Talk:Executive magistrates of the Roman Republic/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi. I'm proposing to review this article for GA. Fainites ^barley 15:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some preliminary thoughts.

Lead

To quote MoS "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." At the moment the lead does not do this. Have a look at WP:LEAD. For example, the information about how Magistrates outranked/vetoed each other is set out in excessive detail in the lead but does not appear in the body of the article. This should be briefly summarised in the lead and the rest removed to the body of the article.
Suggest summarising the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary magistrates in the lead - otherwise at first glance it gives the impression there was always an elected dictator.
Summarise what magistrates were for.
Whilst this is part of a comprehensive set of articles, it needs to be written for the reader who solely reads this article. With this in mind I suggest dating the Roman Republic in the lead.
The construction of "After the Dictator was the Censor, and then the Consul, and then the Praetor, and then the Curule Aedile, and then the Quaestor" is a little clumsy with all the "and then the"s. How about something like "thereafter in descending order came the Censor, Consuls, Praetors, Curule Aediles and Quaestors".

Ordinary magistrates

Is it really the case that curule aediles weren't part of the cursus honorum rather than simply not being compulsory?
Century assembly linked 3 times, imperium linked 4 times, Roman assemblies linked 3 times - etc etc. Once per section should be sufficient.

Plebian and Extraordinary magistrates.

Suggest splitting this up into two separate sections as they are not connected by anything except the fact that they are not ordinary magistrates.
Master of the horse linked twice in one sentence.
Image caption - two disparate clauses. "Julius Caesar, accepting the surrender of Vercingetorix, was the final Dictator of the Roman Republic" Doesn't make sense. Suggest the information about Ceasar being the final dictator goes in the article.

I think this article would be improved by a brief explanation of the cursus honorum, age limits and the stepping stone effect to give some idea of what the point of all this was and why anybody ever stood for these positions.

General overlinking. Words like imprisonment, debt and "cultivation of land" are linked. These are not relevant to the topic. This isn't a dictionary.

More later Fainites ^barley 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give us a bit of extra time. This article has been nominated more than a month ago and it seems a bad time to work on the article right now. Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Just ping me when you have time. Whats the "bad time"? Is that Omens or the Oracle? Fainites ^barley 08:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get to this in the next couple of days RomanHistorian (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE! How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
This bit; Another check over the power of a magistrate was Provocatio, which was a primordial form of due process. It was a precursor to our own habeas corpus, where any Roman citizen had the absolute right to appeal any ruling by a magistrate to a Plebeian Tribune. In this case, the citizen would cry "provoco ad populum", which required the magistrate to wait for a Tribune to intervene, and make a ruling.[13] Sometimes, the case was brought before the College of Tribunes, and sometimes before the Plebeian Council (popular assembly). Provocatio was the check on the magistrate's power of Coercion. Since no Tribune could retain his powers outside of the city of Rome, the power of Coercion outside of the city of Rome was absolute. isn't quite right.Provocatio was the check on the magistrate's power of Coercion. would be better combined with the first two sentences here. This bit; Since no Tribune could retain his powers outside of the city of Rome, the power of Coercion outside of the city of Rome was absolute. is an exact repeat from the previous section. I think for the less knowledgable reader it also needs a brief explanation eg ...by countermanding the exercise of the power.

Other than that - very good on the prose front.

On ref styles - I think it looks better if the pages numbers say "p" or "pp" as necessary. Where there is more than one page in three digit numbers - use only the second two numbers - eg 101–34 rather than 134 - where appropriate.

You've put Polybius in the refs - but there is no cite to him in the notes. Is there any reason for this? He is an early source - particularly for powers of the Senate. Also - I know the translation you're using is 1823 but Polybius' original date should go in.

Redlinks. There seem to be rather alot of these. Some is fine but some seem to be the latin name for something that is bluelinked in English. These should be redirects. Some are for articles that seem unlikely ever to be written! Please check through these redlinks and see if their number can be appropriately reduced.
All DONE! Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite! Polybius. Date. c.150 BC would do. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nergaal (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
This bit In this capacity, the Tribune was the principal, and often the only, guarantor of the civil liberties of Roman citizens against arbitrary state power. The degree of liberty afforded to Roman citizens by the Tribune through the power of Provocatio was unmatched in the ancient world. needs a source.
I've hidden this statement. The major contributor is out for a while, but I've left him a message so when he will be back, he will probably add the statement back with a ref. Nergaal (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the placing of the Censor third in the list - is this correct? Whilst a Censor did not have imperium, it generally came after having been a consul. Perhaps it shouldn't say 'in descending order' but briefly state that ex-consuls could be elected censor.

17th December - This Censor bit still needs sorting. The article says that a censor did not have imperium - which puts him below consul and praetor - but only another censor or pleb tribune could veto a censor. This is not how it is expressed in your second section which simply says any superior magistarte could veto an inferior one.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
added clarification. Nergaal (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a great way to rank the Censor. Techincaly, he should be first (of the ordinary magistrates). The Censor was the highest ranking ordinary magistrate, which was why only former Consuls (and almost always former Patrician Consuls) could hold the office, and why the term was technicaly always five years (making it the only political office whose term would last longer than a year). Precedent forced Censors to abdictate their office after only 18 months early in its history because this five year term, the "lustrum", was viewed as being somewhat tyrannical. Only a Dictator outranked a Censor, but he was an extraordinary magistrate and rarely was there one in office (and if he was, the ranking system would largely desolve during his term). A Master of the Horse, in theory at least, would probably be ranked around a Praetor (he always had Praetorial imperium, as the Dictator had Consular imperium but none of the ordinary checks and balances that the Consul had). The Censor didn't have imperium, this is true. But it is because of this, and the fact that he was technicaly the highest ranking magistrate (the Roman constitution was based moreso on prestige and precedent than it was codified law), that ranking the Censor on this page tends to be difficult. I placed him after the imperium-holding Consuls and Praetors, because, while technicaly not accurate, I thought it would be less confusing for non-experts to have the imperium-holding magistrates at the top. Although the Censor was the highest ranking magistrate, the Consul was, after all, the head of state.

As for the veto, the only ordinary magistrate who could veto a Censor was another Censor, because vetoes could only be cast on equal or lower ranking magistrates. The Tribune could "veto" a Censor, but the nature of the Tribunician veto was different from the magisterial veto. A magisterial veto was more of a procedural negation or override. Techincaly a "magistrate" was elected by both Patricians and Plebeians, while the Tribune was only elected by Plebeians. Therefore, since Tribunes were not "magistrates" (which is why I seperated the Tribune section from the ordinary magistrate section), they could not "veto" or be vetoed. They could, however, use their sacrosanctity as protection to force magistrates, the senate, or assemblies to do as they are told ("intercessio", or "interposing the sacrosanctity of their person"). RomanHistorian (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I still think this article would be improved by a couple of sentences about the cursus honorum and age limits but this isn't a pass or fail point.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I slightly increased the size of the constitution chart to make it more readable. See what you think. A different font for the boxed text might improve it too if the author could be persuaded.
done Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just a few points to look at. Other than that an excellent, and extremely useful, article. I'll put on hold for another 7 days. (Its technically on hold already due to a slight misynderstanding but never mind that).Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pass! Congratulations to the authors of this interesting and informative article. A sound addition to this topic area. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]