Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

Augustus

[edit]

All hail Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus! Savior of Rome! Tremble before his article! Beware ye frail and timid wikipedian plebs who dare not read and review this article, for you shall then serve as lunchmeat for the lion's den, shortly after a "eunuch snip" at the genitals with a rusty hedge-clipper while forced to 85 consecutive hours of listening to Cher's Greatest Hits! Augustus is one of the most important figures in human history, and his article deserves more editing respect than you all have been giving him. For neglecting his article all of you will be brought out into a Nevada desert where you will be beaten with baseball bats and buried alive, but I'll leave that dirty work to Joe Pesci. The article is very well-sourced, no POV statements that I can see, is a shining example of what "broad coverage" in a wiki article should be, has plenty of good pics that are copyright safe, yet do not overwhelm the article, and the article has plenty of great and entertaining detail without going off-topic or out of summary style. Therefore I nominate his article as a featured article candidate. Got a problem with that, tough guy? Then object to the article here! But if you're like "forget about it!" - then give your support.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support -looks good...but a few tweaks to brilliantize the prose....I feel we're over the line. I too am happy to leave the gallery to consensus; hence if no-one else objects - no problem. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


father.... and was governor of Macedonia - was --> had been - pluperfect tense better here as occurred prior to stream of events already in past tense.
When Caesar was killed on the Ides of March (the 15th) 44 BC, Octavius was in Apollonia, Illyria, studying and undergoing military training. - reduce number of clauses by switching thus: "When Caesar was killed on the Ides of March (the 15th) 44 BC, Octavius was studying and undergoing military training in Apollonia, Illyria." (3 --> 2)
Great suggestions, I will take those to heart and edit the article thus.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you please make the good article nomination tag go away, since it's a featured article candidate? And take it off the GAC page?
Sure thing, it is done.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Octavian could not rely economically on his presently limited funds. - lose "economically" as redundant. (back again after dinner) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
funds that were alotted by Caesar in the intended war against Parthia.. -should the 'in' be 'to'?
Better yet, the 'in' should be 'for', as in 'for the intended war'.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..made no action against Octavian, since Octavian was later using that money.. - change 2nd 'Octavian' to 'he'
..dictator's assassins. The assassins were granted a general amnesty.. - change to "dictator's assassins; they had been granted a general amnesty.." (tense and reduce repetition)
Although Mark Antony was amassing political clout, Octavian still had opportunity to rival him as the leading member of the faction which supported Caesar. - clout? something a tad more formal, like 'support' or 'following'...also sounds a bit smother if replace "which supported" with "supporting".
this situation spelled opportunity for Octavian, - erm, "spelled opportunity" can you think of another way to phrase this?
Cicero was also known to defend Octavian against Antony's taunts that Octavian lacked noble lineage of consular ancestors, with Cicero stating of Octavian - change to "Cicero was also known to have defended Octavian against Antony's taunts that he lacked noble lineage of consular ancestors; he stated..."

You have several places where names are repeated often - the trick being trying to 'mix it up' a bit while not introducing any ambiguity on who is being talked about....I'm trying to figure examples wehre this can be addressed without amibguity.

..Antony left Cleopatra. Antony sailed to Italy in 40 BC with a large force... - try "Antony left Cleopatra; he sailed to Italy in 40 BC with a large force.." - I love semicolons
..Octavian sent only one-tenth of the amount of legionaries promised, .. -try "Octavian sent only one-tenth the number of those promised, "
Octavian had previously shown little mercy to military combatants and acted in ways that proved unpopular with the Roman people -replace "proved" with "had proven" (tense)
Once again, good suggestions that I find no objections to (except for one slight difference, 'for' instead of 'to'). Therefore I have changed each sentence in question.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok back to it - Marching into Rome, the Roman Senate appointed him and Marcus Agrippa as dual consuls. - erm who marched into Rome? Looks like the Senate did from the construction of this sentence.
According to Roman religious beliefs, the title symbolized a stamp of authority over humanity, and in fact nature, that went beyond any constitutional definition of his status. - tricky - the " and in fact nature" might be a good place to use mdashes to demarkate it better. Normally would shorten a sentence like this but reads clearly.
Additionally, after the harsh methods employed - I think we could lose the "Additionally" here - the sentence stands ok without it.
...change in name would also serve to separate his benign reign as Augustus ... - ok, playing thesaurus again, I feel it'd look a little more polished with 'demarkate', 'differentiate' or 'delineate' or something than 'separate' to really get teh essence of teh verb right.
In addition, Augustus was granted the right to hang.. - I think we can lose first two words.
This was a clever political ploy by Augustus; - can lose "political"
When, in 22 BC, Augustus failed to stand for election as consul, fears arose once again that Augustus was being forced from power by the aristocratic Senate. - can change to "When Augustus failed to stand for election as consul in 22 BC, fears arose once again that he was being forced from power by the aristocratic Senate."

The next two sentences both mention 22 BC, trying to reword to reduce repetition would be helpful but I concede it is tricky. You could try "the same year" or something.

Arminius, who fled that battle but was killed four years later in 19 due to treachery - I presume an AD should be added here?
In order to ensure stability, Augustus needed to designate an heir to his unique position in Roman society and government. - try " To ensure stability, he needed to designate an heir to his unique position in Roman society and government."

Even though it is obvious, may be a good idea to stick an OED reference for the etymolgy of Kaiser and Tsar.

It was under Augustus that the city of Rome was utterly transformed,.. - try "The city of Rome was utterly transformed under Augustus,"
..with Rome's first institutionalized.. - try "with its first institutionalized.."
Augustus wished to embody the spirit of Republican virtue and norms, and to level with the lay people. - to be level? Even then I'm unsure - be good to stick egalitarian in somehow.
In looking back on the reign of Augustus and its legacy to the Roman world, its longevity should not be overlooked as a key factor in its success - try "The longevity of Augustus' reign and its legacy to the Roman world should not be overlooked as a key factor in its success"

smoother

In tax reform section I'm wondering whether describing them as 1st, 2nd 3rd is necessary - maybe just describing would be more succinct.

For the upkeep of roads, Augustus created the senatorial group of the curatores viarum - try "Augustus created the senatorial group of the curatores viarum for the upkeep of roads"

I'd lose the gallery -it doesn't add anything stuck at the bottom there and would be jarring in the text. All those buildlings will be illustrated on their own pages.

Final point - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede there may be problems incorporating these through the text.

In summary, an excellent read - prose is good but a little "clause-y" which I have highlighted examples found above. I'd be happy once all addressed but some other folks may find some more. Congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am addressing those concerns right now. There's one of yours I find a problem with, though, and that is putting "AD" after "19" when "AD" is already implied a few lines up with the date of the Teutoburg battle in 9 AD. The reader should understand that the following years of 13 and 19 are also AD, not BC.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AD's are harmless. If we're not sure, better to have too many than too few; confusing the reader is worse than a slight loss in elegance. But I'll get to that section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally addressed all of your concerns. However, there are a couple points of my own I must make:

I'd lose the gallery -it doesn't add anything stuck at the bottom there and would be jarring in the text. All those buildlings will be illustrated on their own pages.—Casliber

Really? What better way is there to represent text than to illustrate it with a picture? I think it wraps up the section fairly well. 2 out of four of those buildings are not described and wikilinked in the section. How is it jarring in the text? I'd like to get a second opinion about the gallery. If others are displeased for the same or other reasons, then you have my word that it will be removed from the article.

Final point - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede there may be problems incorporating these through the text.—Casliber

That's fine. If I had it my way, I would make this article twice as long as it is, with whole sections on Augustan literature, poetry, lifestyles, culture of the age, the types of beverages and hairstyles that were popular in his reign, etc. However, wikipedia states that an article cannot be any larger than 100 KB, and this article is certainly pushing the limit at 92 KB. Unfortunately, this article's waistline has already reached a state of near obesity; any further expansion would mean time for liposuction. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Splendid work. I wish I could have helped more but unfortunately, due to excessive downloading in the past month, my internet provider has temporarily slowed my internet connection, which makes editing, especially on large articles, somewhat difficult. Anyway, one thing I would still like to see incorporated into the text is the establishment of the Praetorian Guard. Military reforms under Augustus are covered in the Augustus' legacy section but it makes no mention of the Guard, which is kind of curious since the Praetorians were after all, one of the most outwardly visible symbols of Augustus' power, and an integral part of the principate itself. --Steerpike 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My God man, you're right. I'm not sure how I overlooked that "elephant standing in the living room," but I will add it. While thinking of Augustus and his many reforms, I was not thinking of the reign of Tiberius, where the Praetorian Guard under Sejanus actually became politically important. But yes, it would be silly not to mention it here.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to announce that there are two shiny new sentences about the Praetorian Guard in the legacy section, as well as a mentioning of it in the introduction.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter now, I have gotten rid of that picture and replaced it with another from Commons, one that is a suitable replacement. Still object?--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection withdrawn. --Carnildo 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! Unfortunately, this article is too big to merge that and create a new section, so I have just put it in the See also section for now. I might make it a "Further information" link at the top of the "Legacy" section. What do you think?--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is much too big to merge into the present article. I recommend that you make it a link from somewhere in the Legacy section, perhaps incorporating only the most important repreentations into the text (if any). I simply thought that since the popular culture is basically a sub-article the main Augustus article should link to it. Your suggestion is probably the best way to go.--Jackyd101 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I'd think about a one-liner in Legacy with something about his profile not being as high as JC (Julius not Jesus) but of his numberous depictions in film etc, then link to AiPC page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have moved it to the top of the legacy section under a "Further information" link; since it is an important sub-article, I think it deserves its attention there rather than being buried in the text of the legacy section as a "|" reworded link.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Now that that is sorted out, I give my support to this absolutely superb article. i do however have a couple of issues which, although they do not prevent me supporting the piece, should be changed. 1) Can we have a reference for the statement at the end of the fourth paragraph in Augustus' Legacy where it says that Trajan is often compared to Augustus? 2) Augustus' early life is a little weak, obviously its been split off due to size constraints, but whats left suffers from one line paragraphs, can this be tidied a little? (I would also prefer a bit more information about his young life, but given the size constraints thats probably not possible). Beyond these two things, this is a fantastic article on a very complex issue and I commend you heartily for your achievement with it.--Jackyd101 10:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm glad you support. As to your first concern: I never wrote that to begin with, that was someone else's doing. I don't think I'll be able to find a citation for it anytime soon, so I will strike it from the article until I (hopefully) do find something for it. It makes sense though, Trajan was one of Rome's greatest emperors, in terms of the monuments and buildings he left behind, as well as pushing Rome's borders to the greatest extent they would be (well into modern-day Iraq). As for his early life, you are correct, size constraints are already a problem, one of the reasons why I did not want to merge Augustus in popular culture with this article. I may add a couple more sentences in the beginning section, but to be honest, I already have! It was worse before.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to Trajan stems from the fact that every emperor after Trajan was honored by the Senate with the prayer Felicior Augusto, Melior Traiano (may he be luckier than Augustus, and better than Trajan). See for example Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1, Chapter 3, note 45. I think this deserves to be left in the article. --Steerpike 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a minor edit onthe early life section to merge a couple of the shorter paragraphs, leaving the text unchanged. I jut feel this looks a bit tidier, see what you think. In regards to the Trajan thing, I wasn't disputing its factual accuracy (in fact I agree with it), but it should still have a citation. The one from Gibbon wopuld be perfect. Great job, all the best.--Jackyd101 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. When I was writing it, the intent was to briefly mention the situation he was in that forced him to act, because he was one the eve of being decimated by Octavian's forces in Egypt. He chose a way out by killing himself instead of being captured or killed in battle. I'll reword that sentence and simply state: "Mark Antony committed suicide"...which he did.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, you can be forced to commit suicide. Think about it. If someone has you locked in a tower, refusing to feed you so that you'll starve to death, and says you can go two ways: jumping out the top window, or swallowing this poison given to you, than that would most certainly be forced suicide. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you don't listen to the guy, and choose to starve to death, he was responsible for the death (as he didn't let you have food), so it wasn't suicide. Cheers, HansHermans 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Good point. Thanks for the support!--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite yet. Well researched; largely well written. I will return with detailed comments; but it could use a copy-edit. I recommend a read-through by a literate editor who knows nothing about Roman history; this can be very profitable.
  • My major reservation is one of tone. The nominator has made clear that he has a strong PoV on Augustus; this is fine, but he should lean over backwards to avoid having it show up in the article. One way to do this would be to read Syme and include his data; one footnote and a dismissal as "revisionist" are unfair to Sir Ronald's position in clasical historiography.

Nitpicks:

  • Please consider consolidating multiple footnotes at the same point into one, citing several passages. It's much easier to read the article that way; and actually easier (when, as here, most passages in the sources are cited once) to follow what sources are being cited for a given point.
  • The phrase his borrowed name is clumsy and technically inaccurate. He didn't borrow his name, he was bequeathed it.

Much more follows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus is an anthology. It should be cited as such or CCAA, not by the name of its editor. More importantly, the different articles should be cited, preferably by title and author. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have a section on Augustus' names. That would simplify both the first line and the beginning of Early life.
  • The intro is seriously flawed, including
    • garbles:due to his blood relation and reputation with his grand uncle Julius Caesar.
    • Dubious claims of fact:
      • Augustus ruled in actuality as an autocrat for 41 years (he wasn't an autocrat before 27 BC? or do you actually mean 28?)
      • Augustus used his political power and martial might to form the Second Triumvirate over Rome. Anthony had nothing to do with it?
    • Misleading statements: yet he never claimed to be an emperor or even dictator. Defensible only in the sense that Emperor was not an office, and Augustus never held the office of dictator.

Rather than present a full criticism here, I will take this to the talk page. See Talk:Augustus#intro. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response I just want to make it clear, although I hold Augustus in high esteem, I do not want that reflected in any possible POV statements that might appear in the article. I will address your concerns as soon as possible, but I just started my first semester of my senior year of college, and already I am bogged down with reading assignments. I hope you understand if I am unable to frequently respond or make copy-edits during this week, as I will be busy. I agree, an experienced copy-editor should be summoned. Maybe we should take this to the league of copyeditors?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all present concerns on the talk page.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have requested, I have converted all of the Galinsky inline citations to CCAA instead, with full title and author name of each chapter from that book, and edited the reference section to fit the new changes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the intro myself; but these are typical of the small flaws throughout the article. This will be FA; but not until they are fixed. That process is now underway, but the tone and the blunders must be fixed before I will support. (My other suggestions, here and elsewhere, are editing comments, not conditions for promotion.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the few facts I've tagged with {{fact}} are referenced (I have no doubt references exist, they just need tagging). I've done a little copyediting, tidying up some of the phrasing, but don't have time to go through the article properly (I think it would need that before getting to FA). Neil ム 10:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy rusted metal, Batman! What are we going to do about those tags! Lol. Honestly, though, I don't have citations for any of the things you tagged, so I will be deleting them from the article until I can find proper references and cited pages. Furthermore, I don't want "citation needed" tags in an article I'm trying to promote as a Featured Article. I hope everyone understands that. Plus, the things that were tagged won't be sorely missed when deleted, they were more side-comments if anything (except for the part about taxes, I'll try the hardest to find citations for that)--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave the tags. FA is worthless if it results in a worsening of the article; and any competent reviewer will recognize that this discussion explains the {{cn}}s. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - The article is worse without them? I beg to differ. This article is far too big, 95 KB, pushing it to the limit since 100 KB is outright unacceptable (meaning time to break the article into sub-articles, if not trimming it down to a manageable size). The uncited, tagged comments were useful, but were not as important as crucial information already stated in the article. Here are the sentences I deleted (which can always be reinstated if someone wants to find citations for them):
    • "Subsequently, they were even adopted by many invading Germanic tribes as insignia of their right to rule."
    • "His reforms are considered to have had substantial beneficial effects on both the fairness of the tax system and its effects on the Empire's economic prosperity."
    • "Its abolition was an enormous relief to the people."

I'm sure some of you could find citations for these, but I do not have time since summer vacation has ended and school has started this week for me. I have a mountain of other books to read right now, I don't have time to go to my library, check out more books on Augustus, and scour through them just to cite these. The article is fine without them. If you don't believe me, read the sections where they were deleted. There is already a ton of information for the reader to digest. Enough has been added, don't place the straw that breaks the camel's back, I say.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Augustus&oldid=1136098812"