Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diocletian

Diocletian

Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1

Self-nominator 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) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support While not being an expert in the Roman history I nevertheless have always been interested in this subject. So from my point of view the article appears to be comprehensive, well sourced and well written. I have only one concern with it. The lead contains the following words: "ending forty years of peaceful coexistence between Christian and Pagan, and resulting in a revanchist Christian Church.". The facts stated in this phrase are not mentioned in the main text of the article. I think you should drop it from the lead or explain in more detail what you mean by "peaceful coexistence" and by "revanchist church". Ruslik (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped the sentence, and added a little paragraph on the aftermath of the persecution. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...known in English as Diocletian", may be simply "known as" because not only in English? And no mention of dominate in the lead. --Brand спойт 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped the "in English". I'm not so sure the dominate needs to be mentioned: few of the works I've read give it much press, at least, not by that name. I'll look over my materials again tonight (I don't have them with me), and see if I can justify the change. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written and comprehensive! You did an excellent job! I had read it a few weeks ago and was thinking that it's probably the best article I have seen on one of the Roman emporers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Hyphens aren't needed after -ly words, eg. "personally-led campaigns"

Done.

Some dates need linking, including in the footnotes.

Done(?)

"newly-built Christian church" - all churches are Christian

Done.

Some compound adjectives need hyphens, eg. "second and third century emperors", "five year census"

Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.

"one-thousand years" - hyphen not needed

Done.

Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "27 BC", "5 km"

Done.

"a looser administrative structure than that which was imposed on ..." - "which was" is redundant

Done.

"Prior to" is overly formal. "Before" is better.

Done.

Ref page numbers are inconsistently formatted, eg. "pp. 8–9." vs "p. 22–23.", "pp. 280–81" vs "pp. 134–5"

Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.

Sentences shouldn't begin with "but"

Done.

Some measurements are missing conversions

Done(?) I think the km's the only one.

An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.

Done.

Some duplicate refs can be combined, eg. refs 23 and 27

Done(?) Tell me if there are any I've missed.

Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done(?)

I think I've fixed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Current ref 49 (Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 281) is inconsistent with the rest of the footnotes, lacking the pages abbreviation (Yeah, it's REALLY picky, but...)
  - Done.
- Same for current ref 69 (Codex Justinarius ...) the Barnes New Empire ref lacks a page number abbreviation.
  - Done.
- Page abbr missing from current ref 88 (Barnes New Empire 255)
  - Done.
- Current ref 152 is lacking a page number (Bleckmann)
  - Done.

- Probably don't need to list Hardcover in the references.
  - I do that so I can list both the ISBNs that the books are issued under. Should I drop one of them?
    - Don't have to, it was just something I noticed while i was reading through the refs. It's not usually done, but it works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - For those cases where a library might have one, but not the other, I thought it might be helpful to list both. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Current ref 80 which has a discussion of Maximian's appointment as Augustus has a number of refs lacking page number abbreviations and which are inconsistent with the formatting of the rest of the refs (Using the Harvard system)
  - Done(?) What should they look like?
    - You refer to the books as Corcoran 2006 instead of the usage in the rest of the article (which would be Corcoran "Before Constantine" to be consistent with the rest of the article). Likewise it's Southern 2001 instead of the usage elsewhere which is Southern Severus to Constantine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed it now.
- Current ref 135 (Lactantius (DMP)...) uses Harvard referencing in it, which is inconsistent with the system used elsewhere in the article.
  - Done(?) Are page number abbreviations all that is lacking?
    - See above, you're using (Southern 1999 (which isn't even listed in the bibliography, oops! What article/book is that?)) instead of the Author, Title short form you're using elsewhere in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ack! That was supposed to be Southern 2001. Fixed it now.

All other links checked out fine with the tool. I'll try to get back later and do a review of the article itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]