Template:Did you know nominations/Petronius Maximus

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Petronius Maximus

(

)

... that after Petronius Maximus angered the king of the Vandals the Vandals sacked Rome so thoroughly that their name is still used to describe wanton destruction? Source: Cameron. The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425–600 pg. 125. Encyclopædia Britannica (1926). Norwich. Byzantium: The Early Centuries pg. 162. Merrills and Miles. The Vandals pg. 9–19.
- ALT1:~~... that after Petronius Maximus angered the king of the Vandals the Vandals sacked Rome so thoroughly that their name is still used to describe misbehaviour on Wikipedia?~~
  - ALT2:~~... that after Petronius Maximus angered the king of the Vandals the Vandals sacked Rome and defaced so many objects of cultural significance that defacement is still called Vandalism today?~~

Reviewed: My 5th nomination, so I will 'cash in' Sultanate of Dahlak.

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 09:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

This is not very accurate. the 455 sack of Rome was in no way through (city not burnt, citizens not murdered etc). Nor did the vandals wantonly destroy anything. What they did was deface the cultural content of Rome, hence why vandalism means defacement, rather than destruction. With that in mind I have drafted ALT2. JLJ001 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I will leave it up to someone else to decide on the hook, both were perfectly good until I added one, considering this is Wikipedia ALT1 might be good, but maybe too self-referential. I have never reviewed before so by all means assume that I must have bungled something somewhere. JLJ001 (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi JLJ001. Apologies for the delay. I was on holiday and wanted to get back to my sources. But on reflection, having a debate on how thorough the sack was is bootless on a DYK nom. Your Alt 2 seems fine to me, probably better than my original. (Alt1 was mostly a joke and I agree that it is too self-referential.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's really not a problem at all, I would definitely have approved this myself if it wasn't for the recommendation for new reviewers to get a second opinion. JLJ001 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a newly-promoted GA, and is long enough and nominated soon enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues, although Earwig was concerned about this site, I think that the Total War Centre post was derived from Wikipedia and not vice versa. As for which hook to use, if you want to go with ALT2, you will need a suitably worded sentence in the Aftermath section with a citation at the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Yes, the TWC article seems to incorporate a partial lift of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. If I can go with ALT0 I would like to, but JLJ001 had doubts as to its accuracy; not, I think, as to how well sourced it was. Rather than get into a potentially extended debate on history, sources and etymology I accepted his ALT2, which seems fine to me and which they felt was appropriately sourced. The aftermath stated "The Vandal's activities gave rise to the modern term vandalism." and was sourced; now amended to "The Vandal's activities during the sack gave rise to the modern term vandalism." I could give more detail, eg on the etymology, but this would be getting off topic given that the modern usage was first recorded in the 1660s. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Approving the original hook. I found another source which confirmed that the sacking was thorough, but that through the intervention of the pope, murder, rape and arson were largely avoided. I have struck the other two hooks, ALT1 because it is unsuitable and ALT2 because the aftermath section does not mention "objects of cultural significance" as such. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)