Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC) [1].

Diocletian

G.W., Iazyges, WP Bio, WP Milhist, WP Illyria, WP Greece, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Politics, WP Croatia, WP Rome, WP Roman and Byzantine emperors, talk page notices 2020-05-03 2022-10-30

This 2008 FA is the oldest listed at WP:FARGIVEN, with concerns about sourcing dating to 2020-05-03, and updated at 2022-10-30. The original nominator has not edited for two years. Sandbox improvements mentioned on talk have not materialized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From UndercoverClassicist on talk: [2] UC, if you intend to work towards improving this FA, please keep this page updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I posted the below on the page you just linked. Would anybody have any thoughts on it, particularly if it seems like a useful or worthwhile thing to be doing?
Please take this in the spirit of inquiry - checking to see that I've understood things correctly:
  • On the use of ancient sources - I've only given it a cursory check, but as far as I can see, most of the uses fall under one of the below:
  1. The article is explicitly addressing the reactions of e.g. Aurelius Victor to Diocletian's treatment of Carinus' officials, and so cites Aurelius Victor to do so. It seems to me there's a case-by-case check to be done about whether there's any value in referring to that person's reaction at all (in this example, Aurelius Victor is quite a lot later than Diocletian, so my instinct would say 'no'), but, at least in principle, can the article not cite ancient sources when explicitly talking about ancient authors' views of the matter under discussion?
  2. The article also cites modern scholarly literature, and the primary-source citation is really a matter of 'showing working' (and probably the entire evidence base on which the secondary author has based their claim). Should those primary sources be excised?
  • Looking quickly at the bibliography, it seems that a lot of the ugliness could be solved by imposing a uniform referencing system - most of the entries seem to have been entered manually. Personally, I quite like {{sfn}} with {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and so on. That would, at least, mean that information was presented in the same order, and perhaps be a useful first step towards going back in and tracking down missing details?
  • Some of the dodgy references seem to be used in support of other, less dodgy ones, and so could be cut out without causing any real problems.
Happy to have a go along those lines, if it would help?
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks in good shape to me. Better than any of the FARs I have worked on.

  • With regard to the use of the ancient/modern dual references, I would vote forcefully to keep it this way. I often use a similar form with scientific articles, where both the secondary source and the original paper are cited so the reader can look up the latter. In the case of a reader who is researching the subject, this is extremely valuable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't thoroughly read the whole article, but from going through the lead, the early life section and the references I would agree with Hawkeye and UndercoverClassicist that the article doesn't look in terrible shape. If UC does tidy up all the referencing it will hopefully be much clearer what is still problematic and needs addressing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thanks to Tintero21 for standardising the citation style. There were several citation errors; I have left the ones dealing with ancient sources, until we are decided what to do with them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of outstanding reference issues which hopefully you or Tintero21 will be able to fix more easily than me: the short footnotes to "Epit. Caesarinus, 39.15" (#52 at time of writing) and "Panegyrici Latini, 7(6)15.16" (#200) are throwing harv errors. The first I think is simply a typo for "Epit. Caesaribus"; I think the latter requires the bibliographic entry for the Panegyrici Latini wrapping in a {{wikicite}} template? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Demise of Carausius's breakaway Roman Empire" section is a bit problematic at the moment and I am thinking it might just be better removed entirely. I am not intimately familiar with this period, but the section does not even mention Diocletian so seems unneeded in his bio. In addition, it was a post-FAC addition and somewhat unsourced—the Harries 1999 refs appear to be dubious, since upon looking for page numbers I found that the entire publication does not even have the words "Boulogne" or "Allectus". Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SG review:
  • Harvref errors throughout that can be viewed by installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. [3]
  • Inconsistent citation formatting raised in initial comments as yet unaddressed, including missing access-dates.
  • With over 11,000 words of readable prose, opportunities for trimming are easily found. Taking as a sample the Level 2 section, Tetrarchy:
    "Upon his return" should be defined at the start of a new Level 2 section.
    The first paragraph in that section goes in to considerable detail on other individuals who have their own articles.
    Similar in first para of Invasion, counterinvasion

As knowledgeable editors have argued for the inclusion of the primary sources originally mentioned in the FAR listing, I will be a keep if the citation formatting can be cleaned up, and a trimming copyedit is undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto, Iazyges, AirshipJungleman29, and Aza24: I've completed what I could of my list above; are you able to review the remainder of my list and anything else needed, so we can move towards bringing this to a close? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: sorry that I failed to ping you with the rest! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your assessment of the necessity and ease of trimming. Readable prose size is 68kB (if I've understood correctly), putting it in the second category of WP:SIZERULE, and I feel that the current size is sustainable considering "the scope of the topic". I also don't feel that the paragraphs you've outlined contain excessive amounts of detail, with the detail on the other individuals directly relevant to Diocletian, his reforms, and his imperial rule (I also can't find the "Upon his return" you mention). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else has already copyedited, which may explain the difference in your view and mine, and the missing pieces ... I am now less concerned, but unsure if the copyedit is finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out a bunch of the most obviously redundant stuff, and I think the article is rather better than it was, but I'm happy to have another go through the article if people are still concerned about excessive length. I think there are still some inconsistencies in citation formatting – will do another pass on that later this week when I'm at an actual computer if nobody else gets to it first... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, things like missing access dates and other trivialities ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I didn't name you above as I can never remember how to spell your username :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of observations from going through the citations to iron out some of the inconsistencies:
    • "BGU" referred to in footnote 93 is unexplained – what does this refer to?
    • footnote 101 (Rees, Layers of Loyalty) refers to an entire book; page range is needed
    • same with footnote 164 (Heather, Rome Resurgent)
    • same with Leadbetter, Galerius and the Rule of Diocletian, in fn.241
    Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August might you be interested in looking in here? I see you in the page statistics, and an extra set eyes might help get this one wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24 and Caeciliusinhorto: are you ready for a new look, or still working? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I think I've made the citations consistent now, though my eyes glazed over somewhat at the end so if there's anything I've missed do point it out or fix it. But there are a few uncited claims that I've marked, and the missing page ranges I mentioned above; I can try to track down the relevant page ranges for those sources I have access to where we have a book already cited, but late antiquity really isn't my area so if someone knows the sources better than me to sort out the {{cn}}s that would be greatly appreciated! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed two tags, one remaining. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can topic experts pls opine whether the citation needed content is crucial to comprehension or comprehensiveness? It appears that no one is able to cite it, so do we need for that content to be holding up this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I get the feeling some of the later content might be citable to Jones above it; I'll see what can be salvaged. If not, I feel the content already cited comfortably satisfied the explanation of his expansion of bureaucracy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unluckily, this was not the case. I've gone ahead and removed the content of "for an empire of 50–65 million inhabitants, which works out to approximately 1,667 or 2,167 inhabitants per imperial official as averaged empire-wide. The actual numbers of officials and ratios per inhabitant varied by diocese depending on the number of provinces and population within a diocese. Provincial and diocesan paid officials (there were unpaid supernumeraries) numbered about 13–15,000 based on their staff establishments as set by law. The other 50% were with the emperor(s) in his or their comitatus, with the praetorian prefects, or with the grain supply officials in the capital (later, the capitals, Rome and Constantinople), Alexandria, and Carthage and officials from the central offices located in the provinces." and added some more from Jones. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Iaz; once I get through (that other current mess), I will find time for a full read-through. Hopefully others will do so as well here (@Buidhe, Z1720, Extraordinary Writ, and Aza24: and not Hog Farm because I know he's crazy busy this time of year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is looking great now and I am finding little to no issues. I do wonder about the rather strange (and small) "Social and professional mobility" section and whether its inclusion is essential Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: I think it should be included, it's fairly important for world history (enough so the edict could probably have its own article), as a precursor to feudalism, and its small enough that it doesn't bump into UNDUE. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but can we incorporate it better into the article? Bizarre as it stands right now Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've appended it to the end of the legal section rather than giving it its own section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close w/o FARC - I'm still not sold on the inclusion of the sentence about Virgil given where the only ancient attestation of that comes from, but that's an editorial decision and shouldn't hold up the FAR. Hog Farm Talk 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Virgil quote has now been removed by Caeciliusinhorto. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC – now has FA standards of formatting, thoroughness and comprehensibility. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC per Aza. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Diocletian/archive1&oldid=1145240409"