Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Roman Emperors/archive5

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [1].

List of Roman Emperors

re-nominated. Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs)

previous FLC (07:07, 22 August 2008)

Oppose - awesome list but:

the introduction fails to define the term of Roman Emperor. The term was actually invented only around the dominate (I believe Dominitian was the first to really use it?). Until them, the position actually consisted of several titles (not sure which ones exactly but one of them was leader of the praetorian gurards, another one was something like first magistrate, etc), including imperatorum—which ironically was one of the lesser titles.
I think the position of Emperor should clearly be defined in terms of the period: especially difference between the principate and the dominate
the Byzantine Empire section should probably have some text to briefly discuss what is in the link.
perhaps add a note about the Caroligian Empire?
while it is nice, I am not sure why are reign period, name, birthplaces grouped together, while death gets its own section. perhaps get the reign period in its separate column?
I believe there are small gaps in the reins (one example 350-361)
worst of all, the list is veeeery under referenced: imperial titles, and reign periods should be the main concern to receiving proper referencing.

The list is referenced, it uses the books

prove that by showing the relevant refs for each entry Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.aboutroma.com/romans.html
While Machiavelli did amazing work for his time, I really don't think using his historical commentaries on Livy is the best way to go to source something. It's a BIT out of date (like 500 years?)
The books are, while okay, borderline as far as sources. Guiness book of Kings, Rulers and Statesmen? Asimov?
VERY underreferenced. Very very very underreferenced.
List your books in alphabetical order by author, it looks neater.

Otherwise links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Infobox is incomplete.
Not enough references in the lead.
"The Latin term Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire), the best-known Latin expression was the word imperium denotes a territory known as homoland," what?
How much of the earth's surface is 5,900,000 km² (2,300,000 sq mi) ?
"The term is first coined " - was coined.
Columns should be made same width from table to table.
"Caracalla " has "IMPERATOR CAESAR MARCVS AVRELIVS SEVERVS ANTONINVS PIVS AVGVSTVS " for imperial name. Why are those parts bold?
Why are imperial names in small fonts?
Where's Vetriano's imperial name?
"Julian the Apostate|IMPERATOR CAESAR FLAVIVS CLAVDIVS IVLIANVS AVGVSTVS " is this really the imperial name? some English and a pipe?
Perhaps consider putting the name of the emperor before the reign?
Subdivide references into specific and general.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.