Talk:Glycerius/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 20:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In taking on this article for review, I am aware that this is a period where details are few & academic speculation rife. However, I do have access to a number of works on this period (sadly, none of the secondary sources referenced in this article) so I can check the accuracy of most of the facts in this article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comments by llywrch

First, I need to disclose that I have edited this article a few times, most recently & importantly here. I don't think this effects my judgment on this nomination, but YMMV.

In examining the changes you made to this article before submitting it, I find that you removed content, not added it. There is nothing wrong in doing this; many articles could stand improvement from pruning away the cruft. But in this case, I wonder if you pruned away too much of what was there. But I will discuss this more below, after my comments on this version.

(N.B. I refer to Glycerius as "G." except where I quote.)

Based on my sources, the name G. assumed when he became emperor was "D(ominus) N(oster) Glycerius Augustus"; "Flavius" was not part of it. (Alison E. Cooley, The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy (Cambridge: University Press, 2012), p. 508) This is a tricky point: "Flavius" came to be adopted from the 4th century on as a title one authority compares to "Mr." in its usage, in that a person of substance but not of titled birth would adopt that style, yet someone with an aristocratic style (e.g. a baron or duke) would not. One would not use "Mr. Alfred, Lord Tennyson", for example. This is the case in the Western Empire; in the Eastern Empire, "Flavius" was adopted at all levels of society. (See James G. Keenan, "The Names Flavius and Aurelius as Status Designations in Later Roman Egypt", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 11 (1973), pp. 33-63 for further information.) In any case, Olybrius was the last Western Emperor to use the title "Flavius"
Further, beginning with Constantius Roman Emperors adopted the title "D.N." (as opposed to "Imperiator") to show they were supreme ruler or emperor, as well as adding "Augustus" at the end.
Done
The date given for his ascension -- "3/5/25 March 473" makes no sense. I had a look at the primary documents: one gives the date as 3 March, & another 5 March. (I don't know where 25 March comes from.) Thus there are two opinions on the date he ascended to the throne; most sources I have seen simply states that. After all, this is a period of shadowy emperors, about whom we know very little.
Done
In the lead paragraph, you write "Glycerius was not recognized by the Eastern Roman Emperor Leo I, who instead recognized Julius Nepos, and sent him with an army to invade the Western Empire." That sounds repetitive. How about replacing the middle clause with "instead he nominated Julius Nepos as Emperor"?
Done
You set forth separate sections for Primary & Secondary sources -- not bad in itself, but considering just how much information is in each, simply listing these sources is not at all helpful. Anonymus Valesianus (not "Anonymous in their Valesianus") provides us a sentence about G., as do John of Antioch & Malchus. Jordanes provides us a bit more than the others you list, yet he is the best source to be used for G. And why do you need citations to prove he's mentioned in these primary sources? Anyway, since these sources only provide scraps of information about G., it would be better to simply cite them at the appropriate parts of the article.
I find it best to avoid the clutter of mixing primary and secondary sources, as long as secondary sources can be found which cover the same material. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- llywrch (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another point the list of primary sources is that it is incomplete. Our dates for G.'s ascension come from 2 sources not mentioned: the Fasti vindobonenses and the Paschale campanum. Ennodius' Vita St. Epiphanus provides a brief sketch of G., giving us the only clues about his personality, & making it probably the most significant source for G. existing. One of the laws G. promulgated, directed against simony & dated 11 March 473, has survived. And there are the history of Paul the Deacon & the Chronicle of Count Marcellinus.
Done
About secondary sources: Sorry, but I don't trust anyone published by "Facts on File" to provide detailed information on Classical studies. I may be wrong about this -- Facts on File may have simply republished a work originally published by a reputable house -- but that raises a red flag for me.
The Adkins and Akins book is indeed originally from Oxford University press; although the Bunson work is not. While the Bunson work is originally from Facts on File, it is far more of a refferential work, giving some key dates and names, but largely being a dictionary of sorts rather than a true historical narrative book. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. -- llywrch (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now for your pruning of the article.

The impression I get from your activity here is that you wanted to use only the latest sources. In general, there is nothing wrong with that. However, the information we have to work with about this period of Roman history has not increased since World War II. Experts use the same editions of the primary sources they did before WWII, which were produced in the late 19th century. So removing older sources doesn't improve this article. Instead, I found it actually harms it.

One source I was very surprised to see you entirely removed was the article about G. at Roman Emperors here. It was written by Ralph W. Mathisen, who is both a tenured professor and an expert on the period. And Mathisen's article provides a lot more detail about G. than this version of the Wikipedia article. He provides information about the conflicting dates of G.'s ascension. (FWIW, the article on G. in the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft only provides one of the 2 dates; while always useful, even that authoritative referencework makes mistakes.) He provides much detail & sources about the Visigothic incursion into Italy. Mathisen also mentions that Malchus implies G. was involved in the assassination of Julius Nepos. Except for the fact that the webpage was written 20 years ago, I can't see any reason not to use this source. (He also provides details about the missing primary sources I listed above.) Done

It might be beneficial to look at the equivalent articles on the other Wikipedias; the Russian & Ukranian ones are marked as Featured articles. It doesn't matter if you are fluent in the languages: I frequently use Google Translate for articles in languages I am not proficient in, & it does the job. (So does the similar tool at Bing.)

Feel free to ask for clarifications on any of these points. -- llywrch (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: I believe I have addressed all your points. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:, looking good. Just a couple of points -- & one comment should this article be pushed to FA status.

Ennodius is notable enough -- & does have an article -- as not to need to be referred to as "Ennodius of Pavia". I went ahead & altered that to "Ennodius, bishop of Pavia". And having read Ennodius' Life of St. Epiphanus, I'm confident that it will not merit its own separate article, so I removed that link.

Sounds good. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the second paragraph in the section "Life" begins, "Much of Glycerius' reign is unknown." Am I being hypercritical, or would this sentence make better sense as "Many events of Glycerius' reign are unknown"? The point being the first sentence implies a large amount of his reign had a mysterious quality, while the second states it simply lacks documentation.

Done

Reviewing this article, I noticed an unexpected red link to the Ostrogothic king Vidimir/Widemir/other alternative spellings. I assumed that all of the Ostrogothic kings had articles by this point, & to encounter a royal figure lacking an article raises my suspicions whether he actually existed, or is an artifact created by many editors using different sources & translations that sometimes create numerous people out of one. (Whether this is the case here is irrelevant to promoting this article to GA status, & you shouldn't spend any time on this unless you have the answer at your fingertips, but it may become an issue if this article is nominated for FA status.)

I did some digging, and I found a source that suggests that Widemers Dad died and handed out the kingdom to Widemer and his two brothers, one of which has an article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this article is very close to GA status, just need your input on the first 2 of these 3 items. -- llywrch (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing -- llywrch (talk)