Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Marcus Aurelius[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk)

Marcus Aurelius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Marcus Aurelius is an important military figure in Roman history. He was Roman emperor from 161 to 180, the last of the Five Good Emperors. The Roman–Parthian War of 161–166 and the Marcomannic Wars occurred during his reign. Векочел (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

Awesome work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Векочел (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Векочел, epic work. Thanks for your efforts so far. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the topic, so can't really help much. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the checklinks tool reports a few of the external links as being dead: [1] Can you maybe add links to archived versions of these through the Wayback Machine or another such web archive?
  • some images have alt text and others don't: [2]. Suggest adding this in.
  • in the lead, was Roman emperor from 161 to 180 --> "was the Roman emperor from 161 to 180"?
    • He co-ruled with his brother and later with his son, so he was not the only emperor. Векочел (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most important group of sources, the biographies contained in the Historia Augusta, claims to be... --> should be "claim" not "claims"
  • but was in fact --> "but were in fact"
  • in the Sources section, I suggest moving the text above the images, as the images seem to take the eye away from what is important here
  • there is some date style inconsistency; for instance compare "26 April 121" with "April 26, 121". Either style is probably fine, but it should be consistent
  • Marcus Aurelius was taught at home... --> "educated at home"?
  • be careful of overlinking terms. Duplicate link checker reports a few: Denarius, Antoninus Pius, Galen, praetor, Pontifex Maximus, tribune, Castel Sant'Angelo, Eturia, Tiberus, Pannonia, Germania Superior, Vindobona, Chatti,
    • Some are linked within images or notes or in the lead, so I do not wish to remove these, but I have removed all others. Векочел (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read down to the start of the Emperor section and will have to stop there for a bit, I'm afraid

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • every new emperor since Claudius: suggest linking Claudius here
  • crossed over the limes: is there a link or something that could explain this term (limes)?
  • mere patrician: not sure about the use of the word "mere" here, probably best to avoid as it might seem a bit POVish
  • The dissolute Syrian army was said to spend more time in Antioch's open-air taverns than with their units: said by whom?
    • See the citation Векочел (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it sounds like an opinion (based on the way it is currently worded), I feel it should probably be attributed in text. If it is generally agreed upon, I'd suggest it could simply be reworded as "The dissolute Syrian army spent more time in Antitoch's..." AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps he had already heard of Verus' mistress, the low-born and beautiful Panthea: this sought of speculation probably needs in text attribution
  • perhaps Marcus Aurelius wanted him to watch over Verus, the job Libo had failed at: same as above (there may be other instances of this also)
  • particularly into Gaul: move the link to Gaul to the first mention
  • Numerous members of Germanic tribes --> "Many members of Germanic tribes"
  • but this time the numbers of settlers --> "but this time the number of settlers"
  • For this reason, Marcus Aurelius decided not only against bringing more barbarians into Italy, but even banished those who had previously been brought there --> "For this reason, Marcus Aurelius decided not to bring more barbarians to Italy, and banished some of those who had already arrived"?
  • link "manumission"
  • A possible contact with Han China occurred in 166 --> "A contact with Han China possibly occurred in 166"?
  • Modern figures such as Wen Jiabao and Bill Clinton admire the book --> "According to Hays, modern figures such as Wen Jiabao and Bill Clinton admire the book"?
  • the heading "Equestrian Statue" should probably be "Equestrian statue" per WP:Section caps
    • Changed to "Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius", the proper name Векочел (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's it from me. Overall, I think potentially the level of detail is a bit much, and might be held against it at FAC. I found it an interesting read, though, with a flare that isn't usually present in most Wikipedia articles (mine own included). Whether it is too much, though, I'm afraid I am not sure. I also think that potentially there are too many images in the article and would suggest removing a few
  • I am totally out of my depth with the sourcing, so will have to leave that to others to look at. Sorry
    • Added my support as all my actionable points have been addressed. I will have to let someone else look at sourcing, though, I'm afraid. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612[edit]

  • I find it a bit weird that modern sources do not have the "p." for page, as they could therefore be confused with ancient sources. Is it possible to fix that? The other possibility would be to switch volumes of ancient works in latin numbers (for example: "Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae ix.2.1–7; Birley, Marcus Aurelius, pp. 64–65.").
Simply by adding the "p." and Roman numerals. I can do it if you don't have objection.T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much appreciate thst. Векочел (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is necessary to add the translation of ancient works (unless it's a literary work like the multiple translations of the Iliad). You could lighten the article by removing these.
    • With translations, English speakers can understand the text. Векочел (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me. I ment it's not necessary to add references to translations of ancient works because there often have been several of them, and they all basically say the same thing. You can add links to Wikisource or Perseus, etc. but it is superfluous to add the reference to a particular translation, unless the translation itself is a work of art (as with the Iliad and Odyssey). See for example with Severus Alexander, it takes much less space. T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could move these translations to external links. Векочел (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the last sentence of the lede. The fall of the Roman Empire took place 300 years after his reign. You could say the end of the heyday of the Roman Empire, but not the beginning of its end (it was not even halfway through its existence!).
    • I've removed the last sentence of the lede, putting the second to last sentence of the lede in the third paragraph. Векочел (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. n°154 doesn't link to an actual reference.
Ah ok, I've added the link to the ref.T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tone down the mention on the end of the Pax Romana, as in the article Eckstein says the standard textbook dates are 31 BC to AD 250. Perhaps say "some scholars have argued that his death marks the end of the Pax Romana" or sth.
  • Regarding his succession by Commodus, I would say that none of his predecessors (to my knowledge) had an adult son to succeed them but Vespasian. Adoption by previous "good" emperors was not a deliberate policy. T8612 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a citation for the preference of biological sons to adopted sons. Векочел (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day T8612, could you look over Векочел's responses, indicate any ones that are outstanding then consider whether you will support this article's promotion to A-Class? Thanks very much, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, everything is fine. I support it. T8612 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Caption for the Roman Empire map should identify the meaning of the different shades, and ideally this map should be scaled up
  • Not sure there is benefit to having so many images of the equestrian statue
  • File:Antioch_in_Syria_engraving_by_William_Miller_after_H_Warren.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Aurelius180AD.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image?
    • According to the image description, the work was produced by the publisher of the image. Векочел (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes; my question is, what sources support the accuracy of this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not certain. I would ask the publisher, but it seems he hasn't been active lately. Векочел (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the images in the article are not covered by freedom of panorama laws, which means we should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work, not just for the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images in the article seem to all be public domain for various reasons: the author died a long time ago or has placed the image in the public domain, etc. Векочел (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right, so it should be pretty straightforward to add tags making explicit why the original works are in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day Векочел, there are several aspects of the image review that need to be addressed before this can be promoted. All images need to be properly licensed and the source for the map needs to be provided. If you have queries or don't understand what is meant, I'm sure Nikkimaria would be happy to further explain what is needed. Alternatively, I can have a go at explaining. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Peacemaker67, I would appreciate Nikkimaria explaining this. Unfortunately, I don't know the source for the map because I did not create the image and the creator doesn't seem to be active. Векочел (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll let Nikkimaria take the lead on helping you with this if she has the time, but I don't think the map can be used if we don't have a reliable source from which it was drawn. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Even if you don't know the exact source that the uploader used, it should still be possible to add to the image description page a reliable source that verifies the accuracy of the map. Similarly, you can add tags to the other images indicating why they are in the public domain. While it would have been ideal had the uploaders done this, that they didn't need not prevent you from using the images. Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, Nikkimaria, I have added what you will hopefully find as suitable copyright tags. Векочел (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Er, looks like most of them have no additional tags? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • What exactly is it that you want added, Nikkimaria? Векочел (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Photos of three-dimensional works (whether coins, sculptures, whatever) should include a copyright tag indicating why the original work is out of copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Alright, I've added the copyright tags. Векочел (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We seem to be having some miscommunication here. All three-dimensional works not covered by a freedom of panorama regulation will need additional tagging. There are still many here without it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have added copyright tags as necessary, Nikkimaria. Векочел (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The following images are missing tags for the original works: AELIUS_CAESAR_RIC_II_987-671493.jpg; Antoninus_Pius,_sestertius,_AD_140-144,_RIC_III_601.jpg; Antoninus_Pius,_with_Marcus_Aurelius_Caesar,_denarius,_AD_139,_RIC_III_412a.jpg; RomaCastelSantAngelo-2.jpg; Marcus_Aurelius,_AE_medallion,_AD_168,_Gnecchi_II_52.jpg; Marcus_Aurelius,_aureus,_AD_166,_RIC_III_160.jpg; Marcus_Aurelius,_aureus,_AD_161-180,_RIC_III_362.jpg; Commodus-AnniusVerus_tarsos_161-165_AE17_CNG.jpg; Marcus_Aurelius,_aureus,_AD_174,_RIC_III_295.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I think Nikkimaria means is that CNG didn't make the coins, for example, just the photograph of the coins, so each one needs an additional tag for the actual item depicted, which is a work of art in its own right. In the example of File:AELIUS CAESAR RIC II 987-671493.jpg, and the others, this would probably be PD-old-100, wouldn't it, Nikkimaria? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think you would be right, Peacemaker67. I want this article to get promoted ASAP, so I'll add the tags.Векочел (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peacemaker67 and Nikkimaria:  Done Векочел (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last one needing additional tagging is RomaCastelSantAngelo-2.jpg. I also note that some of the new tagging included an Italian CC tag - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is to show that the images are public domain in the source country (i.e. Italy). I will add the tagging for that image shortly. Векочел (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Creative Commons is not the same thing as public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

            • A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work".

              Векочел (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm aware of the definition of a CC license. However, it isn't the same as public domain. Something under CC is still copyrighted - that licensing simply allows us to do more with the work. Conversely, something which is public domain either was never under copyright or the copyright has expired. For works of this age the copyright has expired, which means that a PD tag - not a CC tag - would be appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Great, should now be good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a source review as yet. Have asked someone about doing it, as I just don't know this time period or the primary and secondary sources well enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - fail[edit]

While this is a little outside the periods of Rome I usually cover, it seems to me that all of the works which one might reasonably expect to have been consulted have been. Indeed, the list seems to me to be impressively comprehensive. Differing viewpoints seem to be reasonably covered and attributed. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

I have issues with the reliability of some sources. Machiavelli! Seriously? Quoted at length and referenced to an undated, un-OCLCed source. Gibbon taken seriously regarding his views on the imperial treatment of Christians. Again referenced to an undated, un-OCLCed source. I won't go into less obviously unreliable sources, but the inclusion of these two raises serious doubts regarding all of the sourcing.

I would recommend that all sources prior to (the arbitrarily chosen date of) 1945 supporting statements of fact be replaced or discarded unless the author is quite sure that they can be relied upon. I have nothing against older sources per se and have used 19th-century sources myself and defended them at ACR. But the use of centuries old, clearly non-RSs suggests a lack of understanding of how to appropriately source for an ACR. I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability.

In addition there are some formatting issues:

  • Bury needs an OCLC (1067064647). Collins needs an ISBN (9780521201551). There are other examples. Could you go through and pick them up please.
  • Some works listed under Sources are not cited as references in the article. Eg Philostratus, Quintilian, Yü; there may be other examples. Could you remove all works not referred to from the lists of sources. Note Wikipedia:Further reading: "a reasonable number of works which a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article" can be listed in a "Further reading" section.
  • As there are two works by McLynn, "McLynn, p. 14." is not an adequate description. Could you also check for any other cases of authors with multiple works which are not differentiated? (Eg "Barnes, p. 69." Which of the three works by Barnes in Sources is being referred to? Etc.)
  • Titles of works should be in title case. Eg "HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE".
  • Works not in English need an indication of the language they are written in.

There are other points I could make, but I have been at this for several hours and am getting stale. Broadly this is a fine piece of work, but the 'picky' points on formatting the sources need to be addressed and there needs to be reassurance that the sources are reliable. I shall leave the nominator to comment on and/or address the points above, but note that this is not an exhaustive list.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: I've removed Machiavelli and a few unused references, in addition to adding titles for authors of multiple works. Gibbon's work is capitalised. I've found missing OCLCs and ISBNs. Векочел (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Векочел, that's looking better.
  • There are still "sources" which you do not use as sources. Working from the top, I hit one on my third try: "Codex Justinianus. Scott, Samuel P., trans. The Code of Justinian, in The Civil Law." (The only cite I could find to the Codex Justinianus was to a translation by Birley.) At the bottom, you have neither removed nor cited Yü, who I flagged up above. There are others. You will need to check every one.
    • These have been removed. Yü is actually cited in the article. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of works which do not have OCLCs nor ISBNs. Could you check each work which does not have one and add it if one is available. (Mostly they are.)
  • Could you put the titles of all articles in inverted commasquotation marks. Eg Thinkers at War, Portrait of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.; there are others.
  • Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Thinkers at War and not to the actual work.
  • Could you put the titles of all works in title case. Eg ref 285. There are others.
  • Several entries under "Citations" are really notes. Eg refs 276, 279. There are others. Could you move all non-citing 'citations' to "Notes".
  • Publication dates. Just the year is required, could you remove the day and month where they are present.
  • Numerous links are broken. See here.
  • Works not in English need an indication of the language they are written in.
  • There remain a number of issues with the sourcing. I flagged up issues with Gibbon above. He is quoted at length towards the start of "Death and succession" without any warning to the reader that he died over 200 years ago. The quote is cited three times, twice tothe the same work but giving different titles, neither of them correct; both within inverted commas, not in italics; neither in title case; both linked, but with no author, publisher, publication date, etc given; no page numbers are given (the work is 628 pages long). The third link is to a random looking web page ("naturalthinker.net") of unknown provenance, which happens to include the same quotation. Gibbon is over 230 years old and is thoroughly unreliable. This is from a hard look at just one citation. I would repeat my comment of yesterday: "I would recommend that all sources prior to (the arbitrarily chosen date of) 1945 supporting statements of fact be replaced or discarded unless the author is quite sure that they can be relied upon. I have nothing against older sources per se and have used 19th-century sources myself and defended them at ACR. But the use of centuries old, clearly non-RSs suggests a lack of understanding of how to appropriately source for an ACR. I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability."
  • It is best, I agree, that Gibbon not be used in the article. Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "External links" seem close to random. What value does Find a Grave add to the article?
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've edited the page to comply with your suggestions. Векочел (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was impressively swift, given the amount of work involved. However, it is getting a little frustrating as you have not "edited the page to comply with your[my] suggestions". To state that you haven't and give a reason why you haven't and/or shouldn't is one thing, to state that you have when you haven't is another. Can we give this one last try. I will break down my comments as much as possible. Could you please indicate under each one separately what you have done. Thanks.

  1. There are still "sources" which you do not use as sources, including at least one which I mention above by name. Could you delete them or move them to a Further reading section.
    1.  Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Could you put the titles of all works in title case.
    1.  Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Publication dates. Just the year is required, could you remove the day and month where they are present.
    1. Removed Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Numerous links are broken. Could you repair or delete them.
    1.  Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. From Wikipedia:External links: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Could you check each of the ten external links and delete those which do not meet these criteria.
    1.  Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Thinkers at War and not to the actual work?
    1. The actual work is now linked. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Edward Champlin's Fronto and Antonine Rome and not to the actual work?
    1. The actual work for this is also linked. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have serious doubts regarding the quality of the sourcing. To give two examples more or less at random.

  • The cite to McLynn (2009) actually includes a link to a very negative review which indicates that it not suitable for scholarly use.
  • Picking the first paragraph to meet my eye, the one under plague. It has five citations and a note:
  • "The pandemic is believed to have been either smallpox or measles" is referenced to an 1875 work, and is immediately contradicted by a note ("There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases".) referencing a 1961 work. I rather doubt that either of them represent the current state of knowledge on this point.
  • Cassius Dio, who died in 235, is baldly used as a source; it is pointed out in the cite that "his book that would cover the plague under Marcus is missing".
  • A BBC news item on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe"

This is the totality of the referencing for this paragraph. I note that the two paragraphs which I queried in my last two sets of comments have now been removed. Why should I assume that any other paragraph I examine will be better sourced?

Apologies if I come across as slightly tetchy, but I have now spent slightly over seven hours going through this article. I want it to be promoted. I have worked with the nominator previously and they are a fine editor. Clearly an enormous amount of work has gone into this article. Nevertheless, it is not, IMO, a reviewer's role to point out each and every fault. Can the nominator take this away and give it a long hard scrutiny. I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this. Time, within reason, is not, so far as I am concerned, a major issue. This is an important article, let us get it right.

However, if I am looking at it for a forth time without noting significant improvements I shall be recommending that it not be promoted.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, I have just realised that this article received a quick fail at FAC five months ago, largely on inadequate referencing. There was a recommendation that "I'd suggest the article be taken through peer review or good article nomination". This would still seem to be where the article is at. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: I'll see what I can do. Векочел (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's best practice to keep the day and month for websites, but I do agree that only the year is necessary for books and journals. Yü is cited in ref 272. I've done some editing on the plague section, edited the title case, and removed two unneeded external links. (If you see anything still needs to be changed, please let me know. Thank you.) Векочел (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked "I will break down my comments as much as possible. Could you please indicate under each one separately what you have done. Thanks." You didn't. I am going to assume that you believe that points 1 to 5 have been satisfactorily addressed, unless you indicate otherwise. (They have not. A glance shows that you have changed several titles out of correct title case. Can I repeat "I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this". Cite 280 links to " 'The Plague under Marcus Aurelius'"; it should link to an author's name and a date. I could go on, but if I did, considering that this is my forth look at the sourcing, I think that I would oppose. Can I repeat "I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this".)
  • This leaves several specific queries. Could you please respond to them individually:
  • Is there a reason why you have cited to a review of Thinkers at War and not to the actual work?
  • Why do you believe that McLynn (2009) is a reliable source?
  • Frank McLynn is an experienced historian and biographer who has published many books on subjects ranging from wars to Napoleon Bonaparte to Richard Lionheart. If he were to lie in his books, I think this would be largely noted. Векочел (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you believe that a BBC News article on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe" is an appropriate source for the Antonine Plague: symtoms, modern scholastic consensus regarding the nature of, dates of reoccurance and daily death tolls? (I note that the article Antonine Plague has a number of quality, and more recent, sources.)
  • "scholars have concluded the pandemic to have been smallpox.19th century medical author Heinrich Häser believes that it may have been either smallpox or measles" Why should we care what a scholar writing 150 years ago, prior to modern medicine, much less DNA testing, concluded differently to modern scholars?
  • Cite 277. Is a museum caption of a portrait the best available source of the origin and duration of the Antonine Plague?
Векочел, you seem to be out of your depth here. This is not your fault, but it is about to prevent this otherwise fine article from becoming A class. Please seek assistance from someone with more experience of sourcing and referencing before you ping me again.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will look for someone else to give me feedback. Give me a few days to choose who this might be. Векочел (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Векочел. That would be a sound plan. You have done sterling work on this and I really want you to get it through. You could do with some specialist help on a specialist aspect of the article. Consider posting a request on the MilHist discussion page - just a suggestion. From my point of view, there is no rush at all. Take your time, get it right. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Векочел. How is this progressing? As you know, a positive source review is necessary for a promotion to A-Class, and this seems to still have some issues outstanding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, my request for assistance in the section of the article about the Antonine Plague seems to have been archived. I will add this on the project talk page again. Векочел (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I see no problem with having a relatively brief section on the Antonine Plague. This is really more of a Marcus Aurelius article than an Antonine Plague article. Векочел (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Векочел. You are missing the point. Still. I do not have any issues with the length of this nor any other sections. I am doing a source review. Each time I have come to this article I have pointed out major failings in the sourcing and asked you to review all of the sourcing. Each time you have removed all or part of the specific case I have flagged up and left other fairly obvious inadequacies. It is not my job to check each and every source. That should have been done before the article was nominated. The section on the plague was simply a random paragraph I chose to focus on. It, and all other paragraphs, need to be adequately sourced to pass ACR. It isn't:

  1. When I asked "Why do you believe that a BBC News article on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe" is an appropriate source for the Antonine Plague: symtoms, modern scholastic consensus regarding the nature of, dates of reoccurance and daily death tolls? (I note that the article Antonine Plague has a number of quality, and more recent, sources.)" you responded "I see no reason to disbelieve the source." This does not address my concerns, and on its own, IMO, leaves me no choice to oppose. You are using a topical news item to support "scholars have concluded"!
    1. @Gog the Mild: I've removed the 'scholars have concluded' so it reads 'the pandemic may have been smallpox' Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I asked "Is a museum caption of a portrait the best available source of the origin and duration of the Antonine Plague?" You have not responded.
    1. I personally think it would not be good as the only source for the plague section. But I see no problem in using it for a few sentences in the section. Векочел (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The third source you use is from 1961 and supports "There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases." I neither know nor care whether this is still the case, but suggest that medical and archeological advances over the past 58 years render it a thoroughly unsatisfactory source for this statement.
    1. I've removed this as well, and added some more information (with sources) to the plague section. Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The article states "scholars have concluded the pandemic to have been smallpox. However, historian J. F. Gilliam concluded in his summary of the written sources, with inconclusive Greek and Latin inscriptions, two groups of papyri and coinage: 'There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases' " Leaving aside the issue of the last sentence mot being grammatical, you have stated that the modern consensus is that the plague was smallpox, and contradicted this in the next sentence.
    1. Some scholars does not mean all scholars. Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is the third time I am flagging up these same issues.

As I note above, I have no particular reason to believe that any other random paragraph I choose to examine will prove to be more adequately sourced.

In addition, there are many inconsistencies, MoS breaches and other issues I have pointed out above, some over three weeks ago. Despite my asking you to respond to them point by point you have not, which makes it difficult for me to tell what you have done about them. A check of several suggests that in some cases the answer is "nothing".

In the light of this and with great regret I have to oppose the nomination with respect to sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on source review[edit]

Hi Векочел. I have now spend a total of over 12 hours on this source review and it is possible that I am becoming a little tetchy. I would therefore be happy for another editor to take it over. If this happens I would recommend that they read through my review from the top, as a large number of the issues have not been addressed, or not fully addressed. It is difficult to tell which as the nominator, despite my requests, has not responded inline, and with regard to most points has not responded specifically at all. For my part, my fail on sourcing stands. I have flagged up my main issues three separate times, and still do not feel that the sourcing is up to A class standard (or, to be frank, GA standard), or even that my qualms have been understood. To close I will summarise, again, my main issues; but would also draw attention to the penultimate paragraph of the section above.

  1. A general BBC article from 14 years ago is not, IMO, a reliable source. I note that I have pointed out where more scholarly and recent sources can be found. The nominator disagrees.
    1. Now it is only used for a quote by the physician Galen, who lived in Rome during the time of the plague. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A museum caption of a portrait is not, IMO, a reliable source. The nominator disagrees.
    1. Removed altogether Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The article states "scholars have concluded"; I would expect a reader to understand this to mean the consensus of scholarly opinion. The nominator contends "Some scholars does not mean all scholars.
    1. Now it just reads "it is believed that the plague was smallpox" Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. These issues are being mentioned here for the fourth time in this review.
    1. I'm sorry, Gog, if I had some trouble understanding your comments. Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The fact that the sourcing is so weak on one randomly chosen paragraph, after I have flagged up numerous sourcing weaknesses and requested "I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability" casts serious doubt on the reliability of the rest of the sourcing.
    1. Most of the sourcing comes from a mix of Birley, Grant, and McLynn. So I think that it is reliable. Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The nominator's responses to my comments causes me to believe that either I or they do not have a complete grasp of Wikipedia sourcing requirements at this level.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Gog the Mild, I would be glad to remove the sources and insert new ones. Векочел (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I've done some editing to the paragraph on the plague (which is now under legal and administrative work because it has to do with Rome trading with China). Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: You may be missing the point. I really am jaded with this review. I could literally have written an FA quality article of my own in the time I have spent on this review. IMO you need to find a third opinion or accept that you need to take the article away and work on the sources before resubmitting it. However, I really would like to see this article pass, so, if you address every one of the points I raise in the section above and respond satisfactorily in line to each one, then I will consider relooking at it. Every point, responded to in line. If you do this, and I wouldn't blame you if you decided not to, then I will consider re-reviewing from scratch. I warn, however, that the first time I find even a small discrepancy between what you write and the article I will stop, and stand by the existing oppose. If I were you I would take the opportunity to lose me as a source reviewer, but another option is there if you wish it.
Gog the Mild, It's perfectly fine if you don't wish to continue with the review. There are other editors who have done a source review. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the ACR coordinators may rule this out of order. From my personal point of view there is no timescale for getting this done. But it may be considered that the article as a whole has timed out.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info. If this remains opposed on sourcing, it will not get promoted by me, and I doubt any coord would promote it. I also doubt anyone is going to re-review the sources given the time Gog has dedicated to it and the concerns that have been raised. This sort of situation is precisely why we introduced a source review at ACR last year. All of Gog's concerns need to be properly and comprehensively addressed, line by line, or this just will not pass. And it has no chance of passing FAC if it can't pass a source review at ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, let's let Gog have another look at this. I appreciate all the effort Gog has put into this review. Векочел (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: I possibly wasn't clear enough. By "the section above", I meant the one titled "Source review - fail". So the first issue to respond to in line would be Machiavelli, the second Gibbon, etc. If you are happy that everything has been dealt with on these and all of the subsequent issues I raise (it hasn't) then it should not take you long to paste Done in thirty or forty times, especially as many of these thirty or forty are repeats of the same issues. If you aren't, then it will take longer, but that is the point. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I am sustained by your tireless effort. You must remember that this article on Marcus Aurelius is a relatively long one. Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have come back to this more in hope than expectation.

There are issues which I flagged up on my first or second runs through, to which you have responded "Done" which have not been addressed. To take just two examples: an available OCLC not used; the sources include a work which is not referenced to. You insist on using a BBC report as a source, despite my repeatedly stating that it is not acceptable.

This is most frustrating, as it is possible that the article is not too far from passing a source review. However, I have feel that I can no longer take your responses on trust, I have spent an inordinate amount of time on this, and have not even started a spot check of cites.

So I am leaving my source review outcome as Fail, Objecting to the promotion of this article to A class, and taking it off my watch list. Good luck with it in the future.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I see, this article has some issues, but I think if you can address them then it is an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He ruled the Roman Empire with his adoptive brother Lucius Verus (who took Verus as a regnal name) until Lucius' death in 169. I think you should add his son too because he co-ruled with him between 177–180. What do you think?
    • This is already mentioned in the third (and last) lede paragraph. Векочел (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What of kinda English do you use? American? British? Or something else? Because I can see some American and British English differences. But I think you use British right?
    • I use a mix of both, having experienced both cultures, but I try to stick to British. If you notice American English creeping in, feel free to correct it. Векочел (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcus' family originated in Ucubi, a small town southeast of Córdoba in Iberian Baetica. "American southeast"
  • @Векочел: Hello Векочел, ah yes it is indeed the direction. But some people don't know that southeast is American. The Brits uses "south-east" with a hyphen or they uses two words instead of one word which would become "south east". Yes totally British I know but still, if you use British then I suggest to change the hyphen version or use two words version. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcus wrote in his Meditations that he had learned 'modesty "American learned"
  • to ensure that every word he learned of literature again "American learned"
  • In the image File:Antoninus_Pius,_sestertius,_AD_140-144,_RIC_III_601.jpg the "AD 140-144" --> "AD 140–144".
  • On November 30, 147, Faustina gave birth to a girl named Domitia Faustina. Like AR comment months ago "there is some date style inconsistency; for instance compare "26 April 121" with "April 26, 121". Either style is probably fine, but it should be consistent"
  • In image File:Marcus_Aurelius,_aureus,_AD_161-180,_RIC_III_362.jpg "(AD 176-177)" --> "(AD 176–177)"
  • In image File:Marcus_Aurelius,_aureus,_AD_174,_RIC_III_295.jpg "(AD December 173- June 174)" --> " (AD December 173 – June 174)"
  • the silver weight dropping from 2.68 grams to 2.57 grams. First if you use British English then it should be "grammes". Second how much are "2.68 grams to 2.57 grams" in the U.S. customary measurement system?
    • I have added the cvt template to convert grams to ounces. Векочел (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was replaced with a statue of Saint Paul in 1589 by pope Sixtus V Pope Sixtus V
  • Now the refs.
  • Ref 3, p. 229–30 --> pp. 229–230
  • Ref 7, pp. 228–29, 253 --> pp. 228–229, 253
  • Ref 8, pp. 227–28 --> pp. 227–228
  • Ref 50, pp. 319–30 --> pp. 319–330
  • Ref 123, pp. 206–07 --> pp. 206–207
  • Ref 127, pp. 107–08 --> pp. 107–108
  • Ref 155, pp. 117–18 --> pp. 117–118
  • Ref 156, pp. 117–18 --> pp. 117–118
  • Ref 161, pp. 118–19 --> pp. 118–119
  • Ref 171, pp. 122–23 --> pp. 122–123
  • Ref 193, pp. 121–22 --> pp. 121–122
  • Ref 195, pp. 121–22 --> pp. 121–122
  • Ref 197, pp. 103–04 --> pp. 103–104
  • Ref 210, pp. 126–27 --> pp. 126–127
  • Ref 227, pp. 130–31 --> pp. 130–131
  • Ref 260, pp. 323–24 --> pp. 323–324
  • Ref 272, pp. 460–61 --> pp. 460–461
  • Ref 282, pp. 186–91 --> pp. 186–191

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Only nitpicks about formatting of notes/references:
  • Three instances of "CS1 maint: Archived copy as title": Articles are listed in this category when Module:Citation/CS1 identifies template |title= parameters that use these place-holder titles. 'Archived copy' and 'Archive copy' are commonly provided by bots that are unable to identify the source's correct title. Articles in this category should be corrected by replacing the place-holder titles with actual titles.
  • Furtak in wrong alpha order but is never cited anyow. Does "McLynn" come after "Millar" in order?
  • As nearly as I can tell, and I searched fairly well, everything else seems OK. That's fairly impressive. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have corrected the order of the sources, removed Furtak, and added titles. Векочел (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Marcus_Aurelius&oldid=889535805"