Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death of Cleopatra/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2018 [1].

Death of Cleopatra[edit]

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to raise the article Cleopatra to FA status earlier this year and, in my humble estimation, this current GA-status article deserves to sit on the same mantelpiece. It is much shorter than the main article, but still manages to cover all the relevant topics with a decent amount of detail. The images used in the article are all highly illustrative of the topic and either public domain or otherwise freely and properly sourced. For those who love history, the arts, and popular culture, and how they all intertwine, this should be an entertaining read for you, especially towards the end. Enjoy! Pericles of AthensTalk 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Mr rnddude[edit]

History? of course. I'm eyeing up a few articles to review, but as this one hasn't received any yet, I'll start with it.

  • Further reading & References
  • There are quite a few "errors" showing up for me:
  • "Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (26 with; 11 without)" - Needs consistency I believe I've dealt with it Nvm, it introduced new mostly invisible errors.
  • "Missing identifier" for sources: Olga Ellia (1955) - ISSN, JSTOR, etc; Plutarch (1920) - OCLC; Bunch-a-news sites that probably don't have them so I'm ignoring 'em.
  • Mati Milstein (30 May 2008) - link does not work
  • Some p/pp errors for citations 16, 59, 60, 90, 91, 104, 129, and 139
  • Citations 112 and 115 has "hyphens in pg. range" which should be an endash
  • Citation 105 (Varner, 2004) has a harv error, it doesn't link to anything because it's missing from the references. I suspect you're looking for: {{cite book |last=Varner |first=Eric |year=2004 |title=Mutilation and transformation: damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture |publisher=Brill Academic |isbn=90-04-13577-4}}. Be aware though that this is missing location as well, though should probably be location=Leiden, Boston if I know anything about Brill.

Ok that's the basic errors noted. I'll get into the reading now tomorrow actually. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mr rnddude: Hello! I will try to answer all of your questions:
  • "Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (26 with; 11 without)": I looked through this carefully, and it appears that the only references missing location details are news articles and journal articles. I'm not obligated to present that information, though, which is only necessary for published books as far as I know. I've never had this complaint before, to be honest, that journal articles are missing publication locations. Usually a DOI (digital object identifier) will suffice in this case, or even just a JSTOR link after the name of the particular journal is given.
  • "Missing identifier": I've looked tirelessly for these and cannot find them. For that matter, Tufts University's Perseus Digital Library quotes Plutarch's Lives translated by Perrin and published by Harvard University Press in 1920, but ultimately I'm citing the online source, NOT Perrin's book directly. As for Elia's journal article, I'm sorry, but apparently it is so obscure that a DOI, JSTOR link, ISSN or other identifier simply cannot be found. If you can find it, by all means please add it to the article, but I think it is a fruitless endeavor and something as minor as that certainly shouldn't hold up an FA nomination.
  • Mati Milstein: this is so bizarre. I've never seen the National Geographic take down an online article. It apparently no longer exists! Well, I've seen it quoted in its entirety in someone's 2008 blog, but aside from that it doesn't exist anywhere else online anymore. I'm dumbfounded, really, but in the meantime I have gotten rid of that source and any material related to it. Such a shame. The Antony and Cleopatra's tomb section could use a bit more meat to it now that some information is missing. Strangely, I cannot find any other article online where Mary Beard is quoted or paraphrased as expressing her doubts about Taposiris Magna.
  • "Some p/pp errors": I'm happy to announce that I have fixed all of these now!
  • "hyphens in pg. range": I fixed these as well.
  • "Citation 105 (Varner, 2004) has a harv error": good catch! I have added Varner to the article. I'm not sure how I missed that one. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't able to get to this earlier, dealing with my own FAC.
  • For all intents and purposes, you're not obligated to do anything. I dealt with five of the eleven publisher locations myself, and those were for books (Refer here). The six that are currently giving me red text are all due to the use of citation rather than cite web/news/journal/etc templates. More specifically, you're using the "publisher" (which automatically requests location) instead of "periodical" parameter (for journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website per template documentation). I've replaced the parameter and hopefully fixes it.
  • The OCLC for Elia's article can be found here (reprinted 1956), the ISSN for the journal it was originally printed in here. WorldCat usually has something related to the publication.
  • Thanks for dealing with the other issues, and sorry about the NatGeo article. I'll try to get some time for the prose tomorrow or the day after. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: hello again! Thanks for responding. Yeah, the NatGeo article is a mystery to me. I actually came across that page on WorldCat for Olga Elia, but since it was 1956 instead of 1955 I moved on. I've decided to use it instead, since it's just a republication, and have amended the dates for the source and citations in the article. I also added the OCLC number for Elia (1956). I'm very glad to hear you were able to solve the other issue about periodicals. Please let me know if there are any other technical issues that need fixing. I am eager to see your review of the prose, but I will wait patiently for that. Take all the time you need! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: hello again. It's been roughly a week since you responded here. Are you still interested in reviewing the article? If so I look forward to your continued input and advice. Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PericlesofAthens - My apologies for not getting back to it sooner; yes, I am still interested. I've had random things popping up all over the place that have been distracting me on Wiki – like Roses of Heliogabalus which had me suddenly scanning Herodian's history last night looking for his descriptions of Elagabalus to settle the question of "who in the picture is Heliogabalus". I've mostly been letting Ceoil handle their review since there's some restructuring of the article going on. I'll touch on it tonight. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
  • Note 6 - Hmm... Maloney certainly didn't say of their own account that they were conflating Plutarch's musings with Olympos' report, but I don't have access to Roller 2010 p.149, only 148. Does Roller bring up Maloney's report and make the comment about conflation? or is that your evaluation? I do appreciate the difficulty of coming across two contradictory statements and knowing full well that one is correct and the other wrong, such as I did here; but I'm checking for OR reasons.
  • You have instances of 1st-century BC an 1st century BC. Either with or without the dash, but consistent throughout.
  • Modern era
  • Why does "non-white" link to white people? or perhaps more pertinently, why is this a link at all? This article has a serious sea-of-blue (I mean overlinking) problem. The very first sentence of Prelude has 10 links alone. In fact, I'll start with that.
  • Overlinking problem:
  • Lede:
  • "Historians" does not need to be linked, and yes I'm aware it links to historiography, but you already have both Greek historiography and Roman historiography linked in the previous sentence. If the reader didn't read either of those two links, they aren't suddenly going to start reading the third; and if they read all three then by the time their finished they will have been too exhausted to read your article.
  • Cause of death does not need to be linked.
  • Why is "three of her children" linked to Reign of Cleopatra? it's just unnecessary.
  • Why is "Ptolemy XV" a link when it simply redirects to Caesarion? just to prove the point that Ptolemy XV is Caesarion?
  • Why are links for "eroticism", "sexuality" (linked to History of human sexuality) and "works" (linked to Erotic art) necessary?
  • Why is "cinema" linked?
  • Why are Pompeii, Cleopatra VII and Caesarion linked again in the caption of the image of the lede?
  • You can also delink "poisoned", "toxic", "snakebite", "primary source", and probably "province", "prose" and "poetry" as these are commonly understood terms, although the last three link to at least tangentially relevant articles.
  • Prelude
  • My poor eyes, assaulted by so much blue. "[P]laced under house arrest" does not need to link to Sicilian revolt which makes zero mention of a house arrest.
  • "[P]haraoh" <- I write articles on ancient Egyptian pyramids. I have never felt the need to link the reader to "pharaoh". Refer Pyramid of Neferirkare, Pyramid of Nyuserre, Pyramid of Unas and Pyramid of Djedkare Isesi. Why? because if you're reading about the pyramids you know what a goddamn pharaoh is. Gah.
  • "Roman territory" linked to "borders of the Roman empire". Why? Same question for "Roman citizen".
  • Following their defeat in the naval Battle of Actium at the Ambracian Gulf of Greece in 31 BC, Cleopatra and Antony retreated back to Egypt to recuperate and prepare for an assault by Octavian, whose forces grew larger with the surrender of many of Antony's officers and soldiers in Greece <- First you link Greece to "Greece in the Roman Era" and then in the same sentence you link it to "History of Greeece". You don't need either link.
  • Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra
  • "figs" linked to Common fig. <- I'm just... done. Why? what relevance does the fig have to anything?
  • You have enough work for the moment getting rid of the many links that are utterly unnecessary. There are a couple dozen other links I haven't mentioned, but that are possibly unnecessary as well. I'll get back to the prose tomorrow, it's midnight here. As a final note, links compete for reader attention, and many links are never clicked. On top of that, some of your links do not link to the articles one would expect them to, and that further reduces the chance of them being useful (e.g. Octavian links to Early life of Augustus instead of just Augustus). The lede for example currently has 62 article links. Two-thirds, according to WP:OL, of links are never clicked (~41/62), and the most of the rest are likely only to received occasional clicks. I could identify 22 (coincidentally ~35% or just over a third) potentially useful links. Fewer when you account that Octavian (second mention) and Augustus link to the same article, as do Caeserion and Ptolemy XV. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully Mr Pericles wont mind, but have started an audit, mostly of duplicate links, but certain other liberties have been taken. Am taking the approcah that some links are of more value than others, but the better ones will be drowned out if there are too many. Also, I dont believe we should link relatively common terms for non en speakers - most browsers contain hover over dictionary type things (I use this a lot when viewing on tablet esp.) Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mr rnddude and Ceoil: Thanks Ceoil for doing that, although I restored a few links that I think are still essential, like Battle of Actium, an incredibly relevant/high value link that is not a duplicate in the main prose body of text (that excludes any and all links in the lead section). You two will be happy to know I've removed the majority of links suggested above for removal. That being said, I do think "Roman citizenship" is still a useful link. Antony's status as a Roman citizen was the major reason why Cleopatra's military aid given to him was seen as unlawful by the Roman Senate and hence grounds for war. Readers should have access to further information about what Roman citizenship entailed. You are right, though, that "Borders of the Roman Empire" is excessive, and common fig is certainly excessive. LOL. Not sure why I felt the need to link that one. Is your only major concern with links? These are easy enough for me to remove, especially with the help of Ceoil. The linking issue aside, I will wait patiently for your review of the prose. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. If you feeling under pressure, note that neither of us has found or raised any substantive or fundamental issues with the page; this is all just now presentation stuff. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Well that's a relief! I will continue to peck at the article to see if there are other links that can and should be removed. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mr rnddude: as for the Maloney footnote thing, I have reworded that to include only his claims about Olympos. I think Roller's input is enough to just completely demolish whatever claim Maloney was making about Olympos (as it was Plutarch who quoted Olympos and only then related the tale of the asp), but I suppose I'm not allowed to directly compare scholarly sources like that, not unless they're talking about each other directly. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

  • Modern era
  • but a restoration and cleaning of the sculpture <- a isn't necessary here.
  • Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque periods
  • brings the two asps to Cleopatra <- the isn't necessary here.
  • The Sleeping Ariadne ... inspired the composition of Renaissance literature <- I don't think you meant to imply that this one statue inspired Renaissance literature, or its composition.
  • However, Chaucer's depiction of her suicide included a pit of serpents rather than the Roman tale of the asps <- I fail to see what "however" does for this sentence.
  • Tomb of Antony and Cleopatra
  • Dominican archaeologist Kathleen Martinez... <- I was asked myself what the purpose of noting the ethnicity of individuals was supposed to convey at my FA. Basically, relevance?
  • Aftermath
  • However, Caesarion would reign as Ptolemy XV <- does not contradict or contrast against previously given information, so does not need a "however". Change would reign to reigned.
  • This was done after the advice given by the can be tightened to This was done following the advice of

Ceoil is correct to note that so far, all concerns are easily addressable grievances. You still have a number of duplinks and many unnecessary links, but the prose (which is more important) is quite strong. There are a few very long sentences in the Depictions in art and literature section, but I haven't been able to come up with a way to tighten or split them into more manageable pieces. I'm about two thirds of the way through the article (in reverse) and will get back to this later. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: hello! Thanks for coming back. You'll be happy to know that I've addressed each and every one of your immediate concerns listed here, but I am also at a loss in deciding how to split apart some of the longer sentences in the article. I'll try to work on that. In the meantime, Ceoil and I have removed a ton of extraneous links from the article and I believe we eradicated any and all duplicate links in the main body of prose. Once again, removing "duplicate" links from image captions or footnotes (as you did with Ancient Macedonians, confusing it for a duplicate link in the main prose text) is a personal preference, not a rule of the MOS. I'm happy to remove further links at your request, but at this point I think the most egregious examples have been removed. I'm glad that you deem the prose to be sufficient enough for an FA quality article. I am happy and eager to address any further issues you have with sections you haven't gone over yet. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more work:

  • Cause of Death
  • According to Gregory Tsoucalas and Markos Sgantzos <- who and who? make sure the reader knows who people are, and why you're referring to them. Same with Maloney in the previous paragraph; who might equally be the longest serving member of the ALP, an engineer, and a Chief Economist for the WBG, as he might be a historian.
  • In her Murder of Cleopatra: History's Greatest Cold Case (2013) <- either "her work/book/dissertation/etc" or just "in Murder of Cleopatra.
  • and or <- and/or isn't it? though I'm not sure "and" is needed here. i.e. Cleopatra's personal physician Olympos, cited by Plutarch, mentioned neither a cause of death nor an asp bite or Egyptian cobra.
  • Date of death
  • There is no surviving records <- plural, should be "There are no surviving records"
  • You give full names of Duane W. Roller and James Grout both in this section and the next.
  • Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra
  • However, Cleopatra was able to deceive him and kill herself nevertheless - I don't think that both "however" and "nevertheless" are needed here. You could have written "Nevertheless, Cleopatra was able to deceive him and kill herself."
  • On arrival, in haste, <- the two comments pertain to the same action "breaking down the door", i.e. On arrival and in haste, the servant broke down her door...
  • Plutarch states that when she was found, her handmaiden Iras was dying at her feet and handmaiden Charmion adjusted Cleopatra's diademed crown before she herself fell - Can be tightened to "Plutarch states that she was found with her handmaidens Iras, dying at her feet, and Charmion, adjusting her diadem before she herself fell". Diademed isn't a word, and diadem means jewelled crown. Replace "diademed crown" with just "diadem".
  • she decided to avoid this humiliation and take her own life at age 39 - "decided" past tense, "take" present tense. Inconsistent. Should be "and took her own life". At age 39 can also be "aged 39", if you want it tighter, though entirely optional.
  • Plutarch elaborates how Cleopatra approached her suicide in an almost ritual process, preceded by bathing and then a fine meal including figs brought to her in a basket. - A bit of a wonky sentence. Is Plutarch's elaboration that she approached her suicide ritualistically, or does he elaborate on the ritual process itself? Equally, does the bathing and meal precede the suicide or the rituals? I suspect that the bath and meal are the "ritual process" being referred to.
  • Antony was still alive as he was carried into the tomb of Cleopatra - Antony was still alive as he was carried into Cleopatra's tomb.
  • Lede
  • The death of Cleopatra has been depicted in various works of art in ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern times - So... throughout history. Why not just say that? rather than listing every period since her death.
  • Cleopatra's death has also involved themes of eroticism and sexuality - Her death did? or its presentation in art has? possibly replace "has also involved" with "has evoked".

That's everything I've caught in my first pass. I'll look at it again in a few days to determine if a second pass is needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: hello! These are all very good criticisms and suggestions, so I have amended the article per your advice. I hope you view these recent changes and improvements as being sufficient enough to lift this article up to FA quality. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 23:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second pass
  • Although Antony was able to score a small victory over Octavian's tired troops as they approached Alexandria's hippodrome on 1 August 30 BC, Antony's naval fleet and cavalry defected to Octavian soon afterwards. - I think that second mention of "Antony" could be changed to "his". It just reads a little repetitively.
  • Cleopatra was allowed to embalm Antony's body before she was forcefully escorted to the palace and eventually met with Octavian .. - perhaps "where she eventually" rather than "and eventually".
  • which would seem to corroborate with Plutarch's account - not sure why "with" instead of just "corroborate Plutarch's account".
  • Other historians such as Florus and Velleius Paterculus supported the asp bite version - I think it might be helpful to put "contemporary" in here (Other contemporary historians) to distinguish them from modern historians.
  • In a miniature of a 1409 AD illuminated manuscript of the 14th-century AD poet Giovanni Boccaccio's Des cas de nobles hommes et femmes, the Boucicaut Master depicted Cleopatra and Antony lying together in a Gothic-style tomb, with a snake near Cleopatra's chest and a bloody sword through Antony's chest. - This sentence is convoluted.
  • However, they were countered by the 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer, who offered a positive view of Cleopatra. - I'm a bit sensitive to the use of "however" where it's not strictly necessary. E.g. "The 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer offers a positive view of Cleopatra, countering the typically negative depictions" or "The 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer counters these depictions, offering a positive view of Cleopatra instead."
  • Chaucer's depiction of her suicide - Given that the previous to sentences begin with "Chaucer", you may write "his" here.
  • The 17th-century Baroque painter Guido Reni depicted Cleopatra's death by asp bite, although the snake depicted is tiny compared to a real Egyptian cobra - Two instances of depicted in one sentence. Perhaps "albeit with a snake that is tiny compared ..."
  • That's all I have. The prose is in good shape otherwise, and there a lot less blue. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: I have once again addressed your concerns by rewording various passages in the article. The trickiest one is that sentence about Boccaccio and the Boucicaut Master. I agree, it's a bit tangled, but I tried my best to untangle it for our readers. It is still far from being perfect, but I hope you are at least satisfied with the newer version. I can't think of any better ways to rewrite it, to be honest. I'm all ears for suggestions on how to reword it or even break it into two sentences, if you deem it necessary. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PericlesofAthens looks good. The reworked sentence is clearer to me now. Updated to support. Just one minor question, perhaps I've misunderstood. My understanding of before she was forcefully escorted to the palace and where she eventually met with Octavian is that Cleopatra met with Octavian in the palace. If so drop "and". If not, then stick with "and eventually" and drop "where she". Sorry if I misunderstood the meaning. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Excellent! Thank you for your lengthy review and support. I have removed the "and" in the sentence above, since Cleopatra eventually did meet Octavian in the palace. It has been a pleasure working with you. The article has been substantially improved as a result. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 08:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ceoil[edit]

  • Some modern scholars speculate that she was murdered, while others doubt the validity of the accounts involving snakebites as the cause of death. Some academics hypothesize - Not sure that "While" is best here, as the views are not contracdactory. Two sentences starting with "some"
  • Still reading through Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: hello! Thanks for starting your review of the article. As you can already see, I have reworded the sentence you selected above. Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we use another variation of "accounts" every so often...maybe things like "In the accounts of" could be "According to" etc
  • Dont like "either an implement or toxic ointment" - "Implement" is vague; I immediately though stabbing device but could also be some form of poison contraption, but from rest of the lead dunno know if am right or wrong
  • Some academics hypothesize that her Roman political rival Octavian allowed her to commit suicide in the manner of her choosing - Should it be *forced* rather than *allowed*, then ...re in "a manner of her choosing" is of course is all very romantic, which should again be re-emphasised or contextualised.
  • By committing suicide, she avoided - "Her suicide avoided.."
  • in a Roman triumph celebrating the military victories of Octavian, who would become Rome's first emperor and known as Augustus - small tense issue here (the sudden shift into "who would").
  • I'd put the "The location of Cleopatra's tomb..." sentence in the opening paragraph. You put it very well, and many readers will be immediately hooked.
  • The death of Cleopatra has been depicted in various works of art - "Cleopatra's death"; "various" should be "many", add something like 'over the centuries'. I wouldnt blue link any of " visual, literary, and performing arts".
  • The exact date of Cleopatra's death was unknown for a long time, since there is no surviving record of even the approximate date.[3] - this is circular, and reads a bit like the approx date was unknown as the exact date was unknown. Maybe begin with "As there are no surviving record...."
  • The sentence beginning Antony's divorce of Octavia, Octavian's public revelation of Antony's will outlining Cleopatra's ambitions for Roman territory in the Donations of Alexandria and her continued illegal... is hard work. Can you break down into shorter sentences / digestible bits. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall there is a lot of blue links, which again make for heavy reading. Similarly, as said in an edit summary, the "Dating" section is a listy list names of fancy people making claims for one date or the other, with out any examination or mention of the basis for their arguments.
  • Fascinating and informed stuff. More later. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: thanks for coming back and for your copy-edits to the article! I will try to address each of your points. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per your advice, I have removed two instances of "accounts" and replaced them with "according to" and "ancient reports", respectively.
  • I have clarified that the "implement" was likely a hairpin.
  • That little part about Cleopatra being forced to commit suicide rather than just being allowed to do so has been reworded. Good call!
  • I have also reworded the part about her avoiding humiliation of a triumph by committing suicide.
  • It could be due to my lack of sleep as of late, but I don't understand the problem you have with the phrase "who would become Rome's first emperor". You are welcome to amend it however you like if you view it as a problem worth fixing.
  • Per your suggestion, I moved the sentence about Cleopatra's tomb to the end of the first paragraph, which involved a bit of editing since I had to de-link Mark Antony's name in the second paragraph and link it in the first, along with noting in the first paragraph (instead of the second) that he was her husband.
  • I completely disagree about your choice of wording for the first sentence of the third paragraph, although I did remove the excessive links for visual and literary arts as you suggested. It isn't necessary to say "over the centuries" since that is already implied by saying artworks were ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern. Replacing "various" with "many" also potentially opens up the door to criticism from other editors/reviewers who might be concerned that it implies a certain number I should be providing. LOL. In my view, your suggestion also seems awfully close to violating WP:WEASEL, although I could be wrong.
  • It was probably easier to make this reply less personally insulting. Done here. Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Wait, what? I wasn't trying to "personally" insult you at any point. I was simply disagreeing with your suggested wording. I'm not sure how that's tantamount to an insult, but you are free to do as you like. I enjoyed your review thus far. It would be a shame for you to leave it now, since your input is valued, I assure you. Pericles of AthensTalk 04:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I misunderstood, and see you have a point. Will happily resume so....Ceoil (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be happy to see that I've substantially reworded the "dating" section, although not exactly with the suggested language you offered above. Per your edit summary, I realize that it might seem a bit heavy on listing scholars rather than presenting arguments for the date of Cleo's death. However, that's because most of these sources don't bother to explain it or dwell on it for very long, unlike Skeat, who wrote a substantial article devoted to the topic. There's honestly not much more I'd like to present about it, either, since it's an arcane and mundane topic of ancient historiography that readers can learn more about by investigating the cited sources (if they want to bore themselves to death, LOL). I certainly don't see the need to go off on a tangent here when there are a bunch of other topics involving Cleo's death that deserve more coverage and represent a greater weight of overall material discussed by historians. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems fair enough. But as a suggestion could it be merged into the end of the "Prelude" section. I say this from a clueless reader POV; some might be turned off that the first section of the body is so dry. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: hello again! I see what you mean, it's kind of a buzzkill, whereas the Prelude is more enticing as a first section. That said, I don't think it belongs to the Prelude section at all. Therefore, I've decided to move the entire dating section down between the sections "Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra" and "Cause of death", renaming it "Date of death". I think it's current placement in the article is much more logical. Thanks for the suggestion! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree with the choice! Peace in our time:) Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the Aftermath sect be broken in to two paragraphs; also is it necessary to link Egypt (Roman province) so deep into the article, esp as Roman province is linked just after in the same sentence.
  • Cleopatra attempted to have Caesarion sent away to Upper Egypt - attempted to send?
  • their daughter Cleopatra Selene II eventually marrying Juba II - funny tense shift; married
  • The site of the mausoleum of Cleopatra and Mark Antony is uncertain.[45] However, the Egyptian Antiquities Service believes - drop "however"
  • The story of Cleopatra's suicide by snakebite was often depicted in Medieval and Renaissance art, as well as Medieval and Renaissance literature. - 'Medieval' is blue twice in this sentence.
  • Have delinked bits and pieces; other suggestions: eyewitness, painting (roman art is linked in the Further information thing just above), melodrama, France, knight, Italian Renaissance (as Renaissance art already linked), eroticism (as we just had eroticize). Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil hello! Thanks once again for taking the time to review the article. Allow me to summarize my latest edits amending the article per your suggestions: Pericles of AthensTalk 04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broke apart the large single paragraph in the Aftermath section, but I don't think we should remove the Roman Egypt link, since it is linked only once in the lead section and once in the main prose body of text.
  • The phrase "attempted to" has been removed. I also reworded the sentence a bit after that.
  • The phrase "marrying Juba II" has been changed to "married Juba II", although I had to reword the sentence a bit to make it sound sufficient.
  • As you have recommended, I removed that one instance of "however" in the sentence quoted above.
  • Per your advice, I moved both "Medieval literature" and "Renaissance literature" to different paragraphs in that section, so that they wouldn't be in the same sentence where "Medieval art" and "Renaissance art" are linked.
  • Instead of removing "Roman art", which I find to be just as valuable a link as Medieval or Renaissance art, I moved some links around and removed another instead, for the article "Conservation issues of Pompeii and Herculaneum". LOL. I'm not sure how I thought that was relevant to my article. I must have been in a link-happy mood that day.
  • You will see that I removed most of the links you suggested, although I do think some of our readers might find the link for "melodrama" to be useful, especially for some of our readers who very young, aren't native speakers of English, or are simply uneducated about the arts. It seems obvious to me what melodrama means, but like George Carlin once said (and to put it bluntly): "think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." LOL. Pericles of AthensTalk 04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look forward to the rest of your review! It looks like you've blazed through most of the sections thus far, or have you already read and sized up the section called "Modern era"? If so, please do let me know if there's anything in that section that you think needs fixing, rearranging, or removing. Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have read the modern period fully, and have few complaints. Giving one last look over; should be able to close out tonight. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleopatra VII of Ptolemaic Egypt, a pharaoh of Macedonian Greek descent ruling from Alexandria - had a hard time parsing this. Put a comma after "descent" maybe
  • the body of Antony - Antony's body
  • According to Cassius Dio, although small punctures on Cleopatra's arm were found, he echoed the claim by Plutarch that nobody knew the true cause of her death - "According to" isn't right here; overall this sentence needs work
  • Why does Egypt became a province of the newly-established Roman Empire, with Octavian renamed in 27 BC as Augustus, the first Roman emperor need 3 refs and a note.
  • Overall, and especially considering this is well covered ground, the citation density is a bit heavy. Too many straight forward claims and three, four refs...like the linking thing above, this impairs readability, imo. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Patricia (Pat) Southern

Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: hello! Thanks for replying once again. I saw that you recently removed a bunch of links from the article, most of which I agree with and am happy that you deleted them. However, I restored a few high value links as they were not duplicate links as you claimed in your edit summary, because some links were the first and only instances in the main prose body of text. A duplicate link found in the lead section of the article is irrelevant. In either case, moving on to your points above:
  • Per your suggestion, I have placed a comma in the sentence above after the word "descent".
  • I reworded the sentence about Cassius Dio and puncture wounds, although I don't see how to improve it beyond what I've just done. Any suggestions?
  • That particular passage requires different refs because of different ideas presented by sources, and a footnote for further information for anyone who wants to know exactly what happened to Egypt right after the reign of Cleopatra. It was not just any Roman province. Augustus ruled it directly, appointing his own equestrian governor that answered only to him, and Roman senators were completely forbidden to even step foot in the country. This followed a perennial fear of the Romans that the enormous potential for gaining wealth in Egypt would corrupt any Roman governor sent there to administer the province. It's partially the reason why they didn't annex the country after the assassination of Ptolemy XI Alexander II (who literally willed the country to the Romans as collateral for loans), handing it over to Ptolemy XII Auletes instead and giving Roman Cyprus to his brother, Ptolemy of Cyprus.
  • I'm not sure what to say about the amount of citations in the article, other than to say three is the limit for each sentence and I do not stray from that rule. In many cases multiple citations exist because multiple ideas from various sources are presented in a single sentence. It would be a nightmare to try and untangle that now, for the sake of reducing the amount of citations. Multiple citations also demonstrate scholarly consensus and add authority to each sentence that has them.
  • A link has been provided to the page on Patricia Southern, for any of our readers who would like to know more about her. Is there a problem with her credentials, in your view? Pericles of AthensTalk 21:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that its proper to re-link in captions. Note the reason for removal in most instances is readability, not MOS or anything mind-bendingly stupid like that. Screen reading is tiring enough, and far more difficult than book reading, precisely for reasons like seas of blue. Re Southern, I meant that in most other places you say things like, "the English historian Patricia Southern". Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ps, to be clear, I love the article, and especially the images and sections on art. I am strongly leaning support, in case you thinking I'm being too much of a grumbling pain in the Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
pps, i don't buy that multiple sources "demonstrate scholarly consensus and add authority"; quite the opposite, I think they indicate that the claim is problematic, and re typically a red flag. Pretty sure this is one of User:Johnbod's truisms of wiki. Update; found it, its actually his fundamental law: "5 refs on a line is almost always a sure sign of trouble". I think that scales in both directions. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I added "the English historian" before "Patricia Southern" as you've suggested. Also yes, I would say five citations is really pushing it and in places where I have more than three sources provided, additional ones are placed in a footnote for anyone who wants to investigate further sources on any given issue. As for links in captions, feel free to remove more if you like, but keep in mind I am generally annoyed with articles that contain image captions without any links whatsoever. I guess "different strokes for different folks" applies here, since I am generally not bothered by blue links, IMHO. Since it bothers you and other readers, I will do my best to remove further extraneous links from the article. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grand, and its not a hill I would die on, but I notice overall, you are making it too easy for the reader - linking simple terms like "film", linking proper nouns multiple times, including ever sources ever in the citations, etc. For myself, and especially for a broad overview, find that slightly like being talked down to. Re multiple sources for each statement; again this is an overview of very well covered ground, you are hardly weaving complex arguments together. If a sentence requires three refs because it is weaving different claims from three sources, then the sentence is too long (there are a few of these). Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some egs of dated language, perhaps betraying the age of the source material, eg "It was this same Proculeius" Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Good point; I reworded that part about Proculeius. As for the excessive amounts of citations for certain sentences, I have started to address this by recently breaking apart one sentence, but to be honest this is a herculean task. In order to properly parse everything, it would probably require an additional trip to the library, and I just don't have that kind of spare time for a Wikipedia article anymore. It's also incredibly difficult to demonstrate what a variety of sources say on the matter without attributing any little statement to the wrong source or page numbers.
For instance, the sentence: "Antony's divorce from Octavia, Octavian's public revelation of Antony's will outlining Cleopatra's ambitions for Roman territory in the Donations of Alexandria and her continued illegal military support for a Roman citizen currently without an elected office convinced the Roman Senate, now under Octavian's control,[22][23][24] to declare war on Cleopatra.[25][26][27]" Notice how there are two different sets of citations here, one for the claim that Octavian controlled the Roman Senate by this point, and another set of citations for the claim that Rome was declaring war on Cleopatra, not necessarily against Antony (since the Romans were sick and tired of civil wars among Roman aristocrats by this point, but they always had time to beat the snot out of foreigners who looked at them funny).
For the life of me I cannot see how to explain these two separate but critical ideas in different sentences without getting overly wordy and going off on a tangent...a tangent that other reviewers here in the FAC process could then complain about in turn. I'd rather avoid that. Do you have any suggestions? Because I am at a loss here, and this is just one example of something I'd rather not tear apart for the sake of having less citations per sentence. To be fair to myself, though, this is only one of two sentences in the entire article that has six different citations altogether. Once you get towards the end of the article it's usually just one citation per sentence. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NP. This isn't the first article of yours that I've read, and as said above, not a hill worth dying on, in fact low on my priority list in the context of an article of this quality. Plus in matters of style or preference, will always give weight to the primary author if they give thoughtful consideration (check) and seem to know what they are doing (check). I agree that it would be a burden to change the citation style now, and in the scheme of things to worry about in 2018, not worth it. Was a pleasure to review this and engage with you. I trust you will continue to trim the links where appropriate, other than that Support; a fascinating read, skillfully told, and another feather for your bow. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: thanks for your support and all your help in improving the article! It looks much better as a result. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My advice re the refs is, do an audit where you check the most innocuous claims, and trim back to the most reputable historian.
"...Mark Antony, who committed suicide by stabbing, to be buried together properly" - Surely there is a better word than properly? With full religious or ceremonial honours or something I presume. Killed himself with a knife is better than "suicide by stabbing". Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I changed "committed suicide by stabbing" to "stabbed himself with a sword", as the article explains. I'm not sure how to replace "properly" here, though I think it reads fine the way it is. Thanks for all of your input! Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It reads to me like laandan slang, buried "all proper and like". These is surely a better way. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I've never heard of that before, probably because I'm American. I was thinking more along the lines of the common phrase "a proper burial", which we hear often enough in English, no matter which country you're from. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, but genuinely never heard the exact phrase "a proper burial" before in context, but that's fine; thick paddy here and I deffer. Usually when I hear the word "proper" it means I have to wear a tie. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Looks really good.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Hello! Thanks for the support. To answer your question, a hemiobol is a minor type of silver drachma worth 2 tetartemorion coins (0.36 grams of silver). I'll try to answer your other questions below very shortly. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking. I'll try and work it into a conversation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see one place where the word "artifact" is mentioned, but I'm not sure if it's entirely relevant to the article you want to link. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. My spell checker raised an alarm, but I'm convinced that it is merely an American (mis)spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All these are correctly licensed:

Some anomalies:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: hi once again!
  • As you've suggested, I added the "PD-Art-100" tag to the aforementioned three images, as well as the "PD-US" tag for good measure. Obviously they are all public domain given the age of each one of those prints.
  • As for the Cleopatra by Bertin in the Louvre, you are mistaken. Once the photographer releases his photograph into the public domain, it is public domain, full stop. The "first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923" clause concerning expiration here still applies, because the sculpted artwork in the photograph was created by Bertin in or before 1697. Therefore both the photograph AND the original artwork are public domain.
    The sculpture is PD, yes. But for a 3-D subject, US law requires that it also be released by the photographer as well. For PD in a foreign country, it has been in the PD in 1996. And the photograph was made in 1985, not 1923. Therefore, Americans refuse to accept it as PD. Which is why we ask Wikipedians to license under CC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: Hmm...I could be wrong, but I think you're actually wrong about 1985, the date when the artwork was purchased, not necessarily when the photo was taken. It seems the photo was both uploaded AND taken in 2006 by "Marie-Lan Nguyen" (i.e. User:Jastrow), who seems to have snapped the photo of the sculpture in the Louvre in that year, not 1985. Therefore, Ms. Nguyen had the right to release her own photo into the public domain, which happens to have a priceless Baroque period sculpture depicting Cleopatra's suicide as its chief focus. She does this sort of thing regularly for Wikimedia Commons, taking photos in museums, and as far as I know none of her other photos are in a copyright dispute per US law. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; I was looking at the wrong line. It was taken in 2006. I presume that in France you have the right to alter the copyright term on your own work; in many countries you are not. But the problem remains. The US does not accept the principle of the shorter term, so only images that were in the PD in 1996 are eligible. As far as the US is concerned, the image is copyrighted until 2101. A decision was taken not to delete such images from Commons.[2] If Jastrow could put it out under a CC licence, that would be ideal. Otherwise, meh. It's not like anyone is going to complain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: Hah! Thanks for the link. I was totally unaware any of that was going on. Fascinating. In either case I could contact Jastrow, but it does seem like a minor issue. I don't think any authorities in either France or the USA are going to be breaking down my doors with a battering ram, flashbang grenade, and special ops team over this. LOL. If you would like to leave a message on her talk page, by all means, be my guest! I'm sure she would comply. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the Marcus Antonius bust in the Vatican, as the source page explains, that photo was taken in 2008 by Sergey Sosnovskiy, who released it under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, meaning it is freely licensed for use on Wikipedia. The public domain tags on that image are placed there because of the original artwork that was photographed, i.e. the ancient Roman bust of Mark Antony dating to the 1st century AD. I hope this clears everything up! Pericles of AthensTalk 23:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I should get to this today or tomorrow. My FAC, for Working Group, still needs a source review. Catrìona (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Web sources: All appear to be from mainstream, reliable websites. I did have some concern over "Remezcla.com", but since the article, according to the source, was written developed in partnership with National Geographic I think this qualifies as a RS.
  • Print sources: These all appear to be written by experts and/or published by mainstream or university presses. Assuming reliability. ISBNs and OCLCs provided in a consistent format. I would encourage not linking to Google Books or other paywalled sources, but that's not a requirement.
  • No spot checks done because the nominator appears to be a previous FA submitter.
  • A quick English search in Google Scholar revealed additional sources. I have not checked full text so I am not sure if they provide additional relevant information for the article text, or whether they would be helpful in the "Further reading" section.
  • Griffiths, J. Gwyn (1961). "The Death of Cleopatra VII". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 47 (1): 113–133. doi:10.1177/030751336104700113.
  • Related correspondence: Baldwin, B. (1964). "The Death of Cleopatra VII". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 50 (1): 181–182. doi:10.1177/030751336405000124., Griffiths, J. Gwyn (1965). "The death of Cleopatra VII: A rejoinder and a postscript". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 51 (1): 209–211. doi:10.1177/030751336505100126.
  • Richardson, Mary (1995). "Edmonia Lewis' "The Death of Cleopatra": Myth and Identity". The International Review of African American Art. 12 (2).
  • Jarcho, Saul (1969). "THE CORRESPONDENCE OF MORGAGNI AND LANCISI ON THE DEATH OF CLEOPATRA". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 43 (4): 299–325. JSTOR 44449955.
  • Cilliers, L.; Retief, F. P. (1 January 2006). "The death of Cleopatra". Acta Theologica. 26 (2): 79–88. doi:10.4314/actat.v26i2.52563. ISSN 2309-9089. (free full text)
  • Orland, Ralph M.; Orland, Frank J.; Orland, Phyllis T.M. (1990). "Psychiatric Assessment of Cleopatra – A Challenging Evaluation". Psychopathology. 23 (3): 169–175. doi:10.1159/000284655.

Given that a well known history[1] bills itself as "A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII", it stands to reason that the effects of her death on Egypt could be discussed a bit more in this article. (currently just 2 sentences)

I should say that the article seems pretty complete to me, although it is a bit shorter than most FA articles. Still, it seems that some of the above publications, or others that I am not aware of, could be used to add additional perspectives/interpretations of this well-studied event. Catrìona (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Budge, Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis (1902). A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra VII, B.C. 30: Egypt and her Asiatic Empire. K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company, Limited.
@Catrìona: hello! Thanks for the lengthy and detailed source review! I'm glad that you find the existing sources to be sufficient and formatted correctly. As for providing additional sources, I just added Bailey (2001) in discussing a posthumous image of Cleopatra in a crude erotic caricature on a Roman oil lamp associating her with wildlife of the Nile in Egypt. As for your concerns about the impact of Cleopatra's death on Egypt, I added another sentence about a cultic priest and Egyptian scribe who dedicated gilded images of Cleopatra in a book of Isis dated 373 AD (something already explained in the main article on Cleopatra). To be honest, though, I don't think we should say much beyond this, because I think it is sufficient to say Cleopatra's death marked the end of the Hellenistic period and allowed for Egypt to become a Roman province. I don't think this article is the place to go on a tangent about the various cultural and political changes that occurred in Egypt during the subsequent Roman period. We have links to the article Egypt (Roman province) for that purpose, and a lengthy footnote about Cornelius Gallus, Augustus' equestrian governor that he personally installed there. Perhaps we could move the footnote into the main text? Beyond that I don't think we should dive into the Roman period very much, since it is only tangentially related to Cleopatra (unless we're talking about visual arts or poetry depicting her). In regards to your list of sources, perhaps some of them could be added, but we already explain Edmonia Lewis' sculpture at the end of the article. Is it really necessary to cite Richardson's journal article "Edmonia Lewis' "The Death of Cleopatra": Myth and Identity"? I don't think we should reserve a lot of space for individual works of art, especially when that information can be found in other articles like the one on Edmonia Lewis. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 16:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about the sculpture. However, some of the others—particularly Psychiatric Assessment of Cleopatra—might provide additional, useful information. Catrìona (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right! The problem is I don't have permission to access articles on their website, the "Karger.com" journal database. If you have the article freely available in a PDF I'd be more than glad to look over it. Otherwise I can't do much about it! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 22:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the article either, but I would recommend WP:RX, so far they've been able to get everything that I wanted. Catrìona (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Catrìona: You'll be happy to know that I have lodged a formal request at WP:RX for access to Orland et. al. "Psychiatric Assessment of Cleopatra" (1990). Hopefully someone from the WikiProject will get back to me within a reasonable amount of time. In the meantime, is there some other freely accessible article online that you would like to see being cited in this article? Pericles of AthensTalk 02:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is freely accessible is irrelevant to judging the comprehensiveness of an article. In this case that point is largely met, so I'm tentatively supporting on sources. Catrìona (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: Excellent! Thanks for your tentative support. When and if someone at WP:RX responds and provides excerpts from or access to Karger.com, then I will gladly incorporate views and input from Orland's journal article into our article. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 03:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Catrìona: UPDATE! A project member over there at WP:RX has generously provided me with the article by Orland et. al., and this has produced both good news and bad news. First, the bad news: Orland's article is rather disappointing and anticlimactic. I would describe some of the language in it to be somewhat unprofessional for an article in a medical journal, to be honest. I was expecting a lot more, but it did lead me to at least one good source on a related topic, which brings me to the good news! After accessing Saul Jericho's 1969 article "The correspondence of Morgagni and Lancisi on the death of Cleopatra" via JSTOR, I have gone ahead and decided to cite him in the article on the subject of early modern literature discussing Cleopatra's cause of death. You can now see a new paragraph on the subject in the "Cause of Death" section, although I don't think we need to explore the topic further. Thankfully this fills a large gap in the article where it jumps from discussion about ancient authors to modern scholars in their assessment of Cleopatra's demise, showing that there was at least some debate about this issue in the centuries between antiquity and the modern era. Pericles of AthensTalk 08:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Jarcho in the article also conveniently knocks off one source from your list of suggestions above. I hope you find this to be sufficient! Pericles of AthensTalk 08:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Catrìona: Another update! After noticing how Cilliers and Retief's article is freely available online, I have decided to include their input as well! Again, it can be found in the "Cause of death" section. That's two articles from your list that are now cited in the article. Pericles of AthensTalk 09:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this and expanding the article slightly. Unfortunately, one often has to access the sources in question to tell if they are useful or not. I've struck the word "tentatively" above. Catrìona (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Have a happy New Year!Pericles of AthensTalk 22:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

  • "According to a popular belief..." This may be a dialect difference, but I have never seen the definite article used, so it would just be "According to popular belief."
  • "Modern scholars debate the validity of ancient reports involving snakebites as the cause of death and even if she was murdered or not." This is more a stylistic choice, but I feel the "even" is unnecessary; after reading it again I understand why it's there (it shows another issue of debate), but I also feel it could be dropped (I initially read the sentence to show modern scholars debating the preceding sentences, discussing snakebites, and the "even" came out as another point of contention, if that makes sense). I just wanted to note that, but it isn't going to sway my overall support.
  • "Her suicide allowed her..." Is there a way to write this to not have her repeated twice here? Just seems bunched up.
  • This may be getting too much into the historiography of it all, but is there any older sources that discuss the specific date? Do any of the primary sources, or anything earlier than the modern era write about it? If so it may be worth including them here.

Overall not a lot that I see. While a short article it is really fascinating, and like the look at the historiography of the subject, as well as the copious artwork used here. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I was busy with family holiday gatherings these past few days, of course, so I wasn't able to address this earnestly until now. As you can see with my latest edits, I have slightly reworded each of the passages you mentioned. I'm glad you don't see any glaring problems with the article as it stands now. To answer your question about older sources possibly discussing a specific date for her death, I will refer you to the "Date of death" section of the article where this is explained: "There are no surviving records dating Cleopatra's death.[60] Theodore Cressy Skeat deduced that she died on 12 August 30 BC on the basis of contemporary records of fixed events along with cross examination of historical sources.[60]" So no, there is no source that provides a specific date; this is something that modern scholars had to reconstruct using various primary sources as a guide. Sometimes ancient histories ranging from Chinese to Greek historiography provide exact dates for specific births, deaths, battles, even solar and lunar eclipses, but unfortunately in this case we are lacking that. Perhaps it was provided in some history or another that is now lost, so Plutarch and others didn't feel the need to repeat it (especially since his work was a biography about Antony, not Cleopatra per se). You can also tell that Plutarch, in various passages, expects his readers to know certain things as being obvious, glossing over stuff that we in modern times would otherwise love to know. It's certainly frustrating! However, that goes with the territory of examining primary sources that are so old, and in many cases fragmentary. I hope that answers your question! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 00:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I seemed to have missed that on my earlier look through. Impressed with the article, has my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: Great! Thanks for the support and your kind words about the article. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 04:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Death_of_Cleopatra/archive1&oldid=1136098171"