Talk:Constantine II (emperor)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Nominator: Snowsoftime (talk · contribs) 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 06:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. First comments to follow soon. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is very short. Per MOS:LEAD, it should stand on its own as a summary of the article: in general, each paragraph of the body normally becomes a sentence-length summary in the lead.
Date ranges that are just years don't have a space on either side of the dash.
I would suggest clarifying a little about who Constantine the Great and Fausta were.
Constantine II was born in Arles in 316 and raised as a Christian.: the source puts an important probably before all of this.
DeMaio and Frakes cite a lot of sources that don't seem to be in the article. Have you made use of them?
The publisher "Brill" isn't all-capitalised.
I'm not happy with declaring the PLRE wrong based solely on the fact that another author disagrees with it: scholars disagree all the time. What reason do we have to pick Barnes's side? Can we give any indication of the consensus? Otherwise, we need to write something like "Barnes disagrees with the statement of the PLRE [that...], on the grounds that..."
On which, PLRE is a work title: it should be italicised and, on first mention at least, spelled out.
Latin should always be in language templates, and usually italicised. This is true for links as well (put the whole link into the template).
In titles of works, normalise ALL CAPS to title case (MOS:CONFORM)
People's initials usually have a space after them (A. H. M. Jones)
MOS:' prefers e.g. Constantius's to Constantius'
Gibbon isn't cited in the article (and, frankly, shouldn't be): what's he doing in the bibliography, and at the bottom of it?
VICTORIA CAESAR N N ~~isn't virtue of our caesar; it's victory of our Caesars (the double N is for a plural, like CONCORDIA AUGG).~~ on second reading, this inscription isn't correctly transcribed here.
We are inconsistent about whether Caesar and Augustus have a capital letter.
Journal titles are automatically given double quotes around them, so turn any quote marks within them into single quotes.
Why are some books cited in full in the references and others in the Sources? We should be consistent.
Missed capital letter in The successors of Constantine.
It's true that Constantine II was the eldest son of Constantine and Fausta, but we should be clear that he wasn't Constantine's eldest son.
Even after campaigning successfully against the Alamanni in 338, he continued to maintain his position: Constantine or Constans?
Constans then took control of his deceased brother's realm, who seem to have been largely unaffected by their change in ruler: who doesn't really work here; we need a new noun ("whose inhabitants"?)
After his death, Constantine was subjected to damnatio memoriae, which his other brother Constantius II also followed: the last clause here is ambiguous.
There are a few technical terms that would benefit from an explanation: damnatio memoriae, Codex Theodosianus, caesar, Augustus.
I think it might be worth mentioning his three consulships and various victory titles (e.g. Germanicus maximus).
There's a few useful bits here, especially on religion.