, being tribunes, represented the people writ large. Octavius insisted on maintaining his veto in defiance of the clearly expressed views of his constituents; Tiberius' response was to invent a novel legal justification for his violent deposition (cited Flower 2010, p. 84)

It was in the old version of the article, quoted below. "[depose] and [manhandle] an elected tribune of the plebs" in a "similarly unprecedented breach of political behaviour". I call it a "novel legal justification" because the following sentence says "unconstitutional behaviour of the other (Gracchus)". Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Tiberius' response was to invent a novel legal justification for his violent deposition (article) isn't fully supported by unconstitutional behaviour of the other (Gracchus) (source): Gracchus could have openly been acting in defiance of the constitution. Does Flower talk about his justifications, and their novel nature? Similarly, I'd like a citation for Both men, being tribunes, represented the people writ large: in particular, 'the people writ large' is not a straightforward inference from the title tribunus plebis, so needs a source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The representation of the people is in the previous page of Flower. See also note 10 thereat. I altered the citation to |pp=83–84. A novel legal justification is unconstitutional behaviour. They mean the same thing. I changed to "unconstitutional" and added a citation explaining that. Ifly6 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have been unclear: could you please quote the text and/or note from Flower? To be clear; this is a WP:VERIFIABILITY check: I'm asking you to verify (prove) that the source text actually does contain what the article asserts (via citation) that it does. I'm happy with the change on unconstitutionally. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can complain about not-entirely-close paraphrasing of single sentences in the article and then demand that I actually infringe on extensive paragraphs for verifiability. Wikipedia's copyright obligations do not end in the Talk namespace. You seem to have access to the source; I recommend checking it. If that isn't possible, I can only tell you that I assess that the sources validate the article claims. Ifly6 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Spot-checks are a standard part of reviews at all levels, including asking for quotations. To pass this as a GA, I need to be able to affirm that the citations are verifiable (see WP:GANOT, which asks reviewers to [check] at least a substantial proportion of sources to make sure that they actually support the statements they're purported to support. (Sources should not be "accepted in good faith": for example, nominators may themselves have left material added by prior editors unchecked.)

The WP:NFC issue isn't that we should never quote non-free sources, it's that we should only do so when there's a good reason to; verifying the content of a source unmistakeably falls into that category.

Again, I'm only asking for enough material to demonstrate that Flower does, somewhere in the page(s) cited, say that tribunes represented the people writ large. That should be about a sentence; if you'd need to quote more material to communicate the point, it almost certainly isn't present explicitly in the source as required by WP:VERIFIABILITY. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I read the instructions. The instructions do not say you have to check literally every statement made like in an FA. That said, because that is more specific, I can provide you the specific sentence for that specific claim: The initial political breach, therefore, came between two fellow tribunes of the plebs, elected together to represent the interests and views of the plebeians. It's at the end of page 83. Ifly6 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Could you change "people writ large" to "plebeians" or similar? After all, plebeians explicitly includes at least a big chunk of the people (the patricians and senators). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If your objection is to people writ large vs literally everyone, the chunk of people who are not plebeians is so minuscule it doesn't detract from "people writ large". Estimates of the total number of equestrians, who are still technically plebs, in the late republic are on the order of five to ten thousand in an Italy of around two to four million free, ie non-slave, people (the sub-1pc) – Davenport Roman Equestrian order (2019) p 112 – the senators are an even smaller subset thereof and there are only 14 families of patricians. Even if you assume that each family has something ridiculous like 30 members each, that is still only 420. Ifly6 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Without a source saying that "the plebeians" are functionally equivalent to the whole people, I'm afraid that's WP:OR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

First, OR doesn't talk about this. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist... Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. The claim I made is not OR.

Second, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Citing everything. This is not a controversial statement that is likely to be challenged; that the plebs are the overwhelming majority (99.9pc) is common knowledge in the same way it is common knowledge that people who are not MPs are the overwhelming majority. Ifly6 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:TSI

• Tiberius believed that a previous law, commonly identified by modern scholars as the Licinio-Sextian rogations of the early fourth century BC: This is cited to Roselaar 2010, p. 99: I can't see any mention of Tiberius' beliefs in Roselaar, nor in the Beard reference for the following section (in fact, Beard has Tiberius proposed to restrict their holdings to a maximum of 500 iugera, which certainly doesn't imply that Tiberius already thought that restriction existed). There's a Steel citation in the next sentence: if it comes from there, could you give me the quotation? Otherwise, this needs to be reworked.

The following responses are given to address these for the record. Steel 2013: Tiberius wished his measure to appear not as an innovation but rather as a return to ancestral practice.... Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note 52 says that Roselaar allows for a date of 133 for the 500-iugera maximum, which would imply that it never existed: Roselaar writes on p. 100 We know for a fact that the limit of 500 iugera was introduced before 167, which says the opposite; on p. 101, she explains how the 167 date is generally upheld even though its source (Cato apud Livy) is dubious.

I'll quote what I said instead of allowing it to be mischaracterised as Roselaar saying it. I said Roselaar... documents scholarly disagreement as to when a 500 jugera maximum was in fact implemented... Suggested dates range from 300–133 BC. Literally on p 100: When the amount of 500 iugera was introduced is, again, hotly debated; some date the limit... to about 300... Some argue for an even later date, around 145, or even 133 BC. Ifly6 (talk)

• This legal maximum on land holdings, if it actually existed, was largely ignored and many people possessed far more than the limit (emphasis mine) is partly cited to Roselaar, who instead has It is usually assumed that many people possessed far more land in 133 .... However, only two large possessors are known to us by name ..., which is saying the opposite. I don't see it in Scullard at all, though please correct me with the quotation if I've missed it.

Sullard p 18: in practice this limitation had often been disregarded... many men held public land in excess of the legal limit. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• while also endowing those people with the necessary land to meet army property qualifications.: minor, but Beard presents this as what "may have" been Tiberius' justification; in the article, we've presented that justification as fact, contra Beard.

The next citation – {{sfnm|Roselaar|2010|1p=230|de Ligt|2004|2pp=752–53}} – gives that The restoration of the class of small farmers was supposed to lead to an increase of the number of potential recruits for the army. The mechanisms for that are identical when in this period the army is made up only of those who meet the property qualification. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• The main goal of the project, therefore, was to increase the number of men meeting army property qualifications and settle more people onto the land to reverse the apparent population decline: cited in part to Roselaar, but Roselaar is talking about a real population decline; the article currently implies that the only reason for the apparent population decline was the impoverishment of rural people.

No, Roselaar is discussing the population of Italy according to the census figures, had been declining for the last thirty years, which is apparent and not real. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• According to Plutarch, Tiberius initially proposed compensation, but the compromise offer was withdrawn after opposition; his later proposal was to compensate by securing tenure with a cap of 500 jugera: I'm not totally sure of the exact meaning of "securing tenure with a cap of 500 jugera", but Roselaar follows with "plus the additional amount for children.", which means that the cap was not 500 jugera.

Well taken. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• At a broad level, the bill was proposed before the concilium plebis; Tiberius forwent the approval of the senate before a bill was to be introduced. In response, the senate secured one of his tribunician colleagues to veto the proceedings: I don't see this in the cited source, could you provide a quotation if I've missed it?

At Flower ed 2014 p 79: legislation passed by the plebs in their assembly [12 words omitted] it was not customary to introduce laws without the endorsement or against the will of the senate. In this context it is understandable that the senate arranged for another tribune of the plebs, Marcus Octavius, to veto the whole proceeding. Also, if this is close paraphrasing, anything that expresses any general concept that X caused Y is close paraphrasing. Ifly6 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CLOP

Note: article text first, source text second.

• Tiberius and his supporters believed the problem was that the poor were being driven off land by the slave-owning rich, causing people to refrain from having children they could not feed, and a consequent decline in living standards and the number of available soldiers: Roselaar: the poor were driven off the (public) land by the rich, who cultivated their large estates with slaves, so that the poor were excluded from opportunities for wage labour. The people were reluctant to have children they could not feed, which led to a decline of the number of free citizens, a decline in the number of available soldiers

• Thirty jugera is often suggested, but this is rather large compared to the amount of land distributed to each family during Roman colonisation projects (only 10 jugera).: Roselaar: the amount of thirty iugera is often suggested ... a plot of thirty iugera seems large compared to the amounts granted to colonists in earlier Roman colonies

• it is likely that the land was fully privatised but given conditional on payment of the vectigal. If the vectigal were unpaid, the land would revert to the state, which would then be able to redistribute it to a new settler: Roselaar: In fact, it would make sense if the Gracchan allotments became private on the condition that a vectigal on them was paid,... In this case, when the settler stopped working the land or was unable to pay the vectigal, it reverted back to the state, which could then assign it to another settler.

• Fatal resistance to Tiberius' law, however, did not emerge until Tiberius proposed using the bequest of Attalus III of Pergamum to finance the commission. It is not clear for what purpose this money was to be used: Roselaar: resistance against him did not come to a head until Tiberius attempted to use the bequest of the Pergamene king Attalus to finance the distributions. It is not certain for what purpose he wanted to use this money.

• merely determining how much ager publicus was available for redistribution had not started and would be extremely time-consuming: Roselaar: determining which land was public and distributing it would prove to be a very time-consuming task

• Minor, but part of a bigger picture: After this proposal, Tiberius was attacked in the senate by Quintus Pompeius and accused of harbouring decadent regal ambitions: Lintott: This provoked attacks on him in the Senate by Metellus Macedonicus and Q. Pompeius ... Thus Gracchus was already being portrayed as morally decadent and an incipient tyrant. Also mild WP:TSI: a tyrant and a king, particularly in the ancient world, were not the same thing.

• Tiberius was breaking a major norm in Roman politics, which placed the finances and foreign policy in the hands of the senate. Senators also feared that Tiberius intended to appropriate Attalus' bequest to hand out money, which would massively benefit him personally. This was compounded by his attempt to stand for re-election: Roselaar: Tiberius was now meddling in matters which were traditionally the task of the Senate, namely matters of finance and international politics. The Senators feared that by handing out money to the people he would gain a great deal of personal power ... His attempt to be re-elected added to the impression that he was trying to gain more power.

• His bid for re-election was possibly in violation of Roman law: Gruen (quoted in footnote, but not attributed in text): It is possible that this attempt [for a second tribunate] was in violation of Roman law.

• Tiberius and supporters fell without resistance: von Ungern-Sternberg: Gracchus and his supporters fell without resistance

I saw that you failed the GAN. I take the allegations of WP:CLOP seriously and will take a look at Roselaar citations. Some of these claims are a stretch, as there are limited ways to express identical causal chains that all come from one source: Plut TG 8–9. Ifly6 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Review template

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):

   This one is certainly close to the bar, mostly due to some unclear bits of phrasing or unexplained technical vocabulary; if some of the points raised could be addressed, it would be a clear pass.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Possibly very minor WP:WORDSTOWATCH, but no substantial concerns here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Some sources cited in references are missing in bibliography; mixture of long and short footnotes needs to be addressed to comply with MOS:LAYOUT (MOS:NOTES) Per discussion on GAN talk page, this is above the requirements for GAR, so passed.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Multiple verification checks on sources failed; the sources themselves are reliable, but their use has introduced significant WP:VERIFIABILITY concerns.

   c. (OR):

   Some of the inferences made from cited material are not justified by that material, and so constitute OR. This may be more a 2b issue.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Serious concerns from spot checks on plagiarism via WP:CLOP of non-free sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   There's room for expansion (particularly on the scholarship re. the Italian land 'problem', and on Tiberius' post-Roman legacy), but this is fine for GA.

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A matter for the next reviewer's interpretation; the article does take sides in scholarly disputes, though not in a particularly controversial way.

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 non-free use rationales):

   All now resolved on this front.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   There are serious sourcing problems in this article: I have checked a large number of citations, and well over half have come up either with WP:TSI concerns or WP:CLOP. To be satisfied that the article meets WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:PLAGIARISM, I would need to be able to check at least the vast majority of the references; unfortunately, that is beyond my capability. I am therefore failing the review in the expectation that these issues will be addressed and another reviewer with a better library and the skills to do so will take it up. The article has made great progress over this review and I am sure will continue to do so.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Copyedit changes

@UndercoverClassicist: I just wanted to tell you that I changed instances of iugera into jugera. The meaning of the letter is clear; it is more didactic and clear to have it in an unambiguous orthography unless a specific countervailing need arises. Ifly6 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; my rationale was that the j is a post-classical spelling (Classical Latin doesn't have a letter j), and so is anachronistic for the period we're talking about both in spelling and pronunciation. Looking at Google Ngrams, iugerum seems to have been the most common spelling since about the Second World War. I'd argue that both are unambiguous and that there is a specific rationale for iugerum - but I appreciate that this is somewhat a case of WP:WHENINROME. As you say, it's fully understandable to a reader, and (for some reason...) Latin orthography isn't one of the GA criteria. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

3,000 sq kilometers? or 30,000 sq kilometers?

There is a pretty major discrepancy in the article, in the top section it is claimed that the land commission "distributed over 30,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi) of land over the next few years". Later in the article it is stated that "they distributed some 1.3 million jugera (or 3,268 square kilometres)" DlronW (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed from Roselaar 2010 that 3,268 square kilometers was reported and edited 30,000 to 3,000 to correspond. Ifly6 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

TG, CG, Plut, and opportunism

¶ Hi HannoC. I saw your addition of a citation to, although I do not have that specific Loeb on hand what can only be, Plut Ti Gracch 8.7, and converted it to standard citation format. I do have a question for you (and others) though. ¶ If we include this portion, I feel it worthwhile to include a discussion on whether TG's motives in bringing the lex agraria were opportunistic as alleged by many sources. Plut TG 8.7 has been read in terms of CG attempting to refute the notion, by means of timing, that TG wanted only to advance his own career (Gell NA 11.10 seemingly notwithstanding) developing a plan for the lex agraria only after the Numantine affair. Ifly6 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)