Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roman Empire/1

Roman Empire

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: A significant amount of work went into this over the last two months. That has resulted in the issues brought up at the start of the review being addressed. There is still room for improvement, which at this time is still ongoing, but in its current state I am confident that it meets our criteria and should be kept AIRcorn (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is significant disagreement on the recent GA review of this article on the article talkpage at Talk:Roman Empire#GA review. The review was vary rapid, without opportunities for more experienced editors to contribute.

This is formalising a process that has already begun on the article talkpage, so editors may have to repeat or repaste some of the points already made there. Please ensure you are familiar with the Wikipedia:Good article criteria (Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not may also be useful). Major issues that have been highlighted so far are in the areas of "counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and that the article has gaps in coverage does not "address the main aspects of the topic". The best result of this process would be that the article retains GA status because the view of the community is that it either does so already, or that it is improved sufficiently to meet those criteria, so any help towards improving the article by editors is much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Response from the Reviewer

I followed the Criteria faithfully. I could not undertake a full review of the article because the article was very large and I did not have the luxury of time. The review that I wrote was based on what I saw. As I also stated in the Review, I expressed concern with the "in theory" section as I thought it could be classified under a "word to watch", yet I was unsure - I was not willing to impose my own criteria, as this would have broken the rules about reviewing GA nominees.

I still stand by my findings in the article, and, on a literal reading of the rules, I still believe that the article deserves its GA status.

--The Historian 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the fact that you approved it so fast, while having no prior interest in the article, is strong evidence that the article easily met the GA criteria. It certainly does met all of the GA criteria easily. The problems that other editors are bringing up have nothing to do with GA status, but rather their view that the article can be improved, which has nothing to do with whether an article is a GA or even an FA. Though there are only a handful of editors raising complaints about the status, rather than seek to improve the article, they make suggestions that would make the article worse, like covering the development of plebeians when all of their development was under the republic and they were nearly extinct as a distinct class by the early empire. Another editor wanted it to talk about feudilism in the empire, even though it didn't exist until long after the fall of the western empire. In short, most of the suggestions would make the article worse, showing a basic lack of understanding of Roman history, and even if they were factually true are irrelevant for a reassessment because they would constitute improvements to the article, not improvements that would address GA criteria.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Quarkgluonsoup represents my talk-page comments somewhat inaccurately, so I quote them here: "The article shows considerable imbalance in its sub-topic coverage. For example, the political and military stuff seems reasonably well covered but the treatment of economy, trade and agriculture is extremely sketchy. And while there's a lot about government bigwigs, there's virtually nothing on the plebs; nor on how the development of citizenship segued into early feudalism." I'll expand on this and other problems in article content and coverage in a separate section below, over the next few days. Haploidavey (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A contrary view

From the comments above: Yes, and the fact that you approved it so fast, while having no prior interest in the article, is strong evidence that the article easily met the GA criteria.

That strikes me as backwards logic, especially when the reviewer even says he couldn't undertake a full review. I thought the article was OK (at a B level) on skimming it, except for the abysmal section on Culture, until I took time to read it carefully. I might also read an article on physics, and be highly impressed with it and all the pretty graphics without realizing whether it was inaccurate or missing important pieces of information. Even an FA can have room for improvement, but Roman Empire fails the criterion of GA-level coverage, because it covers some aspects of the topic in idiosyncratic detail, while covering others inadequately or with astounding errors and omissions. These are not minor points: they are fundamental gaps in encyclopedic coverage and misrepresentations, to the extent that I wouldn't let my 15-year-old daughter, who's currently taking World History as a sophomore in high school, read this article for fear of confusing her.

A major omission is a section describing Roman society, what constitutes Roman citizenship and its expansion, the rise of wealthy freedmen in business, Roman family structure, trade guilds or social fraternities, or even a section on slavery—an aspect of Roman society that readers often express interest in, and one that's important to get right because it differs so dramatically from the form of race-based slavery practiced in the 19th-century American South. And one might assume from reading the article that women in ancient Rome were fairly rare creatures.

The Government section is missing most of what constituted government in the Imperial era: there's no description of the bureaucracy, of the neighborhood administration of the vici based on Augustus's reorganization of the city of Rome (which facilitated the shifting of power from local patrons to the emperor), no description of the local offices throughout the provinces that are so well documented by inscriptions. This bureaucracy and civil service is how the empire survived crazy emperors and imperial assassinations and rapid successions—keeping the water running despite the power gaming at the top.

There's no description of how the topography of the city changed during the building program of Augustus and throughout the Empire, no description of the ethnic neighborhoods, and no larger geographical description of the Provinces, only two of which are even named in the "Provinces" section. That section is a very thin and confused account of government, without anything about taxation (given the smallest of mentions in other sections), nor indications of the range of ethnicities or who these subject peoples were.

To repeat my comment from Talk:Roman Empire, the "Culture" section is a mere hodgepodge: for instance, we move from slavery in one paragraph to a paragraph on the Campus Martius for no apparent reason. In the paragraph on Latin literature, no historian is named (no Tacitus or Suetonius), and the emphasis is on Vergil, who just barely qualifies as an Imperial writer (he was born under the Republic and died less than a decade after Octavian assumed the title Augustus). No description of Greek literature of the Roman Empire (Plutarch, for one). Also, the section misses a fundamental distinction between the way the Romans thought of "the arts" and the way we do: people at even the highest ranks of society might practice literature (this was an aspect of elite education), whereas the performing arts and visual arts were mainly created by either free people of below-equestrian rank or by slaves. "Oratory" (characteristic of the Republic, as in Cicero) is confused with "rhetoric" (as in Quintilian); this should reflect the change from a republic in which citizens participated in politics through free speech and persuasion (oratory), to the subordination of the citizen to the emperor and the need to parse carefully what you say (rhetoric). No mention of imperial panegyric as a characteristic literary form distinguishing Imperial literature from Republican. There is one passing mention of "calendar with a leap year," but nothing about holidays and ludi (games) as they were celebrated in the Empire. The "Culture" section seems to deal with "ancient Rome" in general, not the specific culture of the Empire, as if nothing changed from 500 BC to 200 AD.

There's no paragraph on Roman law, even though this is one of the major "Legacy" contributions of ancient Rome. Roman roads are mentioned only in "Legacy." Aqueducts in Rome only are mentioned in one sentence, where one learns (or at least this was strange to me) that they had something to do with importing wine and oil; aqueducts in the provinces go unmentioned, even though the most famous examples are not in Italy, and we should certainly have a photo of the Pont du Gard or Aqueduct of Segovia in the article.

In the current version, the sections on Religion and Languages seem disproportionately long, without being sufficiently informative. The Languages section wanders into "Literature" and "Education," and makes claims in the last two paragraphs that require citations.

Ten times we are told that something is "important," often enough to indicate that the word is a non-informative stopgap for actually saying something.

A more conventional encyclopedic structure would go something like (the order might vary):

• Geography, provinces, topography of Imperial Rome, demography, and languages: What is the Roman Empire?
• Government: How was the Roman Empire governed?
• Society: How was Roman society structured, and in what sense were provincials "Roman"?; also, questions of citizenship and rights, and the gradual extension thereof; the status of free women and of slaves, etc.
• Military: a description of the armed forces and their role in acquiring and maintaining the Empire (highly deficient in its present state: we're told nothing about the legions after Augustus; we're not told what kind of combat units the auxilia were; the military hierarchy is not described, or who the enlisted men were as distinguished from the officers; the immense importance of the military in Imperial history isn't summarized at all; there's no summary section of the history of structural changes to the military in contrast to the Republican army).
• History: I just merged the two sections "History" and "Military History," which repeated the entire chronology from beginning to end with slightly different emphases and a great deal of overlap. ("Military History" had been lifted from a somewhat earlier version of Campaign history of the Roman military, so even if it hadn't replicated content within the article, at best it should've been a summary section.) Most important, this is mostly just a chronology of events (who killed who next) that could more readably be reduced to a timeline; there's not really much history as such.
• Culture: This needs to be organized in subtopics: Daily life, Education, Literature, Religion, Performing arts and games, Art and Architecture, and whatever. Strangely, the word "gladiator" appears only once in the entire article, under the Imperial cult section. There's no link to Ancient Roman pottery anywhere, even though the manufacture of pottery was of major economic importance as well as a representative item in experiencing daily life. No annona, no mention of "bread and circuses".
• Economy: Imports/exports, trade routes, banking, and slavery are major omissions here, as are occupations for working people (such as textiles and pottery).
• Legacy: perversely, this section mentions some of the most important topics (taxation, roads, bureaucracy, law) that aren’t even addressed in the article.

There are a number of capable editors who have contributed to Roman Empire, and pointing out that it doesn't meet GA standards at present in no way disparages their efforts. There are books and books written on the subject, and boiling it down to a readable, well-organized encyclopedia article that's useful for its most likely readers is an extremely difficult task. But the coverage gaps are significant. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest that at this point, the instability of the article should disqualify it from GA status. There's been a flurry of contentious editing, and massive additions of content merely copied from other articles—and not digested as summary sections. I would urge an uninvolved party to remove the GA status for now. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cynwolfe's thoughful comments point out several key deficiencies in the article. I agree with most of his points; for example, the Economy section only addressed coinage and mining/metallurgy, omitting key subjects like agriculture and trade.

Overall the article is quite impressive, yet it doesn't meet GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Agree with Majoreditor on the Economy section in particular. Without reviewing in detail, I'm also inclined to agree with Cynwolfe, though not all that editor's points would need to be addressed at GA level - some however would be, eg, roman law as legacy. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a lot has changed about the article over the last month, though since I've done most of it I can't speak to its quality. I've mostly engaged in a frantic effort to address the gaps. There's a Roman law section now, for instance. Trade and labor remain a major deficiency under "Economy"; the "Education" section needs to expand to two or three paragraphs and include something about literacy and numeracy ('m working on that); and the section on "The arts" is tragically still almost non-existent. When I've sketched in all the sections I plan to contribute, I'll go back and try to reduce the overall size by doing some spinoff articles. One of the feedback comments I've been seeing on a lot of articles dealing with classical antiquity is a desire for more images, so I've been trying to include a range of images (Roman sculpture, Roman painting, and photographs of Roman structures) that support the text closely. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you've been busy and it is certainly much better. I didn't read the article right through, so may have missed some improvements. To me, the issue that jumped out was the poor "economy" section. But if an editor sorts that out then, together with your other changes, it may deserve to stay at GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly a much improved article and much closer to a GA than when I opened this review, with better coverage and just some specific sections needing improvement. I think taking a look at what can be spun off into new articles and briefly summarised is a good idea. Congratulations on all the very hard work so far.--SabreBD (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Update

A lot of work still going on. Do we have a rough timeframe for when it will be at GA standard? I think important articles like this deserve a bit longer to get fixed, but it has been a while. AIRcorn (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to take another look at the article sometime in the next couple of weeks. Majoreditor (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I will indeed savor the characteristic Wikipedia irony if, after spending six weeks of my life doing little but working on this article, I will have caused it to be demoted from GA status. I wonder whether someone would actually care to help with this task? I can't even get anyone to spend a little time looking for the source for the currency denominations listed at Roman Empire#Currency and banking, which evidently were considered sound enough that they originally appeared in the hideous infobox. Complicating matters is that supposed "main" articles are either grossly insufficient as a resource to point readers toward, or they fail to distinguish between culture in, say, the 3rd century BC and the 3rd century AD. In trying to produce sections, I have managed to generate content that's too much for the Roman Empire article, and yet not structured as an independent article. For instance, I have now whittled my section on "Literacy, books and education", intended to replace the feeble Roman Empire#Education, down to this monstrosity: User:Cynwolfe/literacy and education in the Roman Empire, while "Food and drink" sprawls in rough draft at User:Cynwolfe/food and drink in the Roman Empire. Because we are trying to address omissions that aren't covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, I still think the GDP table need not appear in main Roman Empire article, because it's provided at Roman economy, but it was put back after I deleted it. So I don't really know how to proceed. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this area at all, but the issues brought up originally were coverage and sourcing. The coverage looks pretty good (we only really require the main topics to be addressed, not necessarily have in-depth dissection). The sourcing is still an issue, Political legacy in particular. I am thinking that if you can sort out that section and their are no other disagreements from other editors then we can close this as keep. That should allow you to make further improvements without the GAR hanging over the article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Added some sources myself. Would there be any objection to closing this as keep. AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to closing as keep. I think the two major issues raised above have been resolved and it now easily meets the GA criteria. Many thanks to those who took the initiative over this and put in all the hard work: it really has been a massive improvement and Wikipedia editing at its best.--SabreBD (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)