Talk:Nerva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity.

	Nerva has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Contents 1 Requested move 2 Year of Birth 3 GA Review 4 Succession policy

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Year of Birth

Many Wikipedias state, that Nerva was born in 30, and a few say he was born in 35. Which is the correct year of birth? Ludde 15:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From [1]:

"Aurelius Victor records the year as 35 (Caes. 12.11), Dio (68.4.4) as 30. The latter has been more widely accepted."

--Panairjdde 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent article! I do have a few small concerns, however, before I go ahead and pass it for GA status.

1. The first bit of the second paragraph under "Administration" could use some cleanup. Especially with all the inline citations, the long sentence that begins with "Nerva granted..." is far too long and confusing - it might be better to reorganize it into two separate sections. The last two sentences are confusingly worded too - I'm a bit unclear about the bit after the semicolon "many sacrifices, games and horse races were abolished." I'm assuming you meant to say "many sacrifices to the gods..." but that is not directly obvious to someone unfamiliar with Roman history. Also, try to avoid starting sentences with words like "however" and "from" etc. because they tend to complicate the sentence and could be rewritten in a more proper fashion (eg. "Large amounts of money were obtained from..." for example). I think I caught a lot of them, but please check for and fix any ones that I might have missed.
2. This sentence — "Archaeological excavation started on this forum in 1999, and continues to the present." — requires a citation.
3. Under Crisis of succession, this sentence needs to be split up, as it is far too long: "Upon his accession Nerva had ordered a halt to treason trials, but at the same time he still allowed the prosecution of informers by the Senate, a measure that led to chaos, as everyone acted in his own interests while trying to settle scores with personal enemies, leading the consul Fronto to remark that "it was bad to have an emperor under whom nobody was permitted to do anything, but worse to have one under whom everybody was permitted to do everything.""
4. The last two sentences require a citation.

In order to give you time to make these minor fixes, I am placing the article for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Given the caliber of work thus far, I suspect that I shall soon be passing it; a job well done. Cheers, CP 03:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! I've fixed the article in accordance with your suggestions. A few remarks:

1) I've tried to sort this out as best as I could, but I'm still not completely satisfied with the way it reads, especially Nerva's financial reforms. His measures against overexpenditure I think I've made more concise, and flows better as a paragraph.

2) I've removed this sentence altogether. It was basically a remnant of the original article, but doesn't seem to be based on any fact. Apparently excavation of Nerva's forum was well underway before World War II. I guess it sort of goes without saying that it has continued to the present. Not sure if it really deserves mention.

3) Sentence split in two.

4) All referenced except the supposed statue of Nerva in Narni. There does seem to be a street named after him (Via Cocceio Nerva), but I can't immediately find a source on the existence of the statue, which is further complicated by the fact that most of the websites I'm directed to are in Italian. I'm not sure what I should do with this.

Regards. --Steerpike 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article looks great as it is, and I will be passing it into Good Article status. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession policy

I would like more and more modern citations than a 1936 paper from some Russell Geer before undercutting ancient historians and historians like Gibbon and Rostovtzeff, as is done with the line "Likewise, Edward Gibbon's assertion that Nerva hereby established a tradition of succession through adoption among the Five Good Emperors has found little support among modern historians.[45]" which is redundant and not cited the first time: "By adopting Trajan as his heir, Nerva is said to have established a tradition of succession through adoption among the emperors which followed. Recent historians, however, have revised these opinions." I see only a single historian who isn't especially modern/recent and thus it would be fair to say only 'At least one historian has disputed this view.'

I'm not saying the Wikipedia article is *incorrect* - only that little reason to accept its assertion is presented.

216.77.227.14 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)