Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tetricus I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tetricus I[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Featured article candidates/Tetricus I/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my ongoing process to improve all the Roman/Byzantine Emperor articles, and I believe it meets the requirements. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. Unfortunately, it isn't a topic I know anything about, but I have a few minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, from the Roman Empire from which the Gallic Empire split off --> from the Roman Empire off which the Gallic Empire had split?
Done
in the lead, Emperor Aurelian of the Roman empire --> Roman emperor Aurelian?
Done
in the lead, in which Tetricus surrendered, although...: suggest splitting the sentence here before "although" and deleting that word
Done
in the lead, link Praeses
Done
in the History section, Empire, from whom the Gallic Empire had split off --> Empire off which the Gallic Empire had split?
Done
in the History section, link Rhine
Done
in the History section, mostly he would withdraw troops and abandon forts, allowing the territory to be pillaged: do we know why?
I wasn't able to find a clear answer to this. Presumably he didn't have the forces to fight them, but the book doesn't say this directly enough that I'm comfortable saying that wouldn't be OR on my part. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the Numismatics section, move the link from reverses to obverse
Done
in the Primary sources subsection, the punctuation for the Zonaras entry probably needs adjustment. Suggest adding a comma after "History", and then italics for "Compendium..."
Done
per WP:LAYOUT the Commons template should appear at the beginning of the last section of the article (so it should be moved up to the top of the References section
Done
there are a few hyphens in the Bibliography that should probably be endashes
Done
some entries in the Bibliography have publisher locations, and some don't (best to be consistent here)
Done

@AustralianRupert: I believe I have done all you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, this review looks like it is almost ready to be closed. Would you mind doing an image review? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Factotem[edit]

Infobox:

Is there any reason why the Died parameter isn't "Lucania", as per the main narrative, instead of "Italia"?
Done
The regnal name is not supported by any statement in the main narrative or directly cited.
Done

Lead:

Per MOS:DATERANGE, it should be "from 271 to 274 AD"
Done
"...raised to emperor..." -> "...became emperor..."?
Done
...emperor in 271 after the murder of Emperor Victorinus, by the influence of Victorinus' mother, Victoria tripped me. It reads as if Victorinus's murder was influenced by his mother. Maybe "He was originally the Praeses (governor) of Gallia Aquitania, and became emperor after the murder of Emperor Victorinus in 271, having received the support of Victorinus's mother, Victoria."
Done
Note also that per MOS:POSS, singular possessives ending in 's' take 'apostrophe s', thus "Victorinus's murder", etc.
Done
During his reign, he faced external pressure both from Germanic raiders pillaging the eastern and northern parts of his empire, and from the Roman Empire off which the Gallic Empire had split I understand the issue with all the "froms", but "off which" sounds even worse to me. Maybe "During his reign, he faced external pressure from Germanic raiders, who pillaged the eastern and northern parts of his empire, and the Roman Empire, from which the Gallic Empire had split."?
Done
Couple of real nitpicks, treat them with respect or contempt as you wish:

Tetricus was spared by Aurelian, and even made a... -> "Aurelian spared Tetricus, and even made him a..."
Done
A few years after 274, he died of natural causes. -> "He died of natural causes a few years after 274."
Done

History:

Gaius Pius Esuvius Tetricus, commonly referred to as Tetricus I, was born on an unknown date. It is believed, based upon his name, that he was born in Gaul. Another nitpick. "was born on an unknown date" came across a little awkwardly to me. Maybe "Commonly referred to as Tetricus I, Gaius Pius Esuvius Tetricus is believed, based upon his name, to have been born in Gaul, though the date is not known."? Also, it isn't obvious how his name betrays his origin. Is there any info on that, and do you think it's worth adding if there is?
Done My guess is from the fact that a part of his name matches the name of the Esuvii tribe, but I haven't found a source that says the same. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In 273 he had his son, Tetricus II, elevated to caesar, in order to increase his support.. Is there any reason why you can't just say "He elevated his son, Tetricus II, to caesar in 273 to increase his support."? Is there a need for the "had his" construction? This amendment also avoids starting two consecutive sentences with "In <year/>...", and "in order to" is apparently not regarded as the best of prose
Done.
During his reign, the Gallic Empire was pressured both internally by dissent in the army and government, and externally by Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire, Empire off which the Gallic Empire had split. -> "During his reign, the Gallic Empire was subject to internal and external pressures. There was dissent within the army and the government, and it was threatened by the Roman Empire, from which the Gallic Empire had split, and Germanic tribes."?
Done
There are two accounts of the occurrences there. One, which is believed to have been created by Roman imperial propaganda some time after the actual occurrence, holds that Tetricus offered surrender... -> "There are two accounts of the ~~occurrences~~ events there. One, which is believed to have been created by Roman imperial propaganda some time after the actual ~~occurrence~~ event, ~~holds~~ states that Tetricus offered to surrender..."?
Done

Numismatics:

I can understand the need to differentiate the two Tetricuses when they occur together, but do you need to do so for the two times when you only refer to Tetricus I? The numeral looks like the a capital letter 'i', which I found a bit awkward.
Done

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: I believe I have done all you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more minor points:

"Died" in the infobox now shows a redlinked Lucania et Bruttii, whereas the narrative simply says Lucania, which is linked to an existing article. Wouldn't it be better to use the linked name? Either way, I think it should be consistent between narrative and infobox.
Done
In the last sentence, I think MOS:FRAC 'requires' us to write "three-quarter" rather than "3/4th". If there's a reason why numerals must be used, they should not be suffixed with the ordinal "th". Factotem (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done

@Factotem: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Factotem (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cinderella157[edit]

You will notice that I have made a couple of copy edits. The thing that stands out to me is the writing style. Specifically, long and complex sentence structures are the norm. While these may "appear" scholarly, they significantly reduce readability. It is a stylistic "foible" among academic writers (mea culpa too). This was pointed out to me as a novice WP editor. It is something I have tried to embrace and promote. Many long sentences can be simply split without compromising accuracy or meaning and with, at most, a minor tweak in wording. A semi-colon is frequently used where separate sentences might better serve. There are two instance I have observed. I would hope that you might embrace this comment broadly and not just to these two sentences.

Per the primary sources section, a brief statement might be made by way of explanation: that these are Roman era chronicles drawn on by modern scholars (or similar).

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much worth pondering. I am uncertain about the brief statement, as I cannot find any source that says this, so it would have to be uncited, which I am wary of. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if it is correct to say that Tetricus was "crowned". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to coronated. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A coronation is a crowning ceromony? "Invested" or perhaps,"confered", might be better, unless there is a better "historical term". As to the primary sources, the text was a suggestion of what might be used. "Available to" might be better (or something else). This is outside the body of the article and therefore, not subject to "rigorous citation" (IMO), provided the statement is not one which is likely to be reasonably challenged (per WP policy on citations). I do think it needs something, as it caused me to scratch my head a little. Per the style issue I have raised, I might do a copy edit run along these lines, if you are happy for me to do so. It is not a long article so it shouldn't take much effort. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "officially proclaimed", as I think it is the best option. I've added a short bit to primary sources per your suggestion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: Is that all of your suggestions, or do you have further? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - the only image should include an explicit copyright tag for the coin, not only the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.