Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maximian
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 01:35, 10 April 2008.
[edit] Maximian
Self-nomination. I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think that it's now more or less up to Featured Article standard. Comments welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Resolved issues --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Too many copy issues at the moment, I'm afraid. It needs a close critical copy-edit by someone new to the text, both for style and content. Here are a few examples:
- Typo: stablished > established
-
- Fixed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Two "at XXX's behest" and too many "imperials" in the intro.
-
- Fixed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Through his daughters Fausta and Flavia, Maximian was grandfather or great-grandfather to every reigning emperor from 337 to 363." Is this important? It's less than thirty years.
-
- Cut. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Making him somewhat younger than Diocletian." How much younger?
-
- Depends on how you date it. I've put in an approximate date. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "making him somewhat approximately six years younger than Diocletian" > "and was about six years younger than Diocletian"? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's now "and was about six years younger than Diocletian." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Details regarding his parentage are limited by the vagueness of the sources. The only precise statement made in ancient sources is that Maximian's parents were shopkeepers near Sirmium." How about ""The sources are vague about Maximian's parents, saying only that they were shopkeepers near Sirmium."?
-
- That would be false: that is merely the only precise statement; other things are said as well, as you can see further on in the paragraph. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the wording here. Is it better? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The sources are vague about Maximian's parentage. The only precise statement made in ancient sources is that Maximian's parents were shopkeepers near Sirmium.[10] Otherwise, there are only vague allusions to Illyricum as his patria... Still wordy. How about "The ancient sources are vague about Maximian's parents and the only precise statement is that they were shopkeepers near Sirmium.[10] Otherwise, there are only vague allusions to Illyricum as his patria..."? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's now: "Little is known about Maximian's parentage, and the only precise statement made in ancient sources is that his parents were shopkeepers near Sirmium.", thanks to Factotem. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Although a rustic, Maximian was a man of great energy and firm, aggressive character." Rather pejorative? Not all rustics are bumpkins :)
-
- Is it? Is this a word choice issue? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps though I fail to see the logical connection between a country background and lack of energy, firmness and aggression. Rustics might think you're stereotyping :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's been corrected to "A rustic, Maximian was a man of great energy, firm aggressive character, and with a temperament that made him unlikely to rebel." by Factotem. I was aiming for a contrast between advantageous factors and disadvantageous factors, but it turned out to make the false implication that rustics lack in energy. (Just the opposite!) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- "His ambitions were limited to the sphere of military action, and was unlikely to conflict with Diocletian in matters of politics." Concordance: "was" > "were".
-
- Fixed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed the issues you've raised. I'm afraid I don't know any copy-editors. The LOCE isn't much help either. Once, I left a petition for a copy-edit for, what, eight months before they eventually made it disappear during a bureaucratic re-shuffling. I'm entirely willing to make any necessary changes. I'll try my best to provide a "close critical copy-edit", and I'll imagine myself as "someone new to the text". Beyond that, I have no control. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I know. It's a nightmare trying to find a copy-editor,. You might try an urgent request at WP:MHL#Requests for copy-editing. Things to look for are wordiness and brevity (replace some of the countless "approximately"s with "about", "predominantly" with "mostly", hack out empty words). Here are a few more examples:
-
- From levels of around 390,000 in 285 the army was expanded to a new total of approximately 581,000. (Wordy) > "The army expanded to about 581,000 from its strength in 285 of 390,000."
-
- Corrected. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The compilers; policy of codification was radical in the decentralized traditions of Roman jurisprudence. !?
-
- Now: "The compilers' codifications were radical in the decentralized Roman legal system." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Proconsuls, for example, were often both courts of first instance and recipients of appeals > "Proconsuls, for example, were often judges of first instance and appeal." (A proconsul is not a court, plus redundancy.)
-
- Corrected. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're reading the wrong article, Roger. ;) I'll make those corrections. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lol! Well, at breakfast time, with the dog bouncing about, one Roman emperor looks very much like another :))) --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're reading the wrong article, Roger. ;) I'll make those corrections. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Remarkably well-cited and referenced. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments Support I've made a start on tidying up some of the prose. Feel free to revert. --FactotEm (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've taken it up to and including the section on Campaigns in 286 and 287, but this section is confusing - I've dropped a note on the article talk page about it. That's all I have time for now - I'll try and come back to it again tomorrow. --FactotEm (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- You're welcome. I've done all I can do now, and there is of course no guarantee that my CE skills are up to scratch. In terms of content, the only question I have now is whether the sources permit the addition of a legacy section, of the sort that appears in the article on Diocletian. --FactotEm (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, no. I don't think there's much material. Where historians discuss the long-term changes made in this period, they attribute them to Diocletian. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I've done all I can do now, and there is of course no guarantee that my CE skills are up to scratch. In terms of content, the only question I have now is whether the sources permit the addition of a legacy section, of the sort that appears in the article on Diocletian. --FactotEm (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Fair enough. Just a couple of final comments then - in the Leisure and retirement section, the sentence "Had the date of the abdication been set at the meeting as 305, it would have given Maximian one more moment of glory as officiator over the Secular Games scheduled for 304." jars with "On May 1, 305, Diocletian and Maximian retired together..." that starts the next para. Also in the final para., and following on from the previous comments about the succession in the talk page, Licinius still pops up ("Although he led the ceremony that proclaimed Licinius Caesar..."). --FactotEm (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've made the final fixes. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Just a couple of final comments then - in the Leisure and retirement section, the sentence "Had the date of the abdication been set at the meeting as 305, it would have given Maximian one more moment of glory as officiator over the Secular Games scheduled for 304." jars with "On May 1, 305, Diocletian and Maximian retired together..." that starts the next para. Also in the final para., and following on from the previous comments about the succession in the talk page, Licinius still pops up ("Although he led the ceremony that proclaimed Licinius Caesar..."). --FactotEm (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Comments
See also sections usually go before the footnotes
- All other sources look good, and the links check out with the link checking tool. I'll try to get back later and do a fuller review. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've moved the "See also" section. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Support
Oppose for now, mainly due to wordiness and some places where I'm unsure of the meaning. I'll be happy to switch to support when these have been addressed, and some more copyediting has been done.Switching to support, due to the wonderful copyedit by Roger and Dulcem. Wonderful article!
* Early career section, the introduction of the fact that Maximian was six years younger than Diocletian is jarring in this context. I'd consider putting it in a footnote.
-
- I've dropped it. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same section, consider "appointing him Caesar" instead of "granting him the Caesarship" it flows better to my mind.
-
- Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same section, last sentence, Some speculate... historians? Or just gossip?
-
- Historians. So noted. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Personality section, first sentence. Something seems off here, perhaps reword to "Maximian was a man of great energy, with a firm aggressive character that was unlikely to rebel."?
-
- I think your correction seems to imply that his "character" was "unlikely to rebel", rather than that he his "character" made him "unlikely to rebel". I've split the sentence and changed it to "Maximian was a man of great energy and firm aggressive character. His temperament made him unlikely to rebel." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same section, next sentence, perhaps "These characteristics would appeal to Dioceletian as ..." the last part of this sentence is awkward too, but can't think of a suggestion to reword it.
-
- I've changed it to "These characteristics made Maximian an appealing candidate for imperial office." Hoping that that doesn't introduce further issues. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- The last sentence is very wordy, consider cutting some of the verbiage down. Perhaps "Lactantius records charges that Maxiamian defiled senator's daughters and that while traveling he took young virgins to satisfy his unending lust, but Lactantius' hostility towards pagans discredits his statements."
-
- I've taken your wording. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Appointment to Caesar section ... try Appointment as Caesar?
-
- Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same section, first paragraph. The tone of this paragraph is a bit over the top ("Conflict boiled", "Diocletian needed a lieutenant" etc.) Consider rewording some of this.
-
- I've toned it down, but I might have introduced some 1(a) glitches again. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Carausius section, second paragraph, second sentence is awkward, consider rewording perhaps "He would confront raiders only after their bases were plundered, with the sums recovered never being accounted for." although I'm not really happy with that phrasing either.
-
- How about "He would confront raiders only after their plundering had finished, and the wealth recovered was never accounted for"? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same section and paragraph. Did Carausius eliminate the loyalists in the legions that defected or did he eliminate all the loyalists in Britain? Context is unclear.
-
- His army. So noted. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maximian appointed section, first paragraph, the two sentences starting with "This suggestion has not won much support..." They might be combined to make the flow better, but I'm not sure what point the second sentence is trying to make. The however implies that there is some connection between the two statements, but I'm not seeing it. It may be because there is not any evidence given for why it is clear that Diocletian expected Maximian to act with independence. Might be best to just cut the second sentence, as the following sentence says much the same thing.
-
- Cut. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Joint campaign section, the fourth sentence, the phrase "Maximian made a southern entry into Germany" sounds odd and is a strange way to describe an invasion. Perhaps "Maximian invaded Germany from the south."
-
- Took your wording. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did some copyediting, mainly to cut down wordiness, but I'm sure there are more spots I missed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've hidden the above issues as they are resolved. I'd still like to see another copyedit, so leaving the oppose until Roger (who does a good job) has time. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and to address the issues of the sources/accuracy, I didn't see anything glaringly wrong. While I'm not a trained ancient historian, the time frame is one of my interests, so I am at least familiar with the main subject matter. It might be a bit light on current journals, but it's very NPOV and sound in the scholarship it is ussing, at least as far as I can tell. No fringe theories, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I only have access to a rather limited inter-library loan service and don't have access to any journals, electronic or otherwise. That said, if you have access to anything that could improve the article, and would be willing to e-mail it to me, I would gladly work its content into the article. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and to address the issues of the sources/accuracy, I didn't see anything glaringly wrong. While I'm not a trained ancient historian, the time frame is one of my interests, so I am at least familiar with the main subject matter. It might be a bit light on current journals, but it's very NPOV and sound in the scholarship it is ussing, at least as far as I can tell. No fringe theories, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've addressed all your concerns but the general copy-edit. Roger Davies has said he'll give the article a copy-edit sometime today. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt, here's what I said
-
Nope, not entirely. I'm not happy with: (1) the choppiness of some sections; (2) the copy habit of telling people what you're going to say before you say it and (3) lack of clarity in places. Rather than doing a copy-edit by proxy (long lists of things to fix, which are then duly fixed), I'll give it a copy edit myself starting either this afternoon/evening or tomorrow morning. this'll probably take 24 hours or so to complete. I'm light on sources for this period though so it will style only. Fair enough? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It looks like tomorrow morning. I have a fair number of other commitments at the moment :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've hidden the above issues as they are resolved. I'd still like to see another copyedit, so leaving the oppose until Roger (who does a good job) has time. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I really like this. I've gone ahead and copy edited the article, although I think it was already in pretty good shape after Roger went through it.
My remaining concern is that there are some places where the passive voice obfuscates the sources of certain beliefs about Maximian. Some examples (my print out is from before Roger and I copy edited things, so some of these may have been changed):"Some historians speculate that Maximian and Diocletian arranged their eventual roles before Diocletian's rise to power . . . ."- "Maximian's swift appointment by Diocletian as Caesar is taken by the writer Stephen Williams and historian Timothy Barnes to mean that the two men were longterm allies, that their respective roles were pre-agreed and that Maximian had probably supported Diocletian during his campaign against Carinus (r. 283–285) but there is no direct evidence for this."
"It has been postulated that she was born from an earlier marriage between Eutropia and Afranius Hannibalianus."- Attributed.
"Some suggest that less flattering reasons were also influential . . . . "- Attributed.
"Some historians state that Diocletian, like childless emperors before him, adopted Maximian as his filius Augusti . . . . "- Attributed.
"It has been suggested that the rebels were not merely peasants, but combatants for Gallic political autonomy . . . ."- Attributed.
"The emperors Probus and Carinus had begun work on fortifications along the so-called Saxon Shore . . . ." (So-called by whom)- Dropped the "so-called".
"Diocletian could not have been present at Maximian's appointment, causing some to suggest that Maximian usurped the title . . . . "- Attributed.
"It has been surmised that the ceremonies were arranged to demonstrate Diocletian's continuing support for his faltering colleage."- Attributed.
"Maximian was more aggressive in his relationship with the Senate than Constantius, and is alleged to have terrorized the istitution . . . ."- Attributed.
In all of these cases, I want to know who is doing the alleging, surmising, postulating, suggesting, etc. If these sentences are recast in the active voice so as to attribute their sources, I'll happily support. — Dulcem (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)- Attributions made. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I'd like to see Roger given enough time to finish his copy edit, of course, but I'm happy with the article. — Dulcem (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't finished copy-editing it yet. It'll take a day or two more, I think. I'm posing questions myself as I go so it's not just a matter of shunting words around unfortunately :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've finished it now. (Please check it for my typos :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
