From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Hadrian was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

His estate[edit]

At Hadrian's villa in Tivoli(?)

So far, 15 steps, each 27 feet wide, have been identified and archaeologists did not rule out uncovering more. [1]

Archaeologists who have been digging for more than a year at the villa of Roman Emperor Hadrian in Tivoli have unearthed a monumental staircase, a statue of an athlete and what appears to be a headless sphinx.


Is it not highly relevant that Hadrian was a brutal killer of Christians?--Railsmart

There is no evidence Hadrian stated in his autobiography that he was born in Rome.[edit]

This is a conjecture of the Wikipedia article, based on a faulty reading of the 'Augustan History' biography of Hadrian, purportedly written by one Aelius Spartianus.
I refer to the actual text of the biography.*.html
In the opening paragraph of the the biography, only one reference is made to claims Hadrian made himself in his autobiography:
"The original home of the family of the Emperor Hadrian was Picenum, the later, Spain; for Hadrian himself relates in his autobiography that his forefathers came from Hadria, but settled at Italica in the time of the Scipios."
However, the mention of Hadrian's birth in Rome is an inference of the Augustan History biographer:
"Hadrian was born in Rome on the ninth day before the Kalends of February in the seventh consulship of Vespasian and the fifth of Titus."
Nevertheless, the footnote referring to this claim in the English translation (Loeb Classical Library) says:
"This is, of course, a fiction, and the biography contradicts itself, for Italica is clearly the patria referred to in c. ii.1 and 2, and c. xix.1."
As for the reference to Hadrian's own autobiography, the footnote says:
"For the Autobiography of Hadrian, now lost, cf. c. xvi. It seems to have been written toward the close of his life, and, to judge from scanty citations from it, its purpose was to contradict current statements about himself which he considered derogatory to his reputation and to present him in a favourable light to posterity."
Jacob Davidson

Name and title[edit]

I have deleted a weird sentence, but the page was updated before I could explain what I had done:

Deleted sentence:

"In Latin, the full imperial title of Hadrian was also rendered as Tito Ael[io] Hadriano, just as it appears in ancient epigraphic records."


The "full imperial title" is not given of any emperor, only part of a name. Moreover, this is not Hadrian (whose praenomen was Publius) but Antoninus Pius whose praenomen was Titus and whose full imperial name was (CIL III 116 = 6639): [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari)] Tito Ael(io) Hadriano Antonino Aug(usto) Pio p(atri) p(atriae) pontiflici) augur(i) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

As this is a dedicatio to the emperor the names and titles are in the dative. They should be rendered in the nominative in an English translation of the Latin text!!!

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hadrian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 10:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an impressive and substantial article, and unless I run across unexpected obstacles I fully expect to promote it to GA (and perhaps see it at FAC in due course) but there are some drafting points I should like you to look at first. It will take me two or three goes to get through them. Here is the first batch:

  • General
    • The article is mostly written with English spelling, but a few American spellings ("traveled", "honor" etc) have crept in, and need to be amended. (I have a techie shortcut that makes this easy, and I'll gladly do it if you would like me to. Please let me know.)
  • Sources
    • The second sentence is 69 words long, and really could do with breaking into two.
    • ("a mish mash of actual fact, Cloak and dagger, Sword and Sandal, with a sprinkling of Ubu Roi") – this calls for an an inline citation in addition to the reference. And "Cloak and lower case dagger but Sword and upper case Sandal: is this right? I see it's from a French book. If the translation is yours it would be as well to give the original French text in a footnote.
    • "absolutely necessary" – otiose adverb: something is either necessary or it isn't.
    • "However, this may be a ruse" – the word "however" appears 34 times in this article, mostly (as here) quite needlessly. "Howevers", as I well know, creep into one's prose unbidden, but they usually weaken the prose, and should be weeded severely.
    • "can be partially linked" – partially as in partly, no doubt, rather than in a biased way. The ambiguity is somewhat theoretical – who's going to misunderstand it? – but it's as well to make things completely unambiguous, nonetheless.
  • Public service
    • "His first…" – there seems to be a WP convention, with which I don't entirely agree, that at first mention in each paragraph "he" (or "she") won't do, and the name must be used. Here et passim.
    • "Later, he was to be transferred to the Legio I Minervia" – the "was to be" really is ambiguous: does it mean that he was sent to be tribune of the Legio II Adiutrix with the intention that he would go on to be Legio I Minervia or is it merely a succession of events, in which case the "to be" should be removed?
    • "governor of said province" – the "said" grates somewhat: how about just "the" or "that"?
    • "as was customary to the regular senator" – not sure about the preposition here: would "for" be more natural?

Here endeth the first batch. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Before resuming my review of the individual sections of the text, I pause here to mention the quite remarkable excess of WP:OVERLINKs. In Early life alone Italica is linked four times. Rome does not need one link, let alone the five it has at present. I spotted other duplicate links (and there may be more) to:

  • Antinopolis
  • Antinous
  • Athens
  • Attianus
  • Augustan Histories
  • Baiae
  • Bar Kokhba
  • Barcelona
  • Bithynia
  • Cassius Dio
  • Danube
  • Ephesus
  • Eusebius
  • Fifth Macedonian Legion
  • Fronto
  • Hadrian's Wall
  • Hellenist
  • Hispania Baetica
  • Historia Augusta
  • Lucius Julius Ursus Servianus
  • Marcus Aurelius
  • Mauretania
  • Nero
  • Pannonia Inferior
  • Pantheon
  • Parthia
  • Pausanias
  • Roman Senate
  • Scipio Africanus
  • Second Temple
  • Sparta
  • Syria
  • Torah
  • Trajan
  • Vallum
  • Vespasian
  • XXII Deiotariana

Resuming the section-by-section review:

  • Securing power
    • "relieve him from his post" – unexpected phrasing instead of the more usual relieve him of his post
    • "Or better, the reason" – who says it's better?
    • "It's probable" – conversational contractions of this kind are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. See MOS:N'T.
  • Hadrian and the military
    • "However, disturbances …" – This huge sentence (62 words) needs chopping up.
    • "conjectural and speculative" – how is conjecture distinguished from speculation?
    • "a Greek intellectual that had been" – unexpected choice of pronoun: surely "who" would be normal here?
    • "It's more probable" – chatty contraction, as above.
    • "proof to it" – two points here: first, "proof of it" would be more usual phrasing, surely? And how can it be "proof" of something you have just decribed as merely "probable"?
    • "Great Britain" – WP:OVERLINK – we do not link the names of "major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions".
    • "built on stone" – typo for "of stone"?
    • "Hadrian established intensive drill routines" – I was amused to see what this links to.
  • Cultural pursuits and patronage
    • "an Ancient anonymous source" – is the capital letter intentional?
    • "When Trajan, predecessor to Hadrian" – we have already been told that Trajan was predecessor to Hadrian.
    • "He also wrote an autobiography …" – citation for this sentence, please.

More anon. Tim riley talk 09:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Purpose
    • First para, last sentence: lacks a main verb. Indeed, as I read this section I get the strong impression that it is written by someone whose first language is not English, and whether or not I am correct in that surmise I really think the section needs a good copy-edit. Some minor hiccups of English usage earlier in the article didn't seem to me serious enough to fail GA criterion 1a, but I think this section is another matter. I am perfectly happy to give the text a swift once-over – there is no reason why a GAN reviewer should not do so. Please let me know what you think best.
  • Africa, Parthia and Anatolia
    • Third para: this is a rehash of earlier material about the Hadrian-Antinous affair, and doesn't need serving up again here.

Please consider the above point about copy-editing before I go any further. I fear I am inclined to fail the candidacy if it is not addressed. – Tim riley talk 14:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cerme (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC) I will revise the article, mainly by adding some materials from the German version, which is a FA. Then I shall ask for copy edit.Cerme (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll obviously have to fail the GAN on this occasion, but it is fundamentally a fine piece of work and I look forward to its future progress. Regards, Tim riley talk 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)