From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Halotus has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
October 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 4, 2007.
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Biography (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA on hold[edit]

Composed offline, may not be 100% relevant to current state of article, but I've tried to fix that when possible.

  • Is it possible to get an image of Halotus himself, rather than the guy he killed?
    • Unfortunately, thats all but impossible: he wouldn't have been sculpted, and he was not important enough to be painted, and those are basically the only forms of images of ancient figures.
  • I know it's not compulsory, but I would like to see a few more internet sources. If for my convenience if nobody else's, because I'm not (and I'm sure many others are not) able to freely obtain all the books sourced.
    • I would.... but there is basically nothing reliable to be found on him. I'll look, though.
  • He was granted royal procuratorship - Why not say he was granted "stewardship", since that's what it links too. Chances are there's a good reason for this, but I just thought I'd raise it :)
      • I'm quoting Suetonius; procuratorship is basically the same thing, but if its what Suetonius is calling it, then thats what it would have been.
    • This also comes up in the aftermath section, and then in the quote used, the word "stewardship" (rather then procuratorship is used). So think about this...
  • Little is known about Halotus' personal life, and few details relating to his family and heritage are known, other than that he was of Roman ancestry. (Life section) - this is a stubby sentence...either say more about it (not really possible in this case) or merge it with another paragraph.
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • The life section could do with some extra wikilinking.
    • Yes check.svg Done - 3 more links.
  • Ref 3 - Does it discuss Halotus/Claudius, or food tasting in general. Latter seems more likely...
    • The latter, but, then again, I suppose it indirectly relates to Halotus in a way.
  • The last sentence of the life section (dealing with castration and other enjoyable pasttimes) is poorly punctuated, with way too many commas. Example: **During the era that Halotus lived in, prohibited sexual contact among royalty and servants, guards and or slaves was not uncommon, in many parts of the world, and it was thought that male castration would prevent this - 4 commas, where you could use a few less and word it a bit better:
    • Prohibited sexual contact among royalty, servants, guards and slaves was not uncommon in many parts of the world during Halotus' era, and it was thought that male castration would prevent this from taking place.
      • Yes check.svg Done - replaced with your better-worded sentence.
  • 1st sentence of poisoning section should have the dates wikilinked...although if there's dispute, I'm not how to about it...maybe have 12-13 October...
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • 2nd sentence again needs a reword, try something like:
    • It is possible that Claudius actually died of natural causes[7][I], as the manner of poisoning, and the type of poison used, remains unclear.[6]
      • Yes check.svg Done
  • Ref 8 should appear after the comma, not after the closed bracket.
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • 2nd paragraph of poisoning sections feels somewhat deja vu ish - I get the feeling the article itself, and particuarly these sections, could be trimmed a bit, though I'm not sure how right now :)
    • Yeah, I suppose it's because the poisoning is very complex, but the details that are discussed at length are really closely related... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Dissident (talkcontribs) 08:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A few of the refs (I'm saying this after clicking ref 15) contain very minimal information. If you own the book, surely you could use more, or if you found it another way, could do try some more research? It would be nice to at least have page references...
    • I could ref several of the statements like 5 times, its just that some refs, like ref 15, for instance, have that little extra bit of information not found in any of the other refs, so, yeah....
  • Other, more specific details about the poisoning have always been in dispute, as well. Change to (remove the last bit):
    • Other, more specific details about the poisoning have always been in dispute.
      • Yes check.svg Done
  • Sinuessa is a redlink - create or remove link.
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Is there no article for Galba (Aftermath section and footnote III)?
    • Already linked earlier on.
  • Ref for the last sentence of the Aftermath - Halotus section, or is it common knowledge?
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • The usurping was politically easy for Nero; Claudius' will had...
  • ...five years after his succession, in 59.[27] - Should this say:
    • ...five years after his succession, in AD 59.[27]
      • Technically, it doesn't matter. "59" really does imply and infer the year. This is usually not an issue.
  • Check spacing on ref 28 - there shouldn't be a space between it and the full stop.
    • Uhhhh look at the source. There is no space....

Reviewed version: [1]. Good luck (this might take a while)!  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)