The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that the Roman historian Marcus Junius Gracchanus took his new last name to show his political support? Source: Graves (1848). & Pliny, Natural History, Book XXXIII, Ch. 9. Links at article.
ALT1: ... that Marcus Junius Gracchanus—rather than M. Junius Silanus—may have been the tribune who made it easier for provincials to recover property stolen by Roman governors? Source: Rankov (1987), pp. 92–93. Links at article.
ALT2: ... that Marcus Junius Gracchanus may have been called out for his middle-brow carelessness before becoming one of Rome's leading historians? Source: Rankov (1987), pp. 89 & 93–94.
ALT3: ... that M. Junius Gracchanus's De Potestatibus is now lost but covered Rome's unwritten constitution and survives in summaries and excerpts in numerous other works? Source: Graves (1848) for it being lost; numerous individual refs at article for quotes.
ALT4: ... that the Roman historian Marcus Junius added the cognomen Gracchanus to show his support for Gaius Gracchus (pictured)? Source: Graves (1848). & Pliny, Natural History, Book XXXIII, Ch. 9. Links at article.
That's WP:MOS and so not an issue for WP:DYK eligibility. Better to note that or take it up on the talk page instead. In any case, no, optimate is fully English and populares might as well be in this context. YMMV, but the first page of Google Book results brought half italicized and half unitalicized for me. Even if you insist that they're foreign terms in running text, the right WP:MOS format is to use {{lang}} tags around them. Apparently that autoitalicizes them now. That said, our article on them does (inconsistently) italicize them; scholarly italicization is still pretty common (if not universal); and populares isn't in the OED, so I've gone through and added those lang tags.
Introduce Beck as German Classical historian. Consider stating nationality and area of expertise of any other persons mentioned for context (Rankov)?
Why? Is there any reason his Germanness is germane to the article?
Same for Myris and Battista Torti in the image captions.
Same what? and why? Stay WP:ONTOPIC. People who are deathly curious about every named figure's ethnicity—entirely irrelevant to the topic as far as I can tell—can look them up separately. I might be missing something, though.
"A tribune of the plebs for 123 BC named Marcus Junius son of Decimus ("M. Iunius f. D. tr. pl.") was responsible for the Lex Junia that amended the Lex Calpurnia, changing court procedures and jury composition to make it easier for provincial subjects to recover property illegally seized by governors and other Roman officials" can use punctuation --> "In 123 BC, a Tribune of the Plebs named Marcus Junius, son of Decimus ('M. Iunius f. D. tr. pl.'), played a pivotal role in enacting the Lex Junia. This legislation amended the existing Lex Calpurnia, introducing changes to court procedures and the composition of juries. These amendments aimed to facilitate the process for provincial subjects to reclaim property that had been unlawfully confiscated by Roman governors and other officials."
No, don't randomly change grammar and national style for no apparent reason. The proposed change also miscapitalizes an office as a common noun and introduces new potentially unsourced/missourced phrasing varying from misleading ("pivotal") to mistaken (it had no jurisdiction over local non-Roman officials).
Can we use a word other than antiquarian? Does the term mean he collected ancient legal texts? It may convey the wrong idea.
Why? It does mean he studied them and it's the correct and sourced term.
Is it Censorinus or Censorius? More to follow el.ziade (talkallam) 13:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It's linked, so it should be pretty clear.
Outside the lead: Junia gens linked twice, so is gens, Rankov, Titus Pomponius, optimate. I delinked them.
Don't. You don't want overlink (several in one paragraph e.g.) but you also don't want WP:READERs needing to scroll up the article or using CTRL+F just to find something. See WP:DL for how one-link-per-article isn't a bright line rule. The previous links were helpful, so they're better to include than to remove.
Overall: I leave it to the curators to decide whether to include speculative hooks (ALT1 and 2) el.ziade (talkallam) 13:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@Elias Ziade: I'm all for improving the article but none of this has anything to do with WP:DYK-disqualifying policy concerns. Even worse, so far everything seems arguable (italics for basically nativized terms), mistaken (not knowing various terms or names), or tendentious (wishing it were written in British English or your particular idiolect). If you want to take the QPQ credit for having started a review (thanks!) but prefer to move on and let someone else finish checking this for actual DYK eligibility, I'm fine with waiting. — LlywelynII 21:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
LlywelynII No, you are not committed to making improvements as you claim. You reverted edits I had made to address minor issues I had come across while reviewing your submission. These territorial actions, and your overtly aggressive language appear to be in bad faith. You do not have the authority to instruct me to withdraw from this review, which I will carry out diligently and I will be looking at every reference, very closely. I have identified additional areas for improvement that will not impact the DYK nomination but could enhance the readability of the article:
I'm committed to improvement of the article. Rather than discuss the changes on the talk page as proposed, you just complained about me. Some of the comments here are similar. No, that isn't the most helpful way to handle things and, yeah, you should WP:AGF in others. That said, there might be some things to improve with some of these other points:
The language is quite technical and assumes a certain level of familiarity with Roman history and terminology. This might make it difficult for a general audience to grasp the content easily without providing some context.
That's unavoidable and chiefly handled by links, although you're welcome to point out anything particularly arcane, here if it's major enough to ruin the article or on the talk page if it's just a difference of opinions.
The various name variations and emendations for Marcus Junius Gracchanus, are confusing for readers not well-versed in Roman naming conventions.
There's an entire name section detailing and linking the names and full treatment of how Roman names work. That's a vast improvement over our typical handling of Roman names (and in fact caused a separate row with User:P Aculeius on Marcus Pedo Vergilianus, where he feels it's entirely unnecessary to mention that the name is obviously incomplete in the lead. You're extremely welcome to disagree with him about that.) All of that said, what particularly could be improved in the handling of the guy's name? and is it dispositive for the WP:DYK review or something to handle on the talk page?
The "Life" section is disjointed and lacks a clear narrative flow. It provides some background about Gracchanus but could benefit from a more organized presentation of his life and involvement with the Gracchi reforms.
This is a fairly clear statement. I might be wrong but I don't think any of the previous edits involved changing this part. The problem is that this person's biography is necessarily disjointed. There are a limited number of facts established about Marcus Junius Gracchanus. Those are handled first and clearly, in order. There are a limited number of facts about 2+ separate individuals who may or may not have been identical with Gracchanus. They are currently presented in order in a single paragraph discussing the known facts about them, along with the provided source's conclusions about what it would mean if they did comprised a single life together.
Given that in no sense should that be 'ironed out' by only giving the tentative biography of the person if all the individuals really were identical, what do you really feel would be the proper way to present that? Separate sections or subsections on each of the possible other people and another section on what it would mean if they were identical? I would have done that if they couldn't all be summarized in a sentence or two, as the article currently does. Doing it the other way would have multiple sections of a sentence or two each, at least based on the sources I found. (Maybe New Pauly somehow has tons more or sth?)
The article cites various sources and scholars without providing sufficient context for the general reader to understand their relevance or significance.
The only previous additions were their irrelevant nationalities. The prominent ones are linked for the curious. Describing authorities on Rome as being authorities on Rome strikes me as WP:BLUE territory. What other context could helpfully be provided without straying from being WP:ONTOPIC?
The "Works" section discusses Gracchanus's writings, but the language and terminology used might be challenging for a general audience. It could benefit from simplification and clearer explanations.
Fair enough, but again in what way? They are almost entirely lost and what is known is provided and referenced.
The article assumes a certain level of prior knowledge about Roman history, figures, and events. It would be helpful to provide brief explanations or context for terms like "populares," "optimate," and "Tribune of the Plebs."
Again, kindly see the article on tribune of the plebs re: its correct capitalization in running text. As far as the rest, no, we can't summarize all of Roman history and its evolving constitution in every article, let alone every newly created and well-referenced article. In all assumption of good faith, it's rather WP:POINTy to suggest otherwise. Recapping the entire Gracchi debacle in any clarity would involve multiple paragraphs and WP:UNDUE straying from the article's WP:TOPIC, which is M. Junius Gracchanus. Everything is clearly discussed and properly linked for the curious who do want to know more about each of the terms you've discussed. What do you feel is actually missing here?
The article is contorted and could be better organized to present information in a more coherent and logical manner, making it easier for readers to follow the narrative.
If this is different from the Bio point above, please explain that. As far as I see, #Name, #Life, #Works, #Refs is a very lucid structure. If it's just unhappiness that the scholarship on the guy's life is in large part conjectural... that's how ancient history works. The sources are given and fairly authoritative as far as I know. If they aren't, lemme know how.
Nomination related: ALT1 and ALT2 are speculative. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion here should lead with and focus on the nomination related bits xD but fair enough. An easy way to handle that is using <s>strikethrough</s> formatting. You never had to review all of the hooks, though. Just choose whichever you like best and assess it unless none are without problems.
@Elias Ziade: Please do continue this discussion here and on the talk page if there are points above where I'm mistaken or off policy. As far as the WP:DYK, as far as I understand the template and comments, you're saying it is good to go, just not with ALT1 or ALT2? Do you have any preference among the remaining hooks? Also, regardless of how annoyed you may be with me now and regardless of how I disagreed with your previous changes, I do appreciate you being so careful with your responsibility here. I'm sure it's mostly a force for good and don't let me frustrate you too much. — LlywelynII 15:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
LlywelynII, I never insulted you and I have no further comments. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Wiki pages keep a fairly permanent log of edits even if you did remove them, which you haven't. They're still in this thread too. I get it. It can be frustrating. No, it isn't helpful or appreciated, though. — LlywelynII 17:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
LlywelynII, You're upset because I called you angry? Are you done whimpering? el.ziade (talkallam) 20:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I haven't been angry through the entire process. I'm still not. You claimed you hadn't been personally insulting. Freedom4U already called you out on it and I simply pointed to the obvious record of it. You're still doing it and getting worse and more insulting. Be better before you actually make this bad for yourself. — LlywelynII 01:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Elias Ziade: Your comments were both unnecessary for DYK and outright hostile (reverting your strange edits does not mean that you get to accuse LlywelynII of acting in bad faith—the process is called bold, revert, discuss, after all). You should read the the reviewing guide; DYK guidelines are intentionally barebones. If you have suggestions for improving the article that don't fall under those criteria, bring them up on the talk page instead :3 F4U (they/it) 16:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC).
No idea why this was removed from DYK without being moved to a queue. Same thing happened to {{Did you know nominations/Jewish astrology}}. Don't just blank approved content without actually promoting it. — LlywelynII 14:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I leave it to the curators to decide whether to include speculative hooks (ALT1 and 2) el.ziade (talkallam) 13:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)