Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Germanicus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Germanicus

Nominator(s): SpartaN (talk)

I am nominating this article as a step toward FAC. I know I left Wikipedia in the middle of the last A-class review and it won't happen again. I have a different job now that doesn't involve leaving home and driving for extended periods. It was at the end of the last review when I did so it shouldn't be much that has to be done this go around. SpartaN (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

Harv error: link to #CITEREFTacitusBarrett doesn't point to any citation.
Harv error: link to #CITEREFAndo2016 doesn't point to any citation.
P/PP error: Swan 2004, p. 239–241;
P/PP error: Gibson 2013, pp. 82;
Radman-Livaja, I.; Dizda, M. (2010), Missing ISBN;
Simpson, Ch. J. (1981),Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed harv errors and p/pp errors. The last two don't have ISBNs, because they aren't books. And neither seem to have ISSNs either. SpartaN (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're wading into at least a little more challenging territory when you start citing conference papers from Germany. Here are three rules: 1) Google scholar is your friend 2) Google scholar is really, really your friend, and 3) very very cautiously, google translate can perhaps be your friend too. So OK I go to google scholar and google the English title, returning "Archaeological+Traces+of+the+Pannonian+Revolt+6–9+AD%3AEvidence+and+Conjectures".&btnG= this page. Look below the title and authors. There are a blue star, blue quotation marks, blue "cited by 8" and blue "related articles". All of those are useful, but the most useful for our present purpose is "Cited by 8". Now wait, the two blue quotation marks return a citation, wow, great, right? But no, google scholar often gets those kinda wrong. Click "cited by 8" and find an html or pdf you can see, then find there citations and copy their answers. It's best to look at 2 or 3 'cause other scholars might get it wrong too, and you might get unlucky and find the incorrect one first.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi: I see. I was going about it all wrong, then. I was treating it like a book using the google books search and then found the pdf with incomplete information. Ordinarily I try to just stick with books with isbns, but in this case it was extremely difficult to find even this source that goes in depth into the Pannonian War of AD 6 to 9 (that also mentions Germanicus and isn't just a commentary on Dio). Thanks for your work. SpartaN (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attema et al. 2010, pp. 63-65 Hyphen in pg. range;
Tacitus & Barrett 2008, pp. 52-53 Hyphen in pg. range;
Tacitus & Barrett 2008, pp. 58-60 Hyphen in pg. range; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I think you wanted me to replace the "-" with "–" in those harvrefs - it's unclear). SpartaN (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a prominent general of the Roman Empire known for his campaigns in Germania. suggest a prominent general of the Roman Empire, who was known for his campaigns in Germania.
a prominent branch of the patrician gens Claudia. suggest change of prominent, since it was just used. Perhaps influential or powerful?
Germanicus was a favorite of his great-uncle Augustus who comma between Augustus and who.
been given full independence of action. suggest been given full operational independence.
That is all my suggestions. Support promotion to A-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions implemented. SpartaN (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67

I reviewed this article during its previous run at ACR, and supported its promotion, and I am still of the same view. Support from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem

It seems to me that the article needs quite a thorough copy-edit before it will be ready for FAC. To be honest, I'm not sure it's quite up to scratch for A-Class, though I don't know how much of a problem issues with prose are in terms of assessing A-Class. I would be happy assist if you want me to have a crack at it myself, otherwise WP:GOCE would be your friend. For now I'll comment on just a sample of prose issues I find. But first...

Comments on content:

Section "Name". Is it relevant that Claudius adopted the agnomen Germanicus? It doesn't appear to come up again in the article.

It is only because Claudius accepts the title after Germanicus' adoption into the Julii in order to represent his father who earned it. In other words, Germanicus adoption, which causes him to change his name, also affected Claudius' name.

OK. Is it correct to say that Claudius became the sole legal representative of his father? The latter is dead by this stage. Maybe better to say that "...his brother inherited the agnomen Germanicus as the new head of the family"? This will also underline the fact that Germanicus has left the gens Claudia.

Yeah. He becomes the head of household is what I meant. Done.

Section "Family and early life, 2nd para, On his mother's side, he was the great-nephew of Augustus, and the nephew of Tiberius (the first and second emperors respectively). This sentence says his relationship to Tiberius was on his mother's side, but by my reckoning it was on his father's side (Tiberius was the brother of Germanicus's father). But see also my comment on prose below about this sentence.

It means he's just his nephew in general. Will explain that he's related on father's side (I assumed it was already made clear so it is a poor assumption that resulted in this).

Same section, 3rd para, Germanicus was a favorite of his great-uncle Augustus who for some time considered him heir to the Empire.[8] In AD 4, persuaded by his wife Livia, Augustus decided in favor of Tiberius, his stepson from Livia's first marriage to Tiberius Claudius Nero. Are you sure this is faithful to the source, in particular the "for some time" statement? IIRC, Augustus's grandsons Gaius and Lucius were his favoured heirs, and it was only when they died young in AD 4 and AD 2 that he turned reluctantly to Tiberius. I believe there was a history of Augustus using Tiberius when he needed him, but preferring his own bloodline for the succession. In the light of this, do you think it's worth adding a statement on why Tiberius was required to adopt Germanicus, particularly as at this stage Tiberius had his own son, who he would presumably favour as his heir?

It is meant to say that he was the favored after their deaths. Also, the adoption of Germanicus gave him precedence over Tiberius' son because Germanicus was older. The fact that his adoption was intended to make him supplant Tiberius' son in the line of succession is evidence of some modicum of favor Augustus held for him, and it is stated in Salisbury, Levick, and the primary sources (who the secondary sources interpret; Dio, Tacitus).

I'm still not sure that's correct. Augustus's favourite up to AD 4 would still have been Gaius, until he died that year. Only then would Germanicus have become Augustus's next choice(?) (unless perhaps Germanicus had replaced Lucius after his death in AD 2). By starting the next sentence with "In AD 4..." there's an implication that Gaius was a favourite before that time. It's been decades since I studied this period, I was never all that good a student anyways, and I may be way off the mark, but I feel like something important is missing here. You have the sources. Is it possible that Germanicus was considered too young and inexperienced, and was placed under Tiberius's 'guardianship' in order to prepare him for the succession? Are you sure you are not missing the opportunity to set some context about Germanicus's relationship to Tiberius, given that there was so much suspicion later? Again, you have the sources and I may be remembering this wrong.

Clarified. This is meant to say that Germanicus was the preferred choice after Gaius but before Tiberius and was still among the favorite as evidence of him becoming second in line after the latter. The "for some time" refers to the brief interval before he decided on Tiberius (an interval of about 4 months). The "In AD 4.." is just clarifying the date in which the events took place for the readers because it's the first mention of the date in that section because it comes after two paragraphs that aren't necessarily in chronological order.

I was worried it might come of as OR, because it's not explicitly stated to be brief or for a few months but it is stated that he didn't start looking for new heirs until Gaius' death and so of course that is brief (in terms of history) four months between February and June. Let me know if you think it is and I'll fix it.

OK. How about "After the death in AD 4 of his chosen heir, Gaius Caesar, Augustus turned to Tiberius and Germanicus as successors. He adopted Tiberius, whom he required to adopt Germanicus in turn, thus elevating Germanicus to the level of Tiberius's own son, Drusus, in the line of succession."? It's still not the best writing, but encapsulates the succession. If you need a ref for that, use Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero, 5th edition, ISBN 978-0415025270, pp. 218 & 445. Factotem (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I adapted some of it. However, Germanicus was elevated above Drusus in the line of succession (on two counts; he was older than Drusus and Augustus' preference which was then honored faithfully by Tiberius - even to the extent that Germanicus' sons were advanced above his own grandchildren into the late 10s and 20s AD).

@Factotem: By the way, I appreciate the source and am familiar with Scullard. He says the same thing as the existing sources though is why I didn't see the need to cite him specifically (I think Levick cites him actually). Anyhow, I think that's everything for real this time. If you think it still needs more copyediting in that paragraph I'm happy to do it and I don't want to seem unreasonable. SpartaN (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose:

I have Scullard in front of me, and he states specifically, in the footnote on p. 445, that "...B. Levick, Latomus, 1966, 227 ff, emphasizes that the adoption of Germanicus was to make him the equal of the younger Drusus, a wish of Augustus which Tiberius continued to respect as shown by the parallel careers of the younger men. But G. V. Sumner, Latomus, 1967, 413 ff, who discusses the ages of Germanicus and Drusus, concludes that Tiberius in the period of his developing ascendancy towards the end of Augustus' reign, did accelerate the career of his son Drusus." If your sources do not specifically state that Germanicus was elevated above Drusus, then your sentence "As a result of the adoptions of 26 June AD 4, Germanicus became the heir of Tiberius in place of Tiberius' natural son Drusus Julius Caesar." should go. It's removal would also fix the fact that you state the exact date of the adoptions twice. I'm not going to push the 'briefly' bit any further; you seem to insist on that, and I accept that you're more knowledgeable than I on that issue. Factotem (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm only using one colon so it doesn't push to far to the right). That just means they progressed at the same rate (they achieved the same ranks at the same ages and because Germanicus was older he achieved those ranks first is all). By virtue of being the older male he was ahead of Drusus in the line of succession. Being "equal" does not mean they would both become emperor, only one of them could and it would have been the older of Tiberius' sons, adoptive or natural. I did repeat the date thinking I accidentally removed it. I know Swan says so explicitly, that Germanicus was progressing ahead of Drusus by virtue of achieving ranks ahead of his younger adoptive brother. And I know multiple other sources do which I will return with momentarily, but I don't see how this is complicated at all. In short: "Equal in rank" means they were both Tiberius' sons after Germanicus' adoption, but one of those sons were older and only one (at this stage in the Empire) could become emperor, and it couldn't have been the younger son. SpartaN (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove the contentious sentence in the meantime. SpartaN (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it and you are right about Scullard, and for me to assume he is in agreement where none is explicitly stated is being unfair of me. Usually he and Levick are in agreement and that is what I was going off of without even first seeing your source (I have seen Scullard, but not the page you pointed me to when it mattered). It's not like either of them lived to succeed him in the first place so placing such emphasis on the succession is kind of pointless in itself. Removing the sentence doesn't take anything away from the article and including it would involve a large amount of attention to the succession of Germanicus and his ancestry that really belongs in the article Julio-Claudian dynasty. SpartaN (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General note on possessives. A recent change to MOS:POSS requires us to add 's to the singular possessive, even where the possessor ends with an s, so throughout, the articles needs to state Germanicus's, Tiberius's, Augustus's etc.

Done.

Section "Name". Given the new section, I think you should repace "His" with "Germanicus's" at the start of the sentence.

Done.

Same section. ...or possibly Tiberius Claudius Nero after his uncle Tiberius Not sure you need to state "Tiberius" at the end.

Done.

Same section. In 9 BC, the agnomen Germanicus was added to his full name when it was posthumously awarded to his father in honor of his victories in Germania. Germanicus held the title as he was the head of his family after his father's death. I think this could be written more concisely as "He took the agnomen Germanicus, awarded posthumously to his father in honor of his victories in Germania, when he became head of the family in 9 BC."

Done

Same section. By AD 4 he was adopted as Tiberius' son and heir. As a result, Germanicus was adopted out of the Claudii and into the Julii. Because the actual date of adoption appears to be ambiguous, and to avoid the too-short sentencing, I think this would be better written as "By AD 4 he had been adopted as Tiberius' son and heir, and as a result, Germanicus became a member of the gens Julii." I don't know if Romans could only be a member of one gens at a time, but I don't think we need to specify that he left the gens Claudii. Also, in the lead, it's gens Julia and gens Claudia, whereas here it's gens Julii and gens Claudii. Is there a reason for the difference?

Grammatically I think it would be plural, because in the sentence that says "..Germanicus was adopted out of the Claudii and into the Julii." - He is being removed from the many members of the gens Claudia and entering the ranks of the many Julii.

Section "Family and early life", 1st para. I find there's always some mental gymnastics required when it comes to family trees, especially Roman. What do you think about "Germanicus was born in Rome on 24 May 15 BC to Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia Minor, and had two younger siblings: a sister, Livilla; and a brother, Claudius. His paternal grandmother was Livia who, by the time of his birth, had divorced his grandfather, Tiberius Claudius Nero, and was married to the emperor Augustus. His maternal grandparents were the triumvir Mark Antony and Augustus's sister Octavia Minor."?

Beautiful.

Same section, 2nd para. What do you think about "Germanicus was a key figure in Julio-Claudian dynasty of the early Roman Empire. As well as being the great-nephew of Augustus, he was the nephew of the second emperor Tiberius, his son Gaius would become the third emperor Caligula, who would be succeeded by Germanicus's brother Claudius, and his grandson would become the fifth emperor Nero." as a more concise narative?

Done.

Taking a break now, back with more later. Factotem (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another tranche:

Section "Family and early life", 3rd para, If Tiberius had not adopted Germanicus before his own adoption, and had Augustus adopted Tiberius first... The second clause repeats the meaning of the first clause, and is not necessary.

Will remove. When I elaborate on things I'm not always sure the reader will be able to follow.

Same section, 4th para. Caligula wasn't emperor at the time of his birth. Suggest "...Gaius the Yonger (the future emperor Caligula)...". Similar for Agrippina the Younger. Also, was "Empress" actually used as a title in the Roman Empire? If so, suggest "...Agrippina the Younger (future empress)..." and if not, then "...Agrippina the Younger (future wife to the emperor Claudius).

Done. No, but she is commonly referred to as empress in lieu of an official title, although "Augusta" is often equivocated.

Section "Batonian War", 1st para. If the slaves were manumitted, how could they, as freemen, be bought?

They were bought by Augustus so that he could free them and incorporate them into his army (the sources don't really elaborate on why - a shortage of Roman manpower I guess).

OK, but I think you need to write that the slaves were bought and then manumitted.

Done.

Same section, 2nd para, Not long after Germanicus reached Pannonia, Severus was attacked in Moesia, but successfully repelled the rebels. By the time Germanicus arrived... It's not clear whether Moesia is part of Pannonia or not, so this sentence appears to repeat Germanicus's entrance twice. Maybe the second sentence should read "By the time Germanicus arrived in Moesia..."?

Moesia is further west - Germanicus doesn't enter that region throughout the entire conflict. Severus was attacked on his way to Pannonia shortly after Germanicus' arrival there. Will clarify in the article.

You've now got "Not long after Germanicus reached Pannonia..." and "By the time Germanicus arrived in Pannonia..." starting two consecutive sentences, which just jars. Maybe the second should be "By the time of Germanicus's arrival, the rebels had..."?

Same para. Tiberius appears to have been conducting... and Tiberius may have been hoping... come across to me as a bit weaselly. Is the uncertainty reflected in the sources?

There is great uncertainty and modern sources elaborate on primary ones to come to a conclusion as to his activities and motives.

Same section, 3rd para, AD 8 saw the collapse of the rebel position in Pannonia: a rebel commander, Bato the Breucian, surrendered their leader Pinnes to the Romans and laid down his arms in return for amnesty from the Romans.. Maybe rewrite as "The rebel position in Pannonia collapsed in AD 8 when one of their commanders, Bato the Breucian, surrendered their leader Pinnes to the Romans and laid down his arms in return for amnesty." This removes the passive voice at the start of the sentence, which is maybe not such an issue, but certainly the colon is wrong, and the party giving amnesty is obvious and doesn't need stating.

Done.

Same para, As a result of the surrender of Pinnes and the death of Bato the Breucian, the Pannonians were divided against each other, and the Romans attacked, and conquered the Breuci without battle. I think that technically Pinnes was captured. Also, if there was no battle, is it correct to write that the Romans attacked?

Now "As a result of the betrayal of Pinnes and the death of Bato the Breucian, the Pannonians were divided against each other, and the Romans conquered the Breuci without battle."

Same section, 4th para, Tiberius divided the forces into three divisions, two under Silvanus (south-east from Sirmium) and Lepidus (north-west from Siscia), and the third led by himself with Germanicus in the Dalmatian hinterland. I tripped on this, thinking that of the three divisions, two were commanded by Silvanus. I also read the last part as meaning that the third division was led by Tiberius, and that separately Germanicus was in the Dalmatian hinterland. Finally, I don't understand what is meant by "south-east from Sirmium". Was that division advancing in a south-easterly direction from Sirmium, or was it based in the south-east in the area of Sirmium? Similar problem with "north-west from Siscia".

Clarified (the confusion was just sloppy copy editing on my part)

Same para, While Tiberius negotiated the terms of capitulation, Germanicus went on a punitive expedition across the surrounding territory in which he besieged the fortified town of Arduba, defeating it and obtaining their surrender and that of surrounding towns. The previous sentence states that the fortress was overwhelmed and the defenders killed, so why would he need to negotiate a surrender, and who was there left to negotiate with? Also, the defeat and surrender of Arduba is basically saying the same thing twice, isn't it? And anyway, aren't towns captured rather than defeated?

More to come. Factotem (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified.

I'll wait until your done so I can address all the issues (some are related to each other so I don't want to start if the next one is related to a preceding one). Many of them are simple mistakes in terminology, i.e., I'm pretty sure in the same sense nations can be defeated so too can rebellious towns. SpartaN (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last tranche:

Section "Interim", 5th para, ...Tiberius held a triumph for their victory over the Pannonians and Dalmatians, that... I would query the use of "their" instead of "his" here. I believe that triumphs were a special thing in Rome, and it's more correct to say they were granted (you certainly write this further down, in the "First campaign against the Germans" section). I think that technically the victory belonged to Tiberius as commander. The fact that Germanicus received only triumphal regalia, and not a triumph himself, seems to confirm this. I'm not sure. Certainly the "that" at the end there should be a "which", and that will be my last nitpicky prose comment. That's not to say that there aren't more issues of prose, but I don't think it's very productive for either of us to list them all individually here.

I meant that the triumph celebrated the victory over the Pannonians who they both fought against, but you are right and I fixed it.

Section "Commander of Germania", 1st para, ...and more importantly, to grant him proconsular imperium. Why "more importantly"? What's the relevance of him receiving this authority?

It's not really (nothing that doesn't require a lengthy explanation in the article as to having proconsular imperium is superior to being a mere general). It made his rank superior to that of even the consuls is why. Removed "more importantly".

Section "Third campaign against the Germans", 4th para, The Roman soldiers involved on the battlefield hailed Tiberius as Imperator... Tiberius?

changed to "honored Tiberius" - the gesture of hailing an emperor after a victory was done to show respect. Though the sources don't elaborate on why, it was probably Germanicus' idea to strengthen the authority of Tiberius in his legions. Saying they honored him with the gesture seems equally valid, though.

Section "Recall", 3rd para, Tiberius gave money out to the people of Rome in his name, and he was scheduled to hold the consulship next year with the emperor... Ambiguous use of personal pronouns makes this sentence confusing. I think you mean that Tiberius gave out money in Germanicus's name, and that Germanicus was scheduled to be consul, but that's not what the sentence actually says.

Clarified.

Section "Command in Asia", 1st para, ...Germanicus was sent to Asia to reorganize the provinces and kingdoms of Asia, which were in such disarray that the attention of a domus Augusta was deemed necessary to settle matters. I wonder if it's worth clarifying the distinction between senatorial provinces, which I assume is the type of province Germanicus was being sent to here, and imperial provinces?

I'm confused. He was sent to reorganize provinces as a general use of the term. The only imperial province in the region is Egypt at the time. The distinction isn't made until the section "Egypt" as far as I can tell.

Got carried away with this comment. Ignore it.

Section "Egypt", 1st para, The move upset Tiberius, because it had violated an order by Augustus that no senator shall enter the province... But Germanicus was not simply a senator. Maybe flesh out the reason why this was a problem?

He was operating in his capacity as proconsul (his rank, officially; imperium maius does give him authority over other proconsuls, but it does not exclude him from the Senatorial Order) and so it was a problem because he had not first asked permission of the emperor to enter Egypt. Clarified.

Same para, ...although this action was probably beyond his authority. How so, given that you state earlier that he was given imperium maius?

It was done by a senator without the emperor's permission; imperium maius does not advance him beyond the Senatorial Order.

Same section, 2nd para, Tiberius feared the people of Rome knew of the conspiracy against Germanicus... The wording seems to confirm that there was a conspiracy, but wasn't it only ever speculation that Piso had poisoned Germanicus, and scuttlebuck that Tiberius was involved?

Clarified. It was Tacitus' theory that Tiberius was responsible and he provides motives that he believed were responsible for Tiberius's decision to kill his nephew.

That's it for now, but I may come back with some more general comments. Factotem (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late response. I'll ping you after I've made the changes. It will be a few hours. SpartaN (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Sorry it took so long. I had to crack the books back open, but I've responded to all queries. SpartaN (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on those changes. Some additional comments to your responses above. No rush. Likely won't be able to get back to any further updates 'til Monday. Factotem (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: I responded to all queries. SpartaN (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but please do get this article copy-edited before taking it to FAC. Factotem (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to as soon as the assessment is complete. Thank you for being patient with me. SpartaN (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, though I think it was you who was being patient with me. I would be happy to work with you on the copy-edit if you want, and would understand if you don't. Factotem (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. You seem to be good at copy-editing and the article would really improve from it. SpartaN (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Missed this. I'm busy for a few days. Will make a start on it next week. Ping me if you don't hear anything from me by the end of the week. Factotem (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord note: this one seems like it might be heading towards closure soon, but it still needs an image review, I think. @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a look at this one? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

For objects from countries without freedom of panorama, we need to include an explicit tag indicating the copyright status of the original work
File:Otto_Albert_Koch_Varusschlacht_1909.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Idistaviso.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: "For objects from countries without freedom of panorama,.." Are these images separate from the two mentioned for the US PD tag, or are those two the one you are referring to? SpartaN (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate - everything that is in three dimensions. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added PD-US to the two images referred to above. SpartaN (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I somehow didn't notice your reply until now. I see what you're talking about, but do I address them by nation of origin or is the copyright status by itself good enough? SpartaN (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. For images hosted on Commons, they need to be free/PD in their country of origin as well as in the US, and the factors in determining that will vary from country to country. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I added the right tags. Photographs of statues and ancient buildings are not allowed to be sold without a license, which the uploaders appropriately followed with their share alike licenses. The statues are old enough that they are public domain due to being in publicly funded museums/areas. SpartaN (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Depictions of ancient works of art are allowed to be transmitted freely so long as you do not charge money unless they are privately owned, which they are not. That is what I meant. Please let me know if I added the wrong tags for them. SpartaN (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we still have five images needing amendment. File:MSR_-_Germanicus_Inv._30010.jpg needs a tag for the original work, per above. File:Hermannsdenkmal_statue.jpg needs a publication date to verify the US tag, and I don't think monuments qualify as official decrees. For both File:RomaAraPacis_ProcessioneSudParticolare.jpg and File:Bronze_statue_of_Germanicus_at_Amelia_April_2016.jpg, the wording of the Italian tag suggests it would not apply in this situation. Finally, File:Idistaviso.png needs an author to verify the life+70 tag - an 1895 publication would make it quite possible for the author to have died more recently. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Idistaviso.png - Dr. Paul Knotel (d. 1934).Deutsche Nation Bibliothek

They are all appropriately tagged now. The Italian ones - File:Bronze_statue_of_Germanicus_at_Amelia_April_2016.jpg and File:RomaAraPacis_ProcessioneSudParticolare.jpg are PD after extensive reading because they are not cultural heritage sites (buildings) and so they apply. File:MSR_-_Germanicus_Inv._30010.jpg is protected for the same reason (and Freedom of Panorama is protected there). File:Hermannsdenkmal_statue.jpg is protected as it is a public statue on public property. Thank you for being patient. SpartaN (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, can you please let me know if all your concerns have been addressed? If so, the review is probably ready for closure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on my talk, we're probably okay to use the Italian sculptures; however, I think Template:PD-EU-no_author_disclosure would be a better fit, assuming in both cases the sculptor is unknown. Also, per above File:Idistaviso.png needs an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SpartaN (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Are you happy with these changes, Nikki? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SpartaN: File:Bronze_statue_of_Germanicus_at_Amelia_April_2016.jpg should use the EU tag as well, then this is good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Done. SpartaN (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.