Talk:Hadrian/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to meet you Cerme. I'll take up this review, reviewing against the 6 good article criteria (WP:GA?). Firstly, I'd like to say... what an article! It's clear you've put a lot of careful work into this article and having read it in depth now twice I'd say it's definitely of good article quality in my mind. That said I will take another few days to read carefully again, check for copyright violation, check the images and so forth. I am sorry you've had to wait so long but many thanks for your edits to this article on Wikipedia.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	At first glance - yes. Will thoroughly work through article in 2-3 days
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Eminently - multitude of sources provided. Will verify segments of article to ensure factual integrity. One or two areas lacking citations - I'll note any that are not common sense will
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, and in a very easy to read manner
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

I will update this within 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to thoroughly go through the article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Article is stable. Article is neutral.

Prose in general. I must admit I find this article quite hard to read. To improve the readability, I suggest --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add "AD" or "CE" to quantify dates
Provide if possible dates for some major events, because this can help the reader form a timeline.
For many sentences, shift the emphasis to what happened to Hadrian (ie. "Hadrian became the legate in AD 98, after promotion by Trajan") rather than, for example, "Trajan promoted Hadrian, who became legate in AD 98"
Use the english equivalent terms where possible for roman positions or places, or provide the modern equivalents where possible
Remove conjunctions such as "However", "Also" and so on unless really necessary
Provide some context around important characters and events - eg "emperor Nerva", "the legion XXX"

At the moment, Hadrian's lifelong achievements are covered alongside almost a timeline of his reign. This makes it confusing because we are constantly alternating between achievements year by year, to suddenly commentary on his reign as a whole. Because Hadrian is covered in such depth, and the article is quite long, it's hard to take all that information in a useful way without feeling overwhelmed or confused. What do you think about separating this into two sections - such as "Reign" and "Achievements" or "Legacy" or "Relationships". I feel such a separation would go a long way to improving the prose and readability of the article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I do feel a "Relationships" section would be extremely useful - covering 3-4 major relationships including "Trajan", "Senate", "Antonius". The information could be moved from other sections, making both the timeline clearer and an idea of his major relationships clearer too.

I will also go through the prose section by section below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your comments, Cerme. I'm happy to discuss what I've said and don't intend for it to be prescriptive. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addit: My goodness, looks like you're involved heavily in two lengthy GA reviews as it stands. I'm happy to put this on hold for 2-3 weeks while you attend to those. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close review of text[edit]

Sources[edit]

Suggest "We lack a continuous account of the political history of Hadrian's reign, as is the case with his predecessor, Trajan", to retain focus on Hadrian
What we have in the way of such an account," - "What we have is..." shorter
"As in the case of Trajan, using epigraphical, numismatic, archaeological and other non-literary sources is absolutely necessary in tracing a detailed historical account." - source lacking
"Hadrian's biography is generally considered to be relatively free of fictional additions" - his official biography? at odds with the sentence beforehand

Early life[edit]

"Although it was an accepted part of Hadrian's personal history that he was born in Spain, " - do you mean, in Roman times? Otherwise based on the first paragraph I'd shorten this to "Despite this,"
"from a well-established Roman family with centuries-old roots in Italica, Hispania Baetica (the republican Hispania Ulterior), near the present-day location of Seville, Spain." - citation
"His paternal great-grandmother is of unknown origin, which means that the exact amount of his paternal ancestry that can actually be linked to Italy (outside of nonspecific claims of forebears from Picenum from centuries earlier) is ultimately unknown." - citation
Slight change made to prose - ancestry in paragraph 1, moved father to paragraph 2
"Hadrian was schooled in various subjects particular to young aristocrats of the day, and was so fond of learning Greek literature that he was nicknamed Graeculus ("Greekling")." - citation
Readability - hard to follow italic place names, a map adjoining this would be very useful.
"Hadrian visited Italica when (or never left it until) he was 14 years old" - years are used mostly for chronology - I suggest "14 years old (76 AD)"

Public service[edit]

Suggest link "cursus"
"Hadrian's first military service was as a tribune of the Legio II Adiutrix. Exceptionally" - (1) would be useful to have a date to put this in perspective. (2) suggest reword "Legio II Adiutrix" to point out that it's a roman legion
"his adoption by Nerva" - suggest add "emperor Nerva" for context
"thorough military career[17]" his career is just beginning? Suggest qualify this
"and gave Hadrian an advantage" - an advantage to do what? I suggest state this directly
"From then on he began to be surrounded by stories about omens and portents that supposedly announced his future imperial condition" - stories in the populace? in the histories? suggest clarify
I don't know what this sentence means "It is also noteworthy, however, that Trajan did not make Hadrian a Patrician, so as to allow him to become consul earlier, without having to hold the office of tribune.[23]" so I suggest rewrite to "Trajan, to allow Hadrian to become consul earlier, did not make Hadrian a Patrician, an unusual and noteworthy choice."
"During the First Dacian War" no date, so it's hard to mentally picture a timecourse
"Therefore, if Hadrian had received the signal honour of assuming the tribunate of the plebs a year earlier than was customary, at the same time he departed early from both Dacian campaigns – " again, not sure what is meant here
"It was at this time" - I suggest state the time, and it's unclear - do you mean when he was tribune or at the time of the second Dacian campaign?
"Also, he counted on..." I suggest for clarity remove "Also" in this and the succeeding sentence

"His career before becoming emperor, as attested epigraphically in the Athens inscription, follows:" - I suggest this is put in a table beside the text, it would ake the text much easier to follow
"Hadrian was involved in the wars against the Dacians (as legate of the V Macedonica and reputedly won awards from Trajan for his successes. Hadrian's military skill is not well-attested due to a lack of military action during his reign; however, his keen interest in, and knowledge of, the army and his demonstrated skill of leadership show possible strategic talent." - needs a citation, and doesn't follow from the text beforehand
I suggest a subheading "Death of Trajan" following the above.

Emperor[edit]

Securing power[edit]

"Therefore, Hadrian had to act on his own to secure his newly won position." - needs citation, and at odds with the fact that Attianus' helps him.
Suggest link "Jewish revolt that had broken out under Trajan" to the respective article

To be continued as nominator begins to respond to concerns above... --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LT910001 and Cerme, where does this review stand? It has been more than 9 days since the last comment on the review page, and approximately the same amount of time since the last non-IP edit to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, looks like you're involved heavily in two lengthy GA reviews as it stands. I'm happy to put this on hold for 2-3 weeks while you attend to those. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize- I missed that. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. Unfortunately, good article nominees can languish for months before a review, and then all of a sudden start getting reviewed. It seems unfair for poor Cerme to deal with 3 quite large reviews simultaneously, so I've put this on hold until they are freed up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LT910001 and Cerme, it has now been just beyond 3 weeks since LT910001 said that he would give the article 2-3 weeks as a result of Cerme being busy with other reviews. However, it appears that those reviews are over, as Cerme has made no edits since April 10. Therefore, can something be done to ensure that this review is acted upon? Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99, you make a good point. I'm sorry to hear that Cerme hasn't made any edits and will conclude the review below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Many thanks to Cerme and other editors who have put a lot of effort into improving this article. That said, it's not yet ready to be called a "good article" as I have described below. Something that would make a big difference to the article as I have said is separating legacy issues from a timeline of Hadrian's rule. The prose also needs a thorough clean-up, and additional references are needed before this article becomes a good article. Please don't feel disheartened, this article about a fascinating and impactful man may take some time to improve, but I look forward to seeing it renominated in 6-12 months :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm now just far too busy to work in the article. I understand the GA nomination cannot remain open for ever. When I'm free, I will begin tackling Hadrian and then Trajan later. Cerme (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. There is no deadline :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]