Wikipedia:Peer review/Halotus/archive1

Halotus

Ok, I am effectively closing this because it is largely inactive, but further comments are still appreciated. I will take the comments of Andplus and put them to work in the article some time in future, but I do not have a huge amount of time on my hands at the moment, since school has restarted. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While FA might still be a bit of a "Pie in the Sky", so to speak, for this article, I think this has the potential, and I was wanting to know where possible improvements might be made: where the wording might be a bit questionable, which parts leave you hungry for new information, and how the article could generally be improved. Any amount of help with the article would also be infinitely appreciated.

Thanks,

-- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely has featured potential, and with your recent expansion I think that it might come sooner rather than later. I'll have a thorough read through later with more comments, but I'll just make a few comments now:

You've done really well with the image captions (e.g. the one with Claudius, Agrippina, the Nero painting) but with the Galba coin and the Nero figure, the captions could be better.
- Done - do they still need to be made better? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some dates are formatted with the included "AD" (e.g. 68 AD) and some are not; either style is fine, but whatever you choose it must be consistent throughout the whole article.
- I'll re-read the whole thing and chose a certain format. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is List of poisonings really relevant to the article's subject enough to have its own spot in See also? I can understand Food poisoning and Assassination, but List of poisonings doesn't seem to be of much relevance, IMO.
- Done - after further thought, I agree. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, you've worked really hard on this and if it does become featured this is something to be very proud of. Keep it up! :) ~ Sebi _[talk] 09:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to leave some comments on the talk page, but I assume here is better. I'm afraid this may appear rather hard but I hope these short comments will help you improve the article. It is a rather difficult subject to tackle and I think you may be better advised to deal with the death of Claudius in an article of its own rather than trying to expand the articles of the suspects in this manner. That said:

The secondary sources quoted are of variable quality (1728 Cyclopaedia as source for a substantive argument?) and the conclusions drawn from the primary sources seem to be largely in contradiction to what those sources state. Josephus is less sure that Claudius was murdered, not less sure that he died of natural causes. Though Claudius was voted divine honours, according to Suetonius Nero conveniently forgot about it and then cancelled it. No primary source states Claudius was in Sinuessa.^[1] I don't know of a source that states he died on the 12th.^[2] Which source refers to herbs as the method of administration of poison?^[3] Which sources affords equality in the line of succession to Britannicus and Nero?^[4] Tacitus and Suetonius are called "writers of the time" whereas it is likely neither were born in 54.^[5] The article focuses on his possible role the poisoning of Claudius while at the same time attempting to avoid an in-depth discussion, overemphasising Halotus' role as result.^[6] Some conclusions are pure speculation: It is unknown how he died, or where, but the death may have been related to his controversial past. Indeed, and it may equally have been from an allergic reaction to nuts. Neither needs mentioning.^[7] Butler is an anachronism, chief steward would be better if servant doesn't suffice.^[8] A potted history of Nero's succession needs to include Claudius's previous sicknesses during which he was encouraged to to name Nero as his successor and his growing interest in Britannicus shortly before his death.^[9] No mention of the dinner with the priests of the Citadel as a location?^[10] Nero's insults to Claudius were post-mortem rather well-known beforehand (it's not a wise move to fall out with the Emperor when you want to be his successor).^[11] What are the primary sources for the later claims that Halotus became wealthy, had his reputation restored and kept his post until his death?^[12] Suetonius isn't translated as "important procuratorship" in all versions. Graves's translation states "important post as his agent".^[13] All the claims need associating with a source, or else we get a synthesised version of events (look at today's FA Orion (mythology) for one way of handling this or the recent one about the Colosseum for another).^[14] In addition, the writing is loose with lots of redundancy, vagueness, repetition and digression^[15] (do we need to know about mice being used as food testers?^[16]) and the citation style is sloppy (Tacitus The annals of Tacitus, page 145M?^[17]). Well, you asked for it! Andplus 11:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These online versions of Josephus and Cassius Dio be useful if you haven't seen them already: [1] [2] Andplus 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll take a look at all these things. As you say, you make lots of comments, but most things are minor; I'll take a look tomorrow. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nature of your comments (all conglomerate), I am going to place refs on things I have addressed, and comment that way:

^ - yes: Tac. Ann. XII 66, thats good enough
^ That was my mistake; fixed
^ Another mistake; fixed
^ Each day I am working towards implementing more bulk of information. The whole affair with Brittanicus was something I was going to implememnt today or tomorrow
^ They dont have to have been born in 54 to have written about it; they could have been born a hundred years later and still made accurate comments
^ I dont understand what you mean by "in-depth" discussion. Halotus' role is the focus because this is an article on Halotus, and the info shouldn't digress far from him, IMO
^ True, my mistake.
^ Done
^ SAgain, information I was going to implement soon
^ I never found a source relating to any Ciytadel. If you have one, please implement it yourself, and it would be greatly appreciated
^ Where did I say they weren't post-mortem?
^ Tacitus The annals of Tacitus, page 145 states that it was a wealthy procuratorship, and that he was saved by Galba. Wealthy indicates that he became rich
^ So? What is your point? The translations might vary, but most do call it an "important procuratorship". I can't help that not all translations are the same, can I?
^ Most are sourced. TBH, this is a fairly well-sourced article for its size, with 1 ref for every 500 bytes. If you can further point out what needs reffing, I would be glad to sort it out
^ PLease provide examples of fragments of text where writing needs imrpoving. Your comment is very unspecific.
^ Yeah, I see your point there; fixed
^ Fixed that particular one up. Any other examples?

I can see this quickly degenerating into a formatting mess, so I'll reply here numbered according to your referenced list:

1)The "he" there refers to Narcissus. The Church/Brodribb translation doesn't make this as clear as Graves but due to the poor referencing I'm unable to see which translation you are using.

3)Herbs have been excised but gruel needs including

4)I will take a look when it is added, but you should consider cutting the existing material rather than adding to the digression.

5)Indeed, but the article doesn't claim that, it claims they were writers of the time. At least put them in context. They may be the most accurate accounts we have, but they aren't eyewitnesses. Josephus was a writer of the time, but not in Rome. Seneca the Younger is closest but isn't mentioned (and quite rightly in my opinion, see point 6)

6)This is my objection to the expansion of this article. The death of Claudius should be in an article of its own so the events around it can be discussed in a balanced manner. Here you focus on Halotus, mentioning Locusta and Xenophon only in passing which gives undue weight to his possible role in the possible poisoning. It speculates about Halotus's involvement with Agrippina, his role in the household, and reasons for his castration. If the FA system demands that you cover the death of Claudius in this depth in this article then, in my opinion, that system is broken. We know only a few details about Halotus, and those are the details that the article should cover.

10)Suetonius: Claudius, 44 (just about any translation, though not all mention the priests)

11)The ease of his succession "can be at least partially attributed to Nero's very well-known opinions of Claudius" (leaving aside the fact that this again seems to be speculation)

12)I'm unable to comment on that because p145 in an unknown edition is too imprecise for me to be able to look it up. That said, if you've based the statements I queried on that fragment, you are at most covering one of them (a wealthy procuratorship doesn't necessarily mean the individual would become personally wealthy)

13)No, you can't, but a discussion of this rather than the digression into Nero's succession and murder of Agrippina would be suited to this article. I mentioned it merely because you tried to make a case for insisting on using "procuratorship" in the GA review on the grounds that it is what Suetonius uses.

14)Tying statements to inline citations isn't sufficient in an article of this type in my opinion. Do look at those articles I linked to see how they handle analysing the differing versions. Where do primary sources agree on a point and where do they differ? Where do different translations allow for differing interpretations? This approach will also focus the article away from speculative arguments. If one source says he was a steward you can avoid promoting him to chief steward and constant companion of the Imperial family.

15)Your writing style is rather verbose and it would be too time consuming to list possible copy improvements. Please get it copy edited by somebody else when you have finished.

17)Most worryingly ref #4 seems to have been lifted wholesale from Agrippina the Younger which I assume is how the wrong interpretation of Josephus arose. #8, #9, #23 and #27 all reference Suetonius. Why not use a single version of the primary source, unless translations differ on important aspects? If that is the reason, then that should be discussed. #13, #14, #16 and #17 all refer to Suetonius using differing styles and without reference to the version. There are further digressions of this type in later refs: 30, 31, 34 and 36 for example. Suetonius is quoted second-hand in ref #26 when you have the primary source available in at least four versions. Why? Tacitus is cited in a number of differing versions (including the mysterious page 145) and is usefully linked to the wikisource version in places but not in others. Scramuzza and Levick are mentioned in a footnote without references provided for their works (again because the footnote has been lifted wholesale from another article, this time Claudius).

Again, I'm sorry if this appears harsh. I'd like to see a good article on Halotus. Andplus 11:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - yes: Tac. Ann. XII 66, thats good enough

[2] That was my mistake; fixed

[3] Another mistake; fixed

[4] Each day I am working towards implementing more bulk of information. The whole affair with Brittanicus was something I was going to implememnt today or tomorrow

[5] They dont have to have been born in 54 to have written about it; they could have been born a hundred years later and still made accurate comments

[6] I dont understand what you mean by "in-depth" discussion. Halotus' role is the focus because this is an article on Halotus, and the info shouldn't digress far from him, IMO

[7] True, my mistake.

[8] Done

[9] SAgain, information I was going to implement soon

[10] I never found a source relating to any Ciytadel. If you have one, please implement it yourself, and it would be greatly appreciated

[11] Where did I say they weren't post-mortem?

[12] Tacitus The annals of Tacitus, page 145 states that it was a wealthy procuratorship, and that he was saved by Galba. Wealthy indicates that he became rich

[13] So? What is your point? The translations might vary, but most do call it an "important procuratorship". I can't help that not all translations are the same, can I?

[14] Most are sourced. TBH, this is a fairly well-sourced article for its size, with 1 ref for every 500 bytes. If you can further point out what needs reffing, I would be glad to sort it out

[15] PLease provide examples of fragments of text where writing needs imrpoving. Your comment is very unspecific.

[16] Yeah, I see your point there; fixed

[17] Fixed that particular one up. Any other examples?

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]