Talk:Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Work permit (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll be reviewing the article. This is my first review, so please be patient.--Work permit (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go through a more diligent review, I'll share my quick high level observations.

The article appears Factually accurate and verifiable. A quick sport check of references indicates the statements are consistent with the references, and most statements have been properly sourced. I will check all references in my formal review.

It clearly is stable, since the editor has essentially created this article in a few days.

It is illustrated; if another picture could be found that would be nice, but not at all essential.

I believe it needs more content to be Broad in it's coverage. The lede sentence states it is "a well known phrase", but there is no mention of "well known uses". For example, Gerome's painting is included but no mention is made of it in the article. I assume there must be other examples of the use of this "well known phrase", in literature, art, cinema, or popular culture. Without devolving into a "trivia section", a well worded section on its popularization in modern culture would be appreciated, if sources exist to support it. In my formal review, I'll check references to see if such content could be added. Needless to say, if sources don't exist to justify the addition, this is not a valid criticism.

I believe it is neutral, but this will need more work on my part to verify. Despite becoming widely popularized in later times, the phrase is not known elsewhere in Roman history, and it is questionable whether it was ever a customary salute, as is often believed. It was more likely an isolated appeal by desperate captives and criminals condemned to die, and noted by contemporaneous historians in part for the unusual mass reprieve granted to the survivors. is a loaded statement, is there any source that would disagree? I'll need to check. Given the sources you gave (I did check all of them), I believe the answer is "yes", this is correct. But I feel I should do a broader search beyond the sources you provided.

I'll need to read it more carefully to see if there are any awkward phrases. It's generally well written, I imagine there will be some tweaking of phrases. For example, "Variant wordings include "Ave Caesar" and "salutamus",[2] a 1st person salutation ("We who are about to die")," I have my "dumb hat" on right now, so its a bit difficult form me to follow. You may want to give the ENTIRE phrase, ie Variant wording include "Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant" etc etc. Or Variants include substituting Caesar for Imperator (then explain the difference for the dumb people like me), or "salutamus" for "salutant" (again, explanation)". The wording in the article is generally terse. Slowly walking through the statements made in the article would benefit the general wikipedia reader who will be attracted to this article by the catch statement "Hey! did you know Hail Caeasar, those who are about to die salute you" is "really a crock". I will have my "smart hat" on in the formal review (ie rested without ten other things on my mind), so this observation may not be valid.

There's no need for the editor to respond to any of the above observations. Just digest them for now, and see if my comments are useful to you. This is, as I said, a quick scan, and I may be wrong on some or all of my points. In addition, I may have more substantive comments in my more diligent review, including reference to wp:guidelines. As I said, this diligent review may take me a week or so complete, since I've never done this before and have limited time before this weekend to even start. But given how quickly the editor works, I felt I should share these initial thoughts. ONLY IF any of them resonate, please feel free to make changes while I plod along getting a real review in place. This article may be wp:FA by then :) --Work permit (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments in the same order:

Noting you described it as stable, and with amusement that it's easy for a new article to be stable. That said it's been there a few days and a number of users experienced in this field have been asked to check it and not had problems, so it bodes well. My own thoughts are that the real question "is it disputed or likely to greatly change", and that's a lot easier to answer - no real basis to believe it would be likely to be anything except stable, considering the sources, scope, and views covered.
A picture of Claudius (the speaker) would be nice. I was pondering which one earlier. Perhaps not the sculpture, that's tired. A coin maybe? Give some other picture a bit of light rather than the same ones all the time? I'll look at Commons.
Coverage - footnote #3 of the GA guidelines indicates broad coverage but not needing to be "comprehensive" or cover every major fact. The "trivia" section was removed by other editors (in 2 minds on that, it was not long and it is a phrase that resonates in popular culture). But criticism sought regardless as it will improve the article and comprehensiveness is needed at FA. If possible distibguish what's needed (as you see it) for GA and what's desirable or good practice beyond.
I'll be interested to see what your further thoughts are on terseness and style etc.

Looking forward to it all - but we all have real lives so "as possible" is fine,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regarding a picture, anything would be nice, But that leads into #3, talking about it. I'm coming to appreciate that my comments may more appropriate to wp:FAC then GA. I'm being really hard on this article in my quick review, perhaps because I know you want me to be. You did say you wanted to take it to wp:FAC :). I'm still working out in my mind what is the difference. For example, I'm planning on checking all of the sources you provide (something unusual in a GA article review). Regrading terseness, my current observations may be most useful to you. When I get my "smart hat" on, I will lose the objective view of most readers. I'm not sure you realize this, but you have created an ENORMOUS amount of real content in a few days. This content may be hard to swallow by the average reader. Of course, it may pass GA, but I see from your work you are looking well beyond that.--Work permit (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem that much when I did it..... is all I can say. As to the rest, thorough and hard is fine, you express it well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding terseness, take a day or two away from the article then read it again. You may see what I mean. Think "drinking through a fire hose". In the mean time, I'll actually read the criteria for a GA article and look through example reviews.--Work permit (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing between "broad" vs. "comprehensive" is something I'm still working through. I understand the theory, but my gut feeling is that "broad" should include something about "modern" usage. Not to worry, if you don't find it, I will by reference to appropriate sources (or retract my "gut" feeling).--Work permit (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have something on modern widespreadness of usage. (It's also used in a bunch of other languages but harder to cite there.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a bit more on the lake itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested grammatical changes[edit]

I'm not a very good copy editor. The following are only suggestions:

Source variations and interpretation[edit]

replace a number of with several or some--Work permit (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural background[edit]

change large scale to large-scale--Work permit (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

better wording for individual gladiatorial combat. I assume you don't mean an individual gladiator self-flagellating himself :) Do you mean a match between two gladiators?--Work permit (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

break up run on sentence that starts Julius Caesar held an event. Perhaps just change semi-colons to periods--Work permit (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in roman times[edit]

Break up the parenthetical, run on sentence that starts (A striking example. Also, don't make it parenthetical.--Work permit (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in modern times[edit]

Better phrase for modern image of Roman customs. Not sure what. replace image with perception?--Work permit (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replace peer reviewed with peer-reviewed--Work permit (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is one, long sentance. I know you didn't want the section, but no need to rush it so quickly :)--Work permit (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: