Talk:Caracalla/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well writen (✓) 1a. Prose is good (✓) 1b. MOS format (✓) 2. Verifiable (✓) 2a. Proper layout (✓) 2b. Reliable sources (✓) 2c. No OR (✓) 2d. No copyrights (✓) 3. Coverage (✓) 3a. adresses main aspect (✓) 3b. Stays focused (✓) 4. Neutral (✓) 5. Stable (✓) 6. Illustrated (✓) All together it's a good article, I could see it becoming FAC if you run it through the PR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing quick passage

Iazyges approved both this article and Sino-Roman relations for GA over the course of 16 minutes, and had been active doing other editing in the hours before. An article with over 4000 words and 71 sources takes quite a while to review properly.

I did spot-check the article myself, and 15 minutes was enough to see that the article, while it shows promise and can probably reach GA status with some work, is short of that now. Take WP:LEAD. While it appears to be the right length, it does not touch on all of the important facts of Caracalla's life and death. For example, Caracalla was assassinated. How can that be omitted? And the final paragraph is a single line about a later legend, with no context nor other later "legacy" information. A paragraph that's a single line is not appropriate for a GA.

There are also prose issues in a number of places. The standard for GA is "clear and concise", which the article does not consistently attain. For example, the first Early life sentence, Caracalla was born in Lugdunum, Gaul (now Lyon, France), on 4 April 188 to Septimius Severus and Julia Domna, with a slightly younger brother, Geta. He certainly didn't have a slightly younger brother on 4 April 188 when he was born. Also It was then that he banished his wife, whom he might have later had killed. If she was killed, then say so and then note that he might have ordered it. Or, if we aren't sure she was killed, make that clear as well. The final sentence under Julia Domna is a classic run-on sentence, and needs revisions: The extent of her role in this position, however, is likely overstated, she may have represented her son, played a role in meetings and answering queries, however, the final authority on these legal matters was Caracalla. In the Classical portrayal's second paragraph, the first two sentences both need revision; it's not clear where the characterization of the Historia Augusta comes from, and the The work is compared to that of Herodian of Antioch which described, by comparison, as being 'far less fantastic' than the stories presented by the Historia Augusta leaves the reader completely at sea.

In sum, this is clearly not a review that properly addressed the GA criteria, and I am reversing the listing of the article as a GA. If Iazyges is willing and able to do a thorough review of this article, including identifying the many prose issues, then I look forward to seeing it, but after this initial far-too-swift passage, I believe there should be a double-check before the nomination is ultimately approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions to bring it up to GA status

"Later, in the 12th century, a legend emerged of Caracalla's role as the king of Britain." It should either expand on this or it should be removed.

Note; Lede needs considerable expansion due to the change in scope for the article. That lone line will probably remain as is but will be incorporated into a larger paragraph covering the entire section of "Portrayal" Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the lone sentence has been incorporated into a larger paragraph. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"with a slightly younger brother, Geta." is the age difference known?

Not in any of the sources that I've used. I don't think it is known anyway. I barely found a birth date for Caracalla. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When they tried to rule the Empire jointly, they considered dividing it in half along the Bosphorus," Perhaps some rephrasing, maybe "When problems arose with their co-rule of the empire, they considered dividing it in half along the bosphorus"

Re-written but differently to the above, "problem arose with their co-rule"... there were many problems between them before their ascension and hence including the suggested change would not be an accurate representation of their situation. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Caracalla had Geta assassinated by members of the Praetorian Guard loyal to himself, " Maybe remove the "loyal to himself" bit.

Not done, would go against WP:OR. Goldsworthy makes the distinction himself here, I can only presume that this is due to parts of the Praetorian Guard being loyal to Geta and parts loyal to Caracalla. That would make the distinction important. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Caracalla then persecuted and executed most of" persecuted doesnt really fit, perhaps banished or imprisoned (if that is what persecuted was meant to mean) or, if they were all just executed, have it removed.

I disagree, he most definitely persecuted those loyal to Geta, and executed as many of those as he could. I'm not aware of him banishing anybody without taking their head off, and there is no mention across the sources of imprisonments only murder and persecution. Not done. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In the aftermath of the damnatio memoriae and persecution of people an estimated 20,000 people were killed." maybe it should be "In the aftermath of the damnatio memoriae and execution of his followers, an estimated 20,000 people were killed."

Done, but, differently to the proposed change. I'd refer to it as a massacre at that death toll. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"alongside Geta's guards, ministers, freedmen, friends and anybody who had been promoted by him to command of the army or the provinces.[11][13]" list feels too long, maybe "Alongside geta's inner circle of guards and advisors, along with his friends or military staff."

Fair enough, Done slightly differently due to the repetitive nature of "alongside..., along with...". Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Caracalla successfully defeated some of the Germanic tribes while settling other difficulties through diplomacy" what issues had been settled by diplomacy? if it is known.

Note; will need to look into it, Caracalla isn't really known for his diplomacy. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 215, Caracalla traveled to Alexandria, and to the east where he remained for the remainder of his life.[3]" what is to the east? if it is known.

The Eastern Empire is what is referred to when you say "the east". Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This was a sign that Caracalla was behaving in an erratic manner." This could be better phrased, perhaps "His behavior continued to become more erratic."

Done, but, differently. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When the inhabitants of Alexandria heard Caracalla's claims that he had killed Geta in self-defence, they produced a satire mocking this as well as Caracalla's other pretensions.[19] In 215, Caracalla savagely responded to this insult by slaughtering the deputation of leading citizens who had unsuspectingly assembled before the city to greet his arrival," Perhaps "in 215, When the inhabitants of Alexandria heard Caracalla's claims that he had killed Geta in self-defence, they produced a satire mocking this as well as Caracalla's other pretensions.[19] Caracalla savagely responded to this insult by slaughtering the deputation of leading citizens who had unsuspectingly assembled before the city to greet his arrival"?

Not done as the satire may have been published anytime between 211 and 215 when the event took place. I don't have a date for it, but, it would be WP:OR for me to assume that these events happened so closely together. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Julia remained in Rome, administering the empire. Julia's growing influence in state affairs was the beginning of a trend of Emperors' mothers having influence, which continued throughout the Severan dynasty." Perhaps "Julia remained in roe, administering the empire. Throughout much of the severan dynasty, the mother of the emperor held significant influence"

Not done, "Throughout much of the severan dynasty, the mother of the emperor held significant influence" - Septimius Severus, whose rule eclipses all other Severan rulers, was without such influence. This only really applies to post Severus' rule and I need to make that clear. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"She may have taken upon one of the more important civil functions of the emperor; receiving petitions and answering correspondences, acting in the role of a judge" Maybe seperate the "acting in the role of a judge" bit, or else put "and also"

Hmm... a problem here. As later explained in the article, she could not possibly have been head of the judicial system. I'll rewrite that sentence to make more sense, it would make more sense to discuss here judgement in non-judicial situations. Add; I've removed the part about her being a judge. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The emperor was head of the legal system; judge, legislator and administrator simultaneously." might need re-writing, perhaps "The emperor filled all of the legal roles, as both a judge, a legislator and a administrator".

Done, slight revision to the suggestion. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He lavished many benefits on the army, which he both feared and admired, as instructed by his father, Septimius Severus, who had told him and Geta on his deathbed to always mind the soldiers and ignore everyone else" Unless this is a literal translation of what he said, it needs re-writing perhaps "He granted many benefits to the army, which he both feared and admired, as instructed by his father, Septimius Severus, who had told him and Geta on his deathbed to always provide for the soldiers above everyone else."

Honestly prefer my own wording here - his father was clear about ignoring everybody else. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Caracalla also erected a temple on Quirinal Hill in 212, dedicating it to the Egyptian deity Serapis.[19]" This could use some expansion, maybe its own paragraph.

I'll look at attempting this, but, my hopes are quite low. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"with the exception of the dediticii, who were people who had become subject to Rome through surrender in war, and also, certain people who were freed slaves.[32]" The "certain people who were freed slaves" could use some expansion, if it is known what these exceptions were.

Slaves who were freed from bondage, who specifically I can't say, nor can Hekster and Olivier apparently. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Before 212, for the most part only inhabitants of Italia held full Roman citizenship, with about 4–7 percent of all peoples in the Roman empire being Roman citizens by the death of Augustus in 14 AD." Need some re-writing perhaps "Before the edict in 212, roman citizens almost exclusively lived in italy, with only 4-7% of all romans being citizens by the time of the death of augustus in 14 AD."

Hmm, I read this differently to you. I read it as there being 4-7% of citizens outside of Italia, whereas, you've read it to be 4-7% citizens total... will have to take a look and see which is the correct interpretation. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On further re-reading I notice problems with the proposed re-write, most inhabitants in the Roman empire weren't Romans at all - such as the Celts and the Gallic and Germanic peoples. I re-wrote the sentence for more clarity anyway though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Colonies of Romans established in other provinces, Romans, or their descendants, living in provinces, the inhabitants of various cities throughout the Empire, and small numbers of local nobles, such as kings of client countries, held full citizenship also. Provincials, on the other hand, were usually non-citizens, although some Magistrates and their families and relative held the Latin Right.[33]" Needs re-writing, perhaps "Outside of rome, citizenship was restricted to roman colonia, descendants of those who had bought roman citizenship, and a few (a short list of some examples would be good) cities.", "While the majority of romans outside of italy were non-citizens, the magistrates and their families held the latin right."

~~Note; due to the above, not yet touched.~~ Re-written, but, differently to that proposed. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The provincials also benefited from this edict because they were now able to think of themselves as equal partners to the Romans in the empire." This should either be removed or rewrote, perhaps "It may also have been to boost relations between the romans of the provinces."

I'd call it a benefit to be considered Roman especially given that they were not in fact Romans at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"However, few of those that gained citizenship were wealthy, and while Rome was in a difficult financial situation due to the spending of Caracalla and his father on the army, this could not have been the sole purpose of the edict." This is kind of fragmented, perhaps move it up to become the provincial relations.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"fratricide could only be condoned if the brother had been a monster." maybe rewrite to "fratricide would only have been condoned if his brother had been a tyrant"

Nice rewording, Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The damnatio memoriae against Geta and the large payments Caracalla had made to his own supporters were to protect himself from repercussion, this had succeeded and Caracalla felt the need to repay the gods of Rome by returning their favour to the people through a similarly grand gesture, and this was done through the granting of the citizenship." needs re-writing "The damnatio memoriae against his brothers and the large payments he made to buy loyalty. By doing this he managed to stay in power, in order to repay the gods, and ensure the loyalty of the population, he granted citizenship to them all.

~~Not what I meant, will need to look at this later.~~ Re-phrased and de-cluttered. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The expenditures that Caracalla had through his large donatives to soldiers prompted him to debase the coinage soon after his ascension." again re-write, perhaps "The increase of wages for the roman soldiers, while it ensured their loyalty, also created a need for more currency, which debased the roman coins.

He actually ordered the coinage to be debased, it wasn't an outcome of his donatives, but, a decision to reduce the value of the Roman coins by reducing silver content. I cover this in Macrinus' article, perhaps I'll add a paragraph here explaining it as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 216, Caracalla pursued a series of aggressive campaigns in the east against the Parthians, designed to bring more territory under direct Roman control. He offered the king of Parthia, Artabanus V of Parthia, a marriage proposal between himself and the king's daughter.[3][43] Artabanus refused the offer, realizing that the proposal was merely an attempt to unite the kingdom of Parthia under the control of Rome.[43] In response, Caracalla used the opportunity to start a campaign against the Parthians and in the summer Caracalla began to attack the countryside east of the Tigris in the Parthian war of Caracalla.[43] In the winter, Caracalla retired to Edessa, modern Şanlıurfa in south-east Turkey and began making preparations to renew the campaign by spring.[43]" These need to be split, the "In 216, Caracalla pursued a series of aggressive campaigns in the east against the Parthians, designed to bring more territory under direct Roman control. should either be removed or else made into its own paragraph and expanded, and the "Artabanus refused the offer, realizing that the proposal was merely an attempt to unite the kingdom of Parthia under the control of Rome." Should be re-written, maybe " Artabanus refused, realizing that it was not an offer to maintain peace, but to give rome a claim to the parthian throne.

Since there is two parts to the above, I'll break my response into to parts. "should either be removed or else made into its own paragraph", under no circumstances should this be removed. It is a vital piece to the article - the campaigns against Parthia a) lead directly to Caracalla's death, b) are the starting point of Macrinus' reign and c) are vital to Macrinus' own article for different reasons. That's both a comment and an instruction to anybody editing the article should they so choose do so in the course of this review. As to the second part "but to give rome a claim", mmm... sounds far to medieval to me. I'll take a look at rewriting it to something middle-grounded as you bring up a salient point. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"At the beginning of 217, Caracalla was at Edessa with a large army preparing to start a new invasion of Parthia.[3] On 8 April 217, Caracalla was travelling to visit a temple near Carrhae, now Harran in southern Turkey, where in 53 B.C. the Romans had suffered a defeat at the hands of the Parthians.[3] After stopping briefly to urinate, Caracalla was approached by a soldier, Justin Martialis, and stabbed to death.[3][44] Martialis had been incensed by Caracalla's refusal to grant him the position of Centurion, and the Praetorian Guard Prefect Macrinus, Caracalla's successor, saw the opportunity to use Martialis to end Caracalla's reign.[43] In the immediate aftermath of Caracalla's death, his murderer, Martialis, was himself killed by one of the Scythian archers present.[3][44] After two or three days, Macrinus declared himself emperor with the support of the Roman army.[45][46] needs a re-write, perhaps "In 217, caracalla was in edessa with the roman army (whatever legions were their) preparing for the invasion of parthia, on april 8th of that year, he was visiting a temple near carrhae, now called harran in southern turkey, the same spot rome had been humiliated by parthia in 53 BC, after stopping to urinate, caracalla was approached by a legionary, justin martialis, who stabbed him to death. Macrinus, a praetorian guard prefect, saw Justin martialis, who was angry at caracalla for being denied a promotion, to kill caracalla, and 3 days later declared himself emperor with the backing of the army. Justin Martialis however was killed soon after the assassination by a scythian archer. End. After these have been changed, I believe the article is good to go, I find no problems with any of the sources, unless BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) has objections I would say this article can be promoted after the issues are fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through most of this review, some things I have changed as per recommendations or with alterations, other things I have not done and given my reasoning for it, and a couple things have been noted as they require more time for me to go through the sources and come back with appropriate solutions. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this last suggestion, there are multiple run-on sentences in the proposed revision. I can't find anything wrong with it as it stands currently. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually Julius Martialis, not Justin. jk2exp (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as well, I'll be looking at these ASAP (some today, tomorrow, probably the day after as well). Mr rnddude (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges, I would definitely want a chance to look over the article after the above round of fixes are made. For one thing, some fixes point up or cause other problems, so those sections should always be rechecked, and for another, there may have been issues that have been missed above. In fact, once Mr rnddude has worked his magic, why don't you recheck first, and then I'll do my own check to see where it stands, after which I'll let you know whether I think the article fully meets the criteria and can safely be approved. There's no rush to close the review; if it takes a few rounds to get the article to that point, there's no problem with taking the time necessary. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) Sounds good. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that I will be getting to this over the weekend. I told BlueMoonset this a few days ago, but, didn't make a note of it here. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I note above, I have gone through most of the review. The parts that are left I'll be getting to today and tomorrow. Apologies for the many delays. I have been busy. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final issues

Separating these out as they are the last things that I can find that need addressing. Those will be dealt with tonight.

"Caracalla successfully defeated some of the Germanic tribes while settling other difficulties through diplomacy" what issues had been settled by diplomacy? if it is known.

From one of my sources I have discovered that this information is unknown. The information comes from Dio who specifies that after Geta's death Caracalla made treaties with hostile states, but, never mentions which ones. The source then goes to outline the few campaigns along the Danube frontier - which I've discussed in the article - and rounds it out with the Parthia campaigns. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Caracalla also erected a temple on Quirinal Hill in 212, dedicating it to the Egyptian deity Serapis.[19]" This could use some expansion, maybe its own paragraph.

If I don't find anything, I'll just remove it. It's fairly trivial anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a lot, and have created two paragraphs dedicated to Caracalla's association with Serapis. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 216, Caracalla pursued a series of aggressive campaigns in the east against the Parthians, designed to bring more territory under direct Roman control. He offered the king of Parthia, Artabanus V of Parthia, a marriage proposal between himself and the king's daughter.[3][43] Artabanus refused the offer, realizing that the proposal was merely an attempt to unite the kingdom of Parthia under the control of Rome.[43] In response, Caracalla used the opportunity to start a campaign against the Parthians and in the summer Caracalla began to attack the countryside east of the Tigris in the Parthian war of Caracalla.[43] In the winter, Caracalla retired to Edessa, modern Şanlıurfa in south-east Turkey and began making preparations to renew the campaign by spring.[43]" These need to be split, the "In 216, Caracalla pursued a series of aggressive campaigns in the east against the Parthians, designed to bring more territory under direct Roman control. should either be removed or else made into its own paragraph and expanded, and the "Artabanus refused the offer, realizing that the proposal was merely an attempt to unite the kingdom of Parthia under the control of Rome." Should be re-written, maybe " Artabanus refused, realizing that it was not an offer to maintain peace, but to give rome a claim to the parthian throne. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the Parthian war of Caracalla article and noted that the most cited source is one that I have, after going through Scott's work I've decided against expanding this section any further. My reasoning for this is that there isn't anything particularly useful in those sections, simply put Scott rehashes the stories of both Dio and Herodian. The histories differ wildly in nearly all aspects. The discussion centres on the differences in how this campaign came about - the marriage proposal, civil strife in the region, Caracalla's actions in Alexandria, etc. I've covered these things in the article already. I honestly think this would just clog up the article with many trivial things. One example; an entire page is dedicated to the supposed marriage proposal between Caracalla and King Artabanus V's daughter and the main point of this discussion is centered on one thing. In Dio's work, Caracalla was refused the marriage and used this as his casus belli against the Parthians. In Herodian's work, Artabanus reluctantly agrees to the marriage, however, at the wedding, Caracalla and his troops massacre everyone and then just attack Parhia anyway. At the end of this discussion Scott concedes that Dio's story is the more likely. Repeat this three or four times for different things. I think I've summarized the story well enough, there's no notable battles in the campaigns to discuss - "in the summer Caracalla began to attack the countryside east of the Tigris" is literally what happens. No more, no less. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset and Iazyges; I've gone through the last few things. I've tried to explain why I've decided against doing certain things and what changes I've made. While I appreciate the thought Iazyges put into the review there are certain recommendations that I either cannot fulfill - such as the diplomacy question - and others that aren't reasonable to do so - such as the above which is covered in another (quite poor) article. Ping away if you need me. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset do you feel it is ready for GA? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges, Mr rnddude, I'll get to this on Sunday (which goes through early Monday UTC), and post my thoughts then. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BlueMoonset

I said I'd post my thoughts by today, and I'm posting what I have ready, noted by subsection, but it's taking longer than I expected to go through the full article, in part because I'm finding more than I expected at this stage in the review. I'll continue over the course of the coming week; in the meantime, there is work that can be started. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers will work on what's up already. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reign

Brother's murder

I'm wondering why you don't mention the campaign in Caledonia in the first sentence here, about Septimus Severus's death. As best I can tell, Caledonia was the reason why the emperor was there in the first place, so that should be made clear from the start. Then it makes more sense that his heirs abandoned the campaign.

I do; "died while on campaign in northern Britain" (Our Britain, not the Roman Britannia) - i.e. Caledonia. I can recast this to be, "died while on campaign in Caledonia, north of the Roman province of Britannia". Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final two sentences need to be revised, since the persuasion not to split the empire makes more sense earlier rather than in the second sentence, the construction of which is odd.

I think that I've addressed this, but, am not 100% sure about that. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the aftermath of the damnatio memoriae and massacring of people, an estimated 20,000 people were killed. Were the 20,000 killed as part of the massacres, or in the aftermath of them? I think this may need to be recast.

The 20,000 were part of the massacres that occurred after the damnatio memoriae, recast for clarity. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the final sentence of this section: did Geta have a daughter who was killed along with the last remaining daughter of Marcus Aurelius? Also, were all the people mentioned in the latter part of the sentence in the employ of Helvius Pertinax, or had they been in the employ of Geta before his assassination? This needs to be rephrased for the sake of clarity.

No Geta didn't have a daughter, Annia Cornificia Faustina Minor is Marcus Aurelius' last remaining daughter. All of the people were supporters and employees of Geta. I've made an attempt at recasting it for clarity. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial tours

In the final sentence, it would be nice to have chronological clarity: first Alexandria, and then to the east, if that's how it worked. Of course, if Alexandria is east of where he had been, then he went east to Alexandria, and then beyond. Perhaps it might be best, however, to only mention Alexandria here, and leave the subsequent eastward progress to the end of this section.
final paragraph: this is the first mention of Caracalla's claim that he killed Geta in self-defence. It sounds like the Alexandrians produced the satire (well) before Caracalla first came to the city in 215, if he slaughtered the delegation that came to meet him (upon his arrival). If this is a known claim from shortly after Geta was killed, it should perhaps be mentioned earlier, or referred to here as having happened a while before.

As I mentioned somewhere earlier, I have no date for the production of the satire but agree that it would have happened long before Caracalla arrived - who knows when Caracalla found out about it. I've made an attempt at killing two birds with one stone. You'll have to reread the section as I have made a few drastic changes. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Domna

Again, the chronology here has a bit of a disconnect, unless I'm misunderstanding the earlier parts of the article: Caracalla's training of the troops for the Parthian campaign would have been later than Geta's death.

Geta died in 211, the Parhian campaign began in 216. I've separated the section into two smaller paragraphs and dated Geta's death. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section has the first use of hyphens instead of dashes. The article should consistently use either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes throughout for this purpose, not hyphens.

I've removed the hyphens and turned it into prose. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Army policy

It would seem that the denarius/sestertius ratio was growing, giving less buying power to the sesterces: if 2000 sesterces was worth 500 denarii, one would expect 3000 sesterces to be worth 750 denarii, rather than 675 denarii. That would seem to indicate that the four to one ratio had broken down (not to mention that the silver content of the denarius had dropped, as noted in a later section).

This is an unfortunate error on my part - 3,000 sesterces is 750 denarii and the first source makes this claim but only in sesterces, the second cited source however gives 675 denarii (2700 sesterces) without a sesterces value. It's because one source went with sesterces for the whole thing and the other went with denarii for the same. I used both to give both values for easier accessibility without realizing that the ratio was off. Re-written. Sesterces were always 1/4 of a denarius. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baths

The first sentence of this section needs some work; it's running together facts that need separating or clarifying.

Separated into two sentences. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something's also not quite right with the second-to-last sentence, as I rather doubt the swimming pools were enclosed formal gardens. It should be easy enough to fix.

Enclosed in or by the formal gardens... within formal gardens. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming review; finishing Reign section

Constitutio Antoniniana

in the first paragraph, "and also certain people who were freed slaves" is very vague. Is this based on who freed them, where they lived, or what? A bit more description is needed.

I'd like to be able to give a better description but this is all I have; ... and certain freed slaves (though there is discussion on the exact definition, as on almost everything linked to the edict). That's all the detail that's given, I'll look around through a couple other sources though. Maybe there is something more on this somewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nada, it's all about the dediticii with respect to Papyrus Giessen 40 I. I'd misinterpreted the source to be separating the dediticii - those subject to Rome through war - from "certain freed slaves" they are one and the same. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the second paragraph needs a bit of work. The 4% to 7% number is referring to a time nearly 200 years before Caracalla, which seems a bit random (though it may be all you have to work with), though Augustus was the first emperor; the phrase "Roman colonia" needs explaining, or if that is the explanation immediately following, either clarification or a rewrite, because it's unclear. Also, "Latin Right", even linked, is unclear in context; a simple explanation that it was an intermediate level with some privileges of citizens but not others (no right to vote) is really needed. (The right was effectively made irrelevant by the Constitutio Antoniniana.)

I've gone ahead and added footnotes for "Roman Colonia" and "Latin Rights" complete with sources. I don't have any other figure for Roman Citizenship aside from 4-7%, though, perhaps this is the most pertinent figure. It shows how Roman Citizenship transformed from the very inception of the empire up until this point. Otherwise Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, neither footnote is up to GA prose standards, which I was very surprised to see. Aside from capitalization and punctuation issues, the colonia one has both "made" and "built" together (is the idea that these were new cities created by the Romans where nothing had existed before, or might they be small habitations taken over and turned into Roman cities?), and the Latin Rights one's "Aside from" sentence simply isn't clear; a better approach would be to say that Latin Rights conveyed everything of full citizenship except X (assuming that's a valid assessment, which it seems to be). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

third paragraph: "is contended to have been" is an odd construction. Who is contending this? Ancient Roman historians or chroniclers, modern ones? Is there any significant disagreement on this?

This is an assertion by Dio that has been contested by more modern scholars. Done Mr rnddude (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fifth paragraph: the first two of the "other purposes" are remarkably similar to material already seen in paragraph 3. The "and/or" construction is not appropriate to a GA; I suggest you recast the entire paragraph so it is not necessary.

I've dumped the first two "other purposes" per your rationale, and recast the remained into a short paragraph without the "and/or" comment. Done Mr rnddude (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary policy

The word "donatives" caught my eye; it's very unusual. Since it can mean donations or gifts (not the same thing), I'd recommend being more specific. Also, this doesn't quite square with the Army policy section, where the main expenses were the enormous salary increases for the soldiers. (Of course, debasing the denarius, if that's what the army was paid in, effectively took back a small portion of the salary increase.)

It's meant in the sense of gifts, changed it to bonuses. Done Mr rnddude (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Macrinus article is much more specific about silver percentages; the 55% given for the end of Septimus Severus's reign here in Caracalla would seem to contradict the 57.85% given for Macrinus, which was said to mirror Severus. The amount of silver in grams is presumably what makes it valuable.

This is an error on my part - and also the fact that sources tend to disagree by a few percent due to different samples giving marginally different results. Septimius also debased the value of his coins after 209 A.D. From 197-209 A.D. the coins had an approximate silver content of 57.85% and after 209 it was reduced to 55%. Fixing at Macrinus so that it makes more sense here. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the antoninianus doesn't make sense: its purity was very similar to that of the denarius as described in the previous paragraph, so for it to be only worth about 1.5 denarii, it had to be only 1.5 times the size/volume of a single denarius rather than twice its size, which is odd for a coin supposedly twice the value. How much silver did it have in grams? (That would be the constant.)

Yes, the antoninianus is a rather weird coin. I'll go through some maths both here and in the article.

Source A - Not Bergeron, I used a third party since Bergeron only specified the fineness of the coin and not the weight. Tulane University is what I use for the below bit of mathematics;

A denarius has a weight of about 3.22grs in 217, of this 51% is Silver. Thus 3.22 * 0.51 = 1.64grs silver.
An antoninus has a weight of about 5.1grs in 217, of this 52% is Silver. Thus 5.1 * 0.52 = 2.65 grs silver.

This equates to about 1.61 denarii.

Source B - Scott;

The Antoninianus to Denarius ratio is 1:0.634 or 1.577 Antoninianus per Denarius.

Scott thus concludes that a single Antoninianus is worth about 1.5 Denarii - Source B is what Scott is going off of and Scott says; The problem with the antoninianus was that its silver content was only 1.5 times that of the denarius. It is really more close to 1.6, but, it's a mostly artificial distinction. Hope my amendment clears things up. Done Mr rnddude (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Portraiture

both of the last two sentences talk about coinage changes during Caracalla's sole rule; please combine them to reduce the amount of repetition.

Eh, the second sentence is rather unnecessary repetitive fluff. Revised. Done

Legacy

Classical portrayal

Please revised "impossibly built for the use of reinforced concrete"; I have no idea what this means in context, since the Baths clearly were built and survived (they're a tourist attraction today).

Ah, sorry, this was the vague description from the source itself. It is meant to mean that it would have been impossible to built if not for the existence of concrete. Revised. Done Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The blanket statement (in Wikipedia's voice) that the Historia Augusta is the least trustworthy ancient source needs to be modified; if it's an agreement among historians, or Andreas Mehl's assessment, you ought to say what is being reflected here

It's practically agreed upon by any historian worth one iota of their salt. That said, I'll look at adding a source or two and clarifying that this is an agreed upon fact. Done with several sources and slight expansion. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added first names to the various historians you mention here; you might want to give more of their bona fides, such as academic affiliations, so we know why their expertise should matter.

Scott's a historian and professor, Clare, Hekster and Zair are Doctorates of History and Professors. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Edict of Caracalla sentence needs a bit of smoothing. Also, while I've added "Hekster" to "Olivier", I was wondering how you could be sure it was Hekster and not his co-author who challenged the assertion.

I'm not, I accidentally left out the co-author. Fixed. Done Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence also needs revision; the use of both "presents" and "presentation" is repetitive, not "clear and concise" as required by the GA criteria.

Revised, I think I'm using the : correctly. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteenth-century artworks and the French Revolution

There is something wrong with the orthography of "J.A.C Pajou"—either there should be a period after "C", or if this was the only Pajou around, the initials could be dropped.

Fixed to J.A.C. - mostly because that's how Wood names them. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With Wood, as above, the first name should be used on introduction, and probably additional bona fides.

Arts Historian Susan Wood. Done Mr rnddude (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern portrayals

The first sentence needs reworking

Recast again, wow the grammar went out the window in that one. Done

This section cites many new historians, all by last name, and with no explanation of why their opinions matter (except for the two book authors). It needs to be revised.

Agnew and Bidwell - well, Bidwell is nobody of import being just a magazine writer, but, Agnew is both a linguistics and arts historian.
David Magie is a distinguished Historian
Shamus Sillar is a historian
Molefi Kete Asante has a wikipedia page and Shaza Ismail is a professor

Done

I corrected two refs where the last and first parameters were fudged to deal with multiple authors; please use last1 and first1 for the first author, last2 and first2 for the second author, etc. (Use last and first when there is only a single author.)

Ah, it seems to me that you've got all of these? I only found one that hadn't been fixed and have since fixed that as well. Tentative Done Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ending comment

This finishes my review of the entire article; I've made some minor edits as I've gone, and fixed the formatting for a few references along the way. I'll take another look when the updates have been completed. Thanks for your patience, Mr rnddude. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BlueMoonset, I am really in no position to comment about patience as you have been just as patient with me as I am with you. I appreciate your efforts and will look to punch through at least some of these, quite literally, right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset - I believe I have addressed and made attempts to address all of the above concerns. Thanks, let me know if I missed anything or if there's anything else you'd like me to look at. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude, I started to take a look at the changes you made, but found a number of issues with the new material in the Constitutio Antoniniana section. Typos ("decress"), problems with the footnotes... at this point I stopped, and decided to ask you to review every change you just made to be sure the new prose was up to GA standards. I'm perfectly happy to wait however long you need to take to be sure the fixes are in as good shape as the rest of the article. I was admittedly looking for more in the third paragraph than just a two-word "by Dio" (and is his name Cassius Dio or Dio Cassius? you use both elsewhere), so I've recast that sentence myself, and also the punctuation in the previous paragraph for the sentence on citizenship (though you'll want to make sure I haven't apportioned it incorrectly). Please let me know when you've completed your review/edits and ensured the changes are GA-ready. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that BlueMoonset, I'll go through and check again. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NPalgan2

Hi, I recently submitted my first article for GA review and in the interest of 'passing it on', decided to help with the review of this one. A few quick thoughts - I've only just given the article a very cursory read and obviously a lot of work has gone into it but the number of obvious things I noticed suggest it's still a good distance from GA standard.

"He ruled until he was betrayed by his Pictish allies and overthrown by Carausius, who, according to Geoffrey, was a Briton, rather than the historically much later Menapian Gaul that he actually was" Geoffrey shouldn't be being cited, some modern secondary source describing him work should be, and the Menapian Gaul bit is lacking a citation.

~~Will look at it.~~ Done, was easy enough to replace. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbon and Encyclopaedia Britannica 1878 are also cited, need something better.

I've removed Gibbon as requested, and any extraneous material only cited to Gibbon. That said, I've only been able to attach a 1873 source citation explaining the nickname Tarantus and haven't found it mentioned elsewhere. Would you be satisfied with those two sources together covering that single statement, or should I remove EB from the whole. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, Gibbon is great but a lot of scholarly work has been done since then. Same for the EB 1878 - both are not RS - they're out of date and not modern scholarly work. The reason is that Tarantus is wrong - it should be Tarautas. Here's a good modern RS cite. https://books.google.com/books?id=WPb8_5-ENrUC&pg=PA188 NPalgan2 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would think I'd notice this, given that I've read a modern translation of Dio's work. Yes, Tarautas, not Tarantus. Fixing. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"History professors Molefi Asante and Shaza Ismail" - read WP:MOS.

NPalgan2 which section, there's more than 20 individual ones. If you mean 4.4 Titles of People then Done, if something else please point me to it.Mr rnddude (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Yes, I meant that one, will be more precise in future. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Colonia are cities of Roman citizens made built in conquered provinces. Non-roman's living in Colonia were allowed to become citizens when they accepted the rule of Rome." There's an article Colonia (Roman) to link to, better to do it that way. And the capitalisation and punctuation suggest few expert eyes have been on the article again.

Eh, fixed I think. For minor copyedits, btw, it's perfectly accepted practice to fix them yourself. I'm not asking that you do, but, if there's something small you think you could improve, feel free to do so. I am no expert in the English language, nor in Roman history. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't want to sound pedantic or snobbish; I was just slightly surprised as it seemed that the previous editor was close to passing the article. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Latin Rights or ius Latinii were an intermediate or probationary stage for non-Roman's obtaining full Roman Citizenship. Aside from the right to vote, and ability to pursue a political office, the Latin Rights was just a limited Roman Citizenship" Bad capitalisation, punctuation and it's better link to Latin Rights - and "ius Latinii" (should be ius Latii) is incorrect. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your last two points about "linking" refer to the above GA review. Footnotes or an explanation of the terms have been requested. Besides, the articles on those two topics are start and stub-class. Meaning that they are of dubious quality and referencing. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say that I disagree point blank with the previous reviewer then. The wikipedian way is to link to an article explaining a technical term (if it exists). If it's a stub, then just make sure that the first sentence or so gives the correct definition with a link to an RS. (Another point: It's always best to cite a modern piece of scholarship than an ancient historian like Tacitus or Dio Cassius, or other primary sources.) NPalgan2 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't feel like this is a point worth arguing, I'll include a link, but, am not removing the footnotes. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove the legendary titles King of Britain bit at the bottom. The Geoffrey of Monmouth bit is worth being in the main article, but the "vacant (interregnum) bit is just confusing and also there's the issue of WEIGHT. Imagine if the article for Alexander the great had a similar thing at the bottom from an Arabic legendary history of Europe: Alexander, Sultan of Rum, succeeded by (interregnum) Charlemagne. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mr rnddude (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference that he hated his wife seems to be wrong and cited twice more (or different edition - always best to put google books link). https://books.google.com/books?id=xkOhwFzz1AkC&pg=PA206 NPalgan2 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different edition, the GB link won't give you the correct pages and those pages are partly inaccessible. You're looking for pages 405-408, only the first and last of those pages is included in the preview. ~~I could convert all the page numbers to the GB edition, but, they'll be mostly useless.~~ Actually, no I can't. Since I can't validate the statements on pages 406-407 of the GB edition. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with regards to GB links, I've started using a different citation format which is quicker and easier to write; sfn and full bibliograpic entry. That said, WP:CITEVAR allows for any acceptable citation style and the one in this article is actually the "visual editor" standard format entry. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

( "Caracalla was born Lucius Septimius Bassianus." Cite is to Gagarin p.51, but he has "(Lucius?) Septimius Bassianus." Once again, google books link should be included if possible. "appointed Caracalla joint Augustus " - no explanation or link is give as to what this means. "Caledonia" - no link given, I have linked to Scotland_during_the_Roman_Empire. Generally throughout the article insufficient linking for unfamiliar expressions. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added - Done

"When the inhabitants of Alexandria had heard of Caracalla's claims that he had killed his brother Geta in self-defence, they produced a satire mocking this as well as Caracalla's other pretensions.[18] In 215, Caracalla travelled to Alexandria and savagely responded to this insult by slaughtering the deputation of leading citizens who had unsuspectingly assembled before the city to greet his arrival, and then unleashed his troops for several days of looting and plunder in Alexandria.[14][18]” Melton is linked twice here the text supports neither reference.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bI9_AwAAQBAJ The other reference is Dunstan, (see the page issue above) NPalgan2 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done added a citation, and the Dunstan issue is explained above - I am well aware of it and it bothers me to no end. Anybody checking GB will be confused as to why a portion on Sulla is being cited to Caracalla. Except that GB doesn't have the same edition that Proquest does. - delay of a couple minutes, but, about to be done. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to get my hands on a library copy of the book. All the material is fine but as I suspected located on pages 405-408 with one or two stray references at pages 402 and 404. I've re-paginated to mirror the edition you'd find on GB. That said, access to pages 406-407 is no existent. Feel free to check everything on the other pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Baths of Caracalla were under construction from 211 to 216 when a partial inauguration of the baths took place. The outer perimeter of the baths, however, were not completed until the reign of Severus Alexander." Does not given any mention of Caracalla's role (or why his name came to be attched if his father was prime mover), source given says 212 as well as 211, were should be was (have corrected), and awkward phrasing. Better: "The Baths of Caracalla began construction in 211..." NPalgan2 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded on the points - Done

A big problem is that, overall, the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone. This happens every few lines. I'd suggest listing it at peer review. If you are no expert in the English language, it's hard to write get an article to GA level. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been at GA several times, and am just about to get my first A-class. You don't need to be an expert at English to write a good article. I've never taken an article to PR because I get it done for B-class at MILHIST first. I'll be looking to go through the entire artcile one more time before I pass it back to BlueMoonset. GA should really only have one reviewer, but, your comments are perfectly welcome - provided they are appropriate for GA which most of them are. Is there anything that is unclear? or perhaps not concise? Since encyclopaedic tone is not actually a GA criteria. If you're looking for professionalism then you really should be at the FA level, in fact, that's part of their requirements - nor am I sure what you mean when you say "every few lines". ~~Exaggerated it a bit or do you have a problem with the prose throughout the entire article?~~ I think I get what you mean, though, I disagree that the issue is my speaking or writin ability, more just things I phrased poorly. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Modern portrayal' paragraph is very bad. Gibbon is hardly modern, the Black studies historians maybe deserve mention but you need to indicate who's an important historian and who's not. The 1844 citation should not be there at all. Who are "Arts and Linguistics Historian John Agnew and writer Walter Bidwell"? Why are they quoted when there are professors at Harvard and Oxford right now who study the 3rd century for their entire careers? Also, modern portrayal is probably only interesting if it overturns views held for 2000 years instead of just repeating them. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Context; Sillar Shamus takes Gibbon's description of the emperor and refutes it - This representation is questioned by Historian Shamus Sillar who cites the construction of roads and reinforcement of fortifications in the western provinces among other things as being contradictory to the representation made by Gibbon of cruelty and destruction. Hence why Gibbon and his view are included in the modern portrayal section. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you on the modern portrayal issue as soon as I can. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall assessment

As the article stands, I'd say it's still just about B class. Sorry. Template:Grading scheme NPalgan2 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset as you are the reviewer of this article - the one who eventually closes this review - I'd like your thoughts on NPalgan2's review as well. I think they made some good points and noticed a few possibly obvious errors which I have looked at fixing. They do, however, disagree with you on at least one point - I've tried to appease both sides by doing both simultaneously. Besides that, I think there is something of an FA 1. expectation here - specifically the prose (I mean as a whole, not some of my errors which are start-class level admittedly) which I simply can't acquiesce to without more specific guidance. I've requested this and am waiting for the response myself. If you both agree that prose is a problem throughout - I don't mean things that can easily be fixed with some work, but, things that would block it from being anywhere near GA - ~~then what is the best action?~~ We carry on till it gets there. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the entire article up to modern portrayal - I stopped at modern portrayal due to the above - and have tried to clean up any of the prose that I found problematic. Feel free to point me to any other prose problems, or other things. Though, I still think any expected expertise in language or subject matter is beyond the GA standard. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna take a look through this article myself, and I'll pass it if there are no red flags; the review is getting to be overkill at this point. Wizardman 14:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any red flags on a read through, so since it's had a coupleof reviews now I'll pass the article. Getting into the historiography of sources is beyond even what FA does, so any issues above I would not consider to be GA issues. Wizardman 00:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]