Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Germanicus/archive1

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Germanicus

Nominator(s): SpartaN (talk)

Germanicus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class as a stepping stone to Featured. I appreciate any feedback. SpartaN (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - suggest reviewing this RfC with regards to sourcing standards for "in fiction" content. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hchc2009:

• Interesting article, and a lot of work's gone into improving it. Some thoughts from me:
• I'm not sure the bolding in the "Name" section is right - it's already bolded above, so presumably shouldn't be a second time?

I based my decision to bold a second time off the Featured Article Augustus, but I am happy to debold. I'm not sure how MoS deals with this.

This has been fixed.

• Inconsistency in italicisation of agnomen and Julii (both used in regular text in lead, then italicised later)

Fixed.

• "Germanicus was born at Rome in 15 BC. His parents were the general Nero Claudius Drusus (son of Empress Livia Drusilla, third wife of Emperor Augustus, by her first husband Tiberius Claudius Nero) and Antonia Minor (the younger daughter of the triumvir Mark Antony and Octavia Minor, sister of Augustus). Livilla was his younger sister and the future emperor Claudius was his younger brother. As a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, he was a close relative to all five Julio-Claudian emperors. On his mother's side Germanicus was a great-nephew of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. He was born the nephew of the second emperor, Tiberius. His son Gaius (known by his nickname Caligula) succeeded Tiberius, becoming the third emperor. When Caligula died, the title was given to Germanicus' younger brother, Claudius. The last emperor of the dynasty, Nero, was a grandson of Germanicus on the side of his mother Agrippina the Younger." - I'll admit I found this quite hard going, and wondered if it couldn't be made a little clearer somehow.

I hope this reads better: "Germanicus was born in Rome in 15 BC. His father was the general Nero Claudius Drusus, the son of Livia by her first husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. His mother was Antonia Minor, the younger daughter of the triumvir Mark Antony and Augustus' sister Octavia Minor. Germanicus had two siblings: a younger sister Livilla, and a younger brother Claudius. At the time of his birth, Livia was the third wife of Emperor Augustus and the mother of his uncle Tiberius. As a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, he was a close relative to all five Julio-Claudian emperors. On his mother's side, he was the great-nephew of Augustus, and the nephew of Tiberius (the first and second emperors respectively). His son Gaius (known by his nickname "Caligula") would later succeed Tiberius as the third emperor. After Caligula the title passed to Germanicus' younger brother Claudius. The succession passed to Claudius' stepson Nero, the last emperor of the dynasty and a grandson of Germanicus on the side of his mother Agrippina the Younger."

• "Germanicus was given the title of quaestor in AD 7, five years before the legal age" - would be worth saying what the legal age was.

Done.

• File:Germania 10-12 Tiberio png.PNG and similar - appears to have been based on another geographical map, but no attribution / licence given in the files.

I'm not sure which file to attribute it to, or if the creator of the image has to do that.

I replaced those images with ones in public domain, and one with clear attribution.

• I'm a bit concerned about the use of primary sources; it's clearly absolutely fine for a modern historian to write an article using Tacitus (c. AD 56 – c. AD 120) as a source, but I'd be expecting a wiki article to be using reliable, fact-checked modern sources for this period, especially at A class. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It will take some time, but I can replace most of the primary references with secondary ones. Most of the times I cite them it's from having read of them in secondary sources anyway.

I think responded and dealt with all problems you've brought up. SpartaN (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day Hchc2009, is there more you feel needs addressing? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

G'day. Good work on improving the article to this point, obviously quite a bit of work has gone into it. I have a similar concern to Hchc2009 about the preponderance of primary sources used in this article. An article shouldn't rely so much on Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus etc for information, we would expect the subject to have been discussed in a significant way in secondary sources (who would presumably have looked to those ancient scholars), and the article should be based predominantly on them, with perhaps some bits here and there cited to the ancient scholars. Sadly, without a rewrite along those lines, I don't think this is going to meet WP policy on reliable sources. As it stands, only the latter quarter or so of the article (from about fn 74 or so) really is appropriately balanced between primary and secondary sources. Others may disagree, but that's my take on it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed for ease of navigation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Give me two weeks so I have time to work around my schedule and I can rewrite the article to meet these standards. I will start reading up shortly to refresh my memory, but for the most part the primary sources are just reaffirming what I read from secondary sources with the major exception being the Batonian War bit, which is sadly not addressed by many modern historians. I should apologize for being lazy on my end as I do have access to secondary sources, but chose to prefer primary sources out of convenience. SpartaN (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC) It might not take as long as I thought with all my books and notes in front of me and sources being easily verifiable with the power of google, but I've removed a significant portion of primary sources for tonight. I will pick up where I left off tomorrow after work. SpartaN (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Sure. Ping me to have a proper look after you're done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC) @Peacemaker67: I've done extensive digging through my notes and replaced most of the primary sources. I believe it will now pass reliability; however, I am always happy to do more. SpartaN (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC) I'll take a proper look this week. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC) watch the consistency of italicisation of the Claudii and Julii in the lead, I think either is acceptable fixed link Roman triumph in the lead fixed you need to unbold the various versions of his names in the Name section, that's just for the lead per MOS:BOLD fixed you need to link to the father Nero Claudius Drusus in the Family etc section Done (note that there is a link to his article in the lead) suggest that Germanicus married his maternal second cousin if that is what is meant, it all gets a bit confusing with the family links here fixed BTW, I know this isn't your problem as you are only linking to it, but Bellum Batonianum seems to be a strange title given WP:UE. I'd have expected to find it at an English title like Pannonian revolt or Great Illyrian Revolt. fixed suggest "of 25" instead of using parentheses fixed link Moesia at first mention, unlink later mention fixed where did Silvanus come from? Thrace? From Anatolia is as accurate as Dzino and other sources get. We know in 5 and 6 he was governor in Galatia and Pamphylia, and that he suppressed a revolt in Isauria. once introduced, general Severus should just be Severus fixed "the revels" should be rebels? yep "the rebels had withdrawn" as this is in past tense fixed "unsuited at counter-guerrilla" should be "to" rather than "at", also I think the use of a much more modern term like guerilla is a bit weird. Perhaps something more generic like "unsuited to countering raids"? fixed and divided no idea what you want me to do here again, counter-insurgency seems incongruous here, perhaps describe what they were actually doing rather than using such a term fixed and described what they were doing which king was this? There has been no mention of a king thus far their leader Pinnes. Some call him "king", but most sources don't. suggest consistent use of "Bato the Breucian", as there is another Bato coming up, and it can get a bit confusing fixed worth mentioning that Bato of the Daesitiates was the other Bato's former ally fixed The sentence beginning "The Pannonians were in an uproar, and the Romans attacked, and conquered the Breuci without battle" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it could be explained more fully? explained more fully suggest linking Bosnia to Bosnia (region) rather than the modern nation-state. most of the mountains are actually outside of the region called Bosnia, but inside the Herzegovina of "Bosnia and Herzegovina" (but the source only calls it Bosnia so it would be poor citing to say Herzegovina). suggest "at" Sirmium, and link Sirmium fixed many cities? would these have been considered "cities" at the time? perhaps towns? Not sure about this one. all sources call them cities and without knowledge of population there's no informed reason not to common English usage of Montenegro doesn't have a diacritic fixed suggest "called Adetrium, near Salona" fixed suggest "Tiberius attacked the fortress, using a steady supply of reinforcements" fixed suggest "defeating it and obtaining its surrender" fixed Who is Postumius? His full name should probably be used to differentiate him from other Postumius' seems to be no mention of a Postumius participating in the war outside Cassius Dio who only mentions him in this one action with no other defining terms. Will change to "sent a Postumius" in the mean time. suggest "After a distinguished commencement to his military career" fixed link consul fixed link Battle of the Teutoburg Forest linked link proconsul linked link quaestor at first mention in the body linked "reminiscent of when he formerly used to plea for his defendants directly to Augustus" there has been no mention of this previously added missing information On 16 January, AD 13, drop the first comma for consistency fixed I don't think italics are justified for consular insignia fixed if Germanicus' brother Drusus is the same as Tiberius' son Drusus, link at first mention fixed it isn't clear if the settlement Germanicus negotiated was for both the Upper and Lower Rhine armies fixed In early spring AD 15 fixed consistency in roman numeral legion designations, 19th Legion should be XIX Legion fixed drop the initial cap on Eagle, and link to Aquila (Roman) fixed no need for the Latin for Teutoburg Forest, just use the English fixed link Aliso (Roman Fort & Vicus) fixed Germanicus sent some troops fixed suggest "potential doubts from Tiberius about his motives in taking such independent action" fixed suggest "This error in political judgement" fixed suggest "He had captured a few important prisoners" to avoid repetition fixed "In Tacitus, this was an attempt" Do you mean, "According to Tacitus,"? fixed but the historian Richard Alston fixed Illyrian coast of the Adriatic fixed drop the comma from "18 January, AD 18" fixed "left for Syria" fixed "Next Germanicus traveled" fixed suggest "King Artaxias, as a replacement for Vonones" fixed the sales tax bit doesn't make any sense to me, in what way did making it a province enable a reduction in sales tax? explained (made enough money from the new province that he was able to reduce said sales tax) "so Germanicus sent Quintus Servaeus" fixed 10th Legion should be made consistent with the other legions, Legion X Fretensis in this case. fixed the King of Parthia is first mentioned but not by name, suggest "King of Parthia, Artabanus" and "Artabanus" thereafter fixed "arriving to a tumultuous" fixed the sentence beginning "He feared the people of Rome" needs work, it isn't clear who feared what the people of Rome knew, it also isn't clear if it is just Tacitus who thought Germanicus was poisoned on Tiberius' orders or what clarified Gnaeus Piso should just be Piso, as he's been introduced already fixed brought charges against him fixed what were Tiberius' sentiments? clarified (according to all accounts, he must have been angry at his perceived friend Piso's betrayal and the destruction it cost the dynasty) drop the use of parentheses at "(ostensibly...)" fixed look at the sentence beginning "Germanicus is often contrasted", as there seems to be an and or other coordinating conjunction missing fixed "it is accepted that Germanicus was an able general", by whom? modern academics? yep the mention of the attempt to proclaim him emperor should be made at the appropriate place in the chronology, not just in the historiography section added mention with source Agrippa had been given fixed fn 25 doesn't point to a citation, and seems odd (276, is that a page? what about the year? fixed Frossard isn't used as a reference, if retained it needs an oclc available from Worldcat removed quite a few of the full citations do not include a location of publication I removed the locations from the two that had them for consistency. If it's necessary I will add locations to all of them. check for potential authorlinks in the full citations, for example, Richard Alston (classicist) will do Done none of the images have alt text (not a requirement, but an aid to accessibility) will do the link to beniculturali.it doesn't resolve will look for an alternative link Removed as it doesn't even contribute to the article. no dablinks Ovid is linked more than once fixed Earwig's tool shows a very low likelihood of any copyvios That's me done. Great job on this article, I hope my review has helped to improve it a little. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Thank you for the review. Will work on the last bottom few suggestions tomorrow as they will take a bit more time. SpartaN (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I have responded and dealt with all suggestions you've brought up as well. SpartaN (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Nice work, I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• in the lead, "known for his campaigns in Germany" --> "known for his campaigns in Germania"? (if this works, the link for Germania will need to be moved also)

done

• in the lead, "he commanded eight legions...": link Roman legion here?

done

• the specific date of the subject's birth (24 May) is not mentioned in the body of the article

it is now

• "Tacitus, (Wells 2003, p. 206)": suggest that this should be a note/citation similar to the others for consistency

It's like this for the quotation template and if I did it similar to the others then "Tacitus, (Wells 2003, p. 206) would not be consistent with the other citations.

If you convert it to an sfn it will display without the brackets. Please see this diff. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• " men and horses.[50][43]": I think generally it is best to aim to keep the refs in numerical order

done

• I wonder if it would be possible to find a way to make all of the citations "clickable", currently only some are

I'm not sure primary sources can be made clickable in the same manner as secondary ones as most of them would not have clearly defined date or page modifiers. At least not using the harv system like the rest of the article that is.

• be careful of internal consistency in terms of spelling, e.g. "favour" and "honour" (British English) v. "favorite" and "defense" (US English)

done. I'll reread to make sure I'm consistent.

Thank you for your suggestions. Let me know if there is a way to make primary sources consistent with harv. I actually brought this up at my WikiProject and they say it's just not possible. So I would definitely like to. SpartaN (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Note I brought this up to them while working on the article. So you don't think I'm making it up! SpartaN (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I did a test and think it might be doable. Please see this diff. Anyway, I will leave it up to you to decide if you think it appropriate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That looks much better. I'll implement sfn shortly. SpartaN (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@SpartaN and AustralianRupert: Any progress here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there hasn't been any progress in this regard at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Closing due to inactivity. SpartaN, feel free to re-nominate when you're back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.