Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetricus I/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2018 [1].

Tetricus I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last emperor of the Gallic Empire, which split off from the Roman Empire in 260 and lasted until 274; when Tetricus was defeated by Aurelian, and the Gallic Empire was reintegrated into the Roman Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer

[edit]

I looked at this for a GA review in January of this year. All of my concerns were addressed at the time, and the edits since then have mostly been minor grammatical updates. I have no additional concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Katolophyromai

[edit]

The article is quite short, but its subject is a fairly obscure emperor who only ruled in Gaul for around just over three years, so I think the length is reasonable. The coverage seems to be comprehensive and the article is well-cited. I think this article is up to Featured Article standards. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Woebegone

[edit]


If you have a Commons account, go to preferences, gadgets, and under th e headline "Interface: Editing and uploads", enable CropTool, then a button will emerge under the tools field at the left when you look at a picture on Commons. When you click the croptool button, it should be easy to crop any image from there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: For some reason it is not allowing me to crop it because it is an SVG. A related PNG allows me to crop; but the tool does not show up for the SVG image, nor will the site itself allow me to crop it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, certainly not a show-stopper in any case (as source problems would be). But now you know how to crop other files... FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KAVEBEAR

[edit]
  • "He elevated his son, Tetricus II, to caesar in 273 to increase his support" - How exactly does that increase his support?
    having a named heir helped to establish himself as legitimate.
  • "One penetrated so far into Gallic territory that it reached the Loire" - Do we have a year for this?
    None provided unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are two accounts of what happened;" - You mention only one account following this and then went into "Modern scholars".
  • "Catalaunian catastrophe" - Why was it call that? What does Catalaunian actually refer to? An old Roman name for the region? Maybe that should be included.
  • "The leaders of the two breakaway states he had conquered, Tetricus of the Gallic Empire and Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire were paraded" - Wasn't Tetricus II also paraded through the triumph?
    Source doesn't indicate such; I don't think there was significant propaganda in parading a child. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any details on the triumph?
    None in particular unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Lucania et Bruttii" - Can you locate this geographically for the regular reader?
  • "depiction of Victoria" ... "Victoria standing with her foot" - you need to differentiate the goddess from Victoria (Gallic Empire) in the prose.
  • Also can you establish a consistency with the usage of Roman titles when they appear in the middle of sentences? Either capitalized or uncapitalized. It just needs to be consistent.
  • Please mention the Crisis of the Third Century which this period was part of.
  • Finally, I love if you can put publisher location in the sources. Although it is not a deal breaker if not added.

KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Iazyges, please remove the "done" templates per the FAC instructions above. --Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1

[edit]

Oppose: I'm recusing as coordinator to review this. There are various issues here, mainly with prose, which make me think this isn't quite ready for FA. These are examples only, and a few general points. Sarastro (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A general copy-edit is probably in order, to catch simple errors like "Ancient Roman historian Aurelius Victor said he was from noble family", which shouldn't be here at this stage, particularly in such a short article.
  • There are numerous examples of fused participles (noun plus -ing)"with 26 different Emperors ruling during the 49 year period" and "with both sides meeting at Châlons". There are others too, and this construction is best avoided.
  • I would oppose on 1b because we do not place this in context. There is a paragraph which partly explains the Gallic Empire, but not in enough detail. The article is hardly long, so we have time to go into detail here about how it came about, and maybe what happened to it. For example, note the longer background section in this article.
  • "When Emperor Valerian was captured by the Sassanids in 260, Postumus was elected by the legions in the Gallic provinces, who did not believe Emperor Gallienus was able to defend the west while fighting in the east, in c. 260." Why does this sentence end "in c. 260" when we have already given a date?
  • "The other account, which is supported by modern scholars, contends that the Battle of Châlons did occur, with Tetricus surrendering either directly after the battle or later." Aside from the meaning of this sentence, which I will address below, ancient accounts aren't "supported" by scholars. And I'm not sure "contends" is the correct word as the source is unlikely to be arguing with another source. (And another fused participle)
  • We should name the source which the article describes as "one, which is believed to have been created by Roman imperial propaganda some time later". Who wrote it? When? Why? If we are going into the sourcing here (and we should) we need to give some more context.
  • And we need more detail here: did the source deny a battle took place? Or was this merely a contrivance of the author?
  • "This battle was recorded as being exceptionally bloody, so much so that for generations it was referred to as the "Catalaunian catastrophe", named after the nearby Catalaunian plains" All this based on one source? Recorded by who? Who referred to it as the "Catalaunian catastrophe"? It's very unclear how certain we are the battle even took place (and being sure of events like this, during this period, is notoriously difficult), but then we jump into details like this.
  • It might be worth setting out how we know about this chap. I'm not an expert on the period, but it's quite common for even relatively important people to be identified only from one main source. I don't quite get the sense of how much we know, and how we know. For example, how do we know "Multiple regnal titles were added to Tetricus' name on his ascension, as was custom for Roman emperors, changing it to Imperator Caesar Esuvius Tetricus Pius Felix Invictus Augustus Pontifex Maximus". In such a short article, we don't need to worry about over-detailing, so can we show how the evidence leads historians to this conclusion? (For example, we do this perfectly later on when we say "The latest possible date for his surrender is March 274, when the Gallic mints switched from minting coins of Tetricus I and II to those of Aurelian." That's the kind of thing we need more of.)
  • Jumping to the sourcing, I've grave doubts about Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome as a source for this article. It's from a series of encyclopaedias aimed at the general reader, and if I'm honest, look to be at about high school level. We should be using much better sources in FAs.
    Have removed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stopping there, but I could doubtless find more examples so I've no intention of leaving a long list. I think someone needs to look at this one very closely and have a think about the whole structure of it and give the prose a considerable polish. Sarastro (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: I've begun a re-write in draft space; I'll see what I can do. I should be able to finish within a week. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarastro1: I've finished my re-write. I'll search for more to add, but I believe I have addressed many of your concerns. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FAC is not supposed to be the place for rewriting articles, partly because of the time involved, partly because it tends to invalidate earlier prose reviews as the article has changed significantly since those reviews. This quick re-write may have dealt with the first concern but the second remains. If these changes give Sarastro1 reason to withdraw his oppose, it might be worth leaving this open, but if not I think we'll need to archive, finish the job outside the FAC process, and return at a later stage with a fresh nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian Rose: Not meant to be a challenge but a genuine question: Would not simply pinging the previous reviewers resolve this? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this rewrite is a step in the right direction, but if I'm honest this is practically a different article now and we should not be doing rewrites like this in the middle of FAC. I think we have placed him in context more effectively, but I think there are still a few issues on discussing the sources (and I'd like to dig into the sourcing of the article a little more too). My advice would be to withdraw this and work on it more outside of FAC; I'd be happy to help out a bit more away from FAC as well, where time is less of an issue. Sarastro (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to archive based on the above and recommend you take up Sarastro's offer to assist in improvements outside the FAC process. When that's done (and after at least two weeks have passed) you can re-nominate and ping the previous reviewers to come and take a look at the latest version. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Images:,

Lead:

  • "and potentially co-emperor in 274, although this is debated" I think that you mean 'possibly', not "potentially.

Background:

  • "around the same time he assassinated Saloninus". Possibly 'at about' rather than "around"?
  • "forcing him to acquiesce with the secession". Acquiescein is a more normal usage.
  • "to allow them to sack the city". Wikilink sack.
  • "While some ancient sources hold". Good to see this usage rather than the usually inaccurate 'primary sources'.
  • "(Commander of the Praetorian Guard)" should not be capitalised.

Life:

  • "her power allowed her to appoint Tetricus as Gallic Empire". Do you mean 'as ruler of...', or 'as emperor of the...' or 'as Gallic emperor'?
  • "although Tetricus was not physically present". Delete "physically"> (Could he have been non=physically present?)
  • "appointing themselves as consul, with Tetricus appointing himself as consul in 271". Why is the second mention of "consul" A. in italics? B. red-linked?
    Linked to Gallic Consul; an article I intend to write at some point. Italics removed Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "elevated his son at an unspecified date in the biography of Emperor Aurelian". That's a (very) odd use of "biography; suggest 'during the reign of'.
    It is meant to speak of the source itself; the biography of Aurelian is a part of the book. I've reworded it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but largely was forced to withdraw troops". Suggestion: 'but was forced to largely withdraw troops'.
  • "however neither Aurelius Victor nor Eutropius mention such an event". If a reader were to guess that these might be ancient historians, would they be correct?
  • " During 273/274, Faustinus rebelled against Tetricus". Suggest ' During 273/274, Faustinus, provincial governor of Gallia Belgica, rebelled against Tetricus'.
  • " Aurelian began to march into Northern Gaul". "Northern" should not be capitalised.
  • "with last possible date for his surrender being in March 274". 'with the last possible date for his surrender being in March 274'.
  • "the Gallic Empire rejoined the Roman Empire, once more whole". once more whole reads, to my eye, oddly and out of context. Could you rephrase and/or elaborate?

Numismatics:

  • "Seven featured his bust on the obverse". 'Seven surviving coins feature his bust on the obverse'.
  • "a depiction of the Roman Goddess Victoria"< "Goddess" is not capitalised.
  • Use of "bust". This refers to sculpture. The word you want is 'image'. (Or, permissibly, 'profile'; if it is.)
  • "granted to soldiers upon the emperor's accession or consulship." Should "consulship" be plaural? (Genuine query.)
    If not for wikt: consulships I would not have known.

Historiography:

  • "While the lives of the Gallic emperors are covered within the Historia Augusta, this information is unreliable due to the interweaving of facts and invention within the Historia Augusta." Two uses of "within the Historia Augusta" in one sentence. Please rephrase one.
  • " Tetricus is listed one of the "Thirty Tyrants" in the Historia Augusta" '... as one of the...'.
  • "however the usage of epigraphs was in decline in the period". IMO '... during the period.' would read better.

Notes:

  • " associates Tetricus II with Tetricus' second Tribunician period". "Tribunician", lower case t.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Inscriptions bearing Tetricus' name are very common throughout Gaul, although these are broken into two regions by a vertical line of inscriptions bearing Aurelian's name, which were made after the surrender of Tetricus; no Tetrican inscriptions overlap with Aurelianic inscriptions" A long and possibly over-complicated sentence. Consider splitting it and/or otherwise rephrasing it. Also the use of the word "regions" is not good. I thought that you were referring to regions of Gaul. I assume you are referring to Tetrican inscriptions being defaced (or 'amended' if you prefer) by having a further inscription engraved across them? If so, could this be made clearer?
  • Given the comments above by Ian Rose and Sarastro1 the following is probably moot. I am very aware of other reviewers comments, especially Sarastro1's, and of my relative inexperience in reviewing FACs. Nevertheless, to me the article seems well written, well placed in context (although it is probable that my personal balance of comprehensive to focused leans towards the terser end of the spectrum), uses good sources from which as much has been extracted as could reasonably be expected and with their limitations reasonably flagged up. More, obviously, could be said about various aspects of the article; but it always can, and to me the article stops at a reasonable point. So I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tetricus_I/archive1&oldid=858409422"