Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Antioch (218)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Antioch (218)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk)

Battle of Antioch (218) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am now confident that the article meets all or most of the A-class criteria. In the last review one of the major opposing reasons was the dependence on the article on primary sources. I have cut out all but a half-dozen references to Dio for only minor trivial information. The other question was with regards to the prose of the article. I believe I have addressed both of these concerns and am now resubmitting this for another A-class review. Summarizing the article topic; The article is on an ancient battle fought near the ancient city of Antioch between the forces of Emperor Macrinus and his rival and successor Elagabalus. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think I've done everything right. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • the citations use clickable citations but the links do not work due to what are called "harvnb" errors as they are missing anchors (such as "ref=harv" in the citation templates). If you install this script, it will help you to identify these errors;
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for all the works in the References section? These can usually be found at www.worldcat.org
  •  Done - Anything pre-20th century won't have ISBN's and OCLC's although I've added ISBN's for Dunstan, Mennen and Goldsworthy.
  • Huh, apparently they may have OCLC's. Well, thanks for the additions. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • page ranges in citations generally use "pp." instead of "p.", for instance "pp. 179–180" (if a range) or "p. 179" (if a single page)
  • the infobox seems a bit lopsided, is there a way to make it split evenly between the two sides? I think if you use break tags, it might fix the issue
  • Have to be honest, I am not sure what you mean by this. I think you mean that that the left hand side for Macrinus is larger than the side for Elagabalus. I think is a trick of the eyes as both sides are set to the left side making one look larger than the other. That and the image is a copy from a book that was taken at a slight angle. If it's the strength section of the infoboxes, then I hope this makes it look more even. Cheers for the review AustralianRupert. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Volume 2 of A History of Rome, is it this: [1]? If so, it is part of Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopædia. The citations probably should be changed to reflect Robert Bell as the author, with the series appended also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my concerns have been addressed, and I reviewed this last time, so I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close to a support

  • Looking a lot better in terms of the referencing - thanks for all your work on this. Comments below:
  • In the lead, it talks about "a disenfranchised soldier"; this is later explained to be "a soldier who was incensed at being declined the rank of centurion". Is "disenfranchised" really right? I think most readers would assume this has something to do with the right to vote etc.
  • I was using disenfranchised in the sense of; deprived of a privilege. Which Materianus would have been by having been denied the position of centurion. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can mean that (e.g. a privilege of automatic promotion etc.), but without any additional context in the lead, I don't think any reader will conclude that is what was meant. I'd recommend "a disgruntled soldier" or some similar phrasing, avoiding the "disenfranchised" word altogether. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley suggested disaffected to replace disenfranchised. So already dealt with, but, disgruntled would have worked equally well. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers of Legio III Gallica (Gallic Third Legion) at the camp in Raphanea on 16 May 218" - "the camp" doesn't seem right, as we haven't mentioned it before. "their camp"?
  • The lead tells us a lot about the background and aftermath, but not actually very much about the battle itself; it just says "The battle took place less than a month later. Having lost the battle, Macrinus returned to Antioch once again." I'd expect to see a bit more of the "Battle" section summarised in this, to be honest.
  • I've expanded the lede to summarize the actual battle, hopefully is better.  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we describe in line (and perhaps link) who some of the historians are when first introduced? e.g. "based on a story mentioned by Herodian and supported by Gibbons (sic)" depends on the reader knowing who both Herodian and Gibbon were. If that ran "based on a story mentioned by the Roman writer Herodian and supported by the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon", for example, you wouldn't have that dependency. Similarly Scott, Dio, Icks, etc.
  • "Other sources either agree with Dio that the battle took place near Antioch, with one source, Downey, " - "sources" read oddly here. I'd normally assume a "source" was contemporary with the period, but Downey is presumably a modern historian? "Other historians either agree..."?
  • "Despite the numerical superiority of Gannys' army of at least two full legions, faced with what levies Macrinus was able to accrue, the engagement had begun in Macrinus' favour with the soldiers led by Gannys turning to flee after the Praetorian Guards had managed to break through the enemy line." - I found this a bit of a mouthful. How about: "Gannys' army, comprising at least two full legions, had a numerical superiority over whatever levies Macrinus had been able to accrue. Nonetheless, the engagement began in Macrinus' favour with the soldiers led by Gannys turning to flee after the Praetorian Guards had managed to break through the enemy line."? (NB: I might have gone for "raise" rather than "accrue" myself - you normally "raise a levy", don't you?)
  • "Prior to battle Macrinus had the Praetorian Guard set aside their scaled armour breastplates and grooved shields in favour of lighter oval shields, thus making them lighter and more manoeuvrable and also negating the advantage of light Parthian lancers (lanciarii)." - if we're solely using a primary source, this needs to be attributed to Dio; similarly one or two others like it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review Hchc2009, I've made an attempt at addressing each of your concerns. For the disenfranchisement comment, I've explained the context behind my word choice. Any chance you know of a better term that would mean the same thing? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Emperor Macrinus and his contender Elagabalus" I would prefer "rival" to "contender".
  • I don't think it is worth mentioning Immae. I can't find any information about this place, so it will not help the reader.
  • You can't use disenfranchised as it means taking away a privilege, not refusing to grant it. OED quotes a writer in 1893 saying "There could..be no legal act disenfranchising woman, since she was never legally enfranchised". You could say disaffected or a soldier who had been denied promotion.
  • "Macrinus successfully concluded a peace with Parthia, however, it came at further great cost to Rome." I don't think you can use "however" here (unless you put a semi-colon after "Parthia"). I suggest "but" instead.
  • "The sum was called into question by professor Scott due to its sheer enormity and because Dio is known for being unreliable when discussing finances." This is clumsy and refers to Scott as if he had already been mentioned. Maybe "The sum is questioned by historian Andrew Scott on the ground that it is too high to be credible and because Dio is known for being unreliable on finances."
  • "reinstating the fiscal policies of Septimius Severus" This looks wrong. Septimius Severus famous dying advice to his sons was "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men". His policy was the opposite of Macrinus's.
  • Caracalla raised the pay of soldiers and increased spending elsewhere. Macrinus reversed Caracalla's fiscal changes thereby effectively re-instating the policies that Septimius had. Septimius spent more than his predecessors but still a lot less than Caracalla. Will think about possibly rephrasing this. Attempt made, nothing special, but, hopefully sufficient. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to have references at the end of each sentence if they are all from the same source, particularly as you do not follow this policy consistently. See for example in the last paragraph of 'Death of Caracalla and rise of Macrinus' and the second of 'Rise of Elagabalus'.
  • I've removed redundant citations, I think I've hit them all.  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Julia Maesa took the opportunity to inform the soldiers, either truthfully or not, that Elagabalus was Caracalla's son". Well all statements are truthful or not. Maybe "it is not known whether truthfully"
  • "Elagabalus was immediately hailed Antoninus after Caracalla" There is no explanation of what Antoninus means here.
  • In Elegabalus' case, him being referred to Antoninus was to create a connection between him and Caracalla (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus). Explained a little in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Macrinus might have been able to stop the rebellion in this early stage, but could not decide on a course of action and remained at Antioch." *This is an expression of an opinion, so it should be attributed as "In the view of Gibbon,"
  • "the archaeologist Downey" His full name should be given at the first mention. Below you have "one historian, Downey". You do not need "one historian" as he has already been mentioned.
  • "The balance of power had been transferred from the Senate to the army; as such the emperor of Rome was decided by the soldier while the Senate existed solely to officiate state affairs without any real authority." The grammar has gone wrong here.
  • "During and after Caracalla's reign the position of the Senate had been considerably weakened." This is misleading. The source says by the early third century - the change preceded Caracalla's reign.
  • You are correct, I'd written it differently on the basis that Caracalla's reign technically started in 198 - thus from him onwards. I've rephrased anyway so;  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downey, suggests that both battles" Both battles? You have only mentioned one.
  • Well, one battle but in two different places. Downey assumes that both the battle described by Dio (at Immae) and the one as described by Herodian (at the border of Syria Phoenice and Coele - in Lebanon basically) were two separate events. I've made an attempt at rephrasing for clarity. Let me know if it's satisfactory. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Had Macrinus remained in battle it is plausible that he might have won the battle and thus secured his position as emperor." This is another expression of opinion which needs attribution to Downey and/or Gibbon.
  • You need to give the full names of Crevier and Icks at first mention.
  • "Macrinus found out about his son's death" You have not mentioned his son's death at this point.
  • I've moved sentences around for chronological purposes. Should be satisfactory now. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dio, Cassius (n.d.). Roman History." You need to give publication details of the edition you are using. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Published by Harvard University Press for the Loeb Classical Library in 1927 and reprinted in 1955. I believe the publisher and ISBN are the only things I put in the reference, not the publisher's date? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not look right to me. 1. Libraries index a Roman writer as Cassius Dio, not Dio, Cassius. I would use |author=Cassius Dio rather than the first and last format. 2. I think you should give the year, e.g. as |year=1927 |orig-year= c.230. 3. Similarly with Gibbon you should show the edition you are using (not the 1776 one unless you actually have it!) so people can check your actual source. I would add |orig-year=1776. Nikki have I got it right? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a PDF copy of one produced by Fred de Fau & Company and published in 1906. So no problem with handling that. Also dealt with Dio, Cassius -> Cassius Dio. Though that change made a mess of the harvnb citations which have also been fixed. -  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, give the full bibliographic details of the source/version you looked at. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Miles thanks for your comments, I'll address them over the next couple days. Also, disaffected seems like a good replacement term. Will use that instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, accidental ping cause I moved my comment, I've covered most things done for the time being. Cheers. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I don't know how you do things here at A-class review. I don't know whether I should Oppose or simply suggest that this article needs a complete top-to-bottom (or bottom-to-top, the method I use) copy edit. I have many things on my plate and it would be several days or more before I could finish it... but others could do it of course...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Lingzhi the choice is really yours on this. You can oppose the promotion if you think that the article isn't at the A-class standard, you can leave a set of comments if you think it could get to A-class with some work, and of course you can support the promotion once you're satisfied that the article has met expectations and/or requirements. I'll go over it and copy-edit it as best as I can, since you did mention it and will ping you when I've done so, thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, one minor prose contention I do have is -> Thus, reign of Macrinus as emperor of Rome ended after nearly fourteen months. This doesn't appear to me to be an improvement on what was there before; Thus, Macrinus' reign as emperor ended after nearly fourteen months. I tried adding the clearly missing "the" from your change, but, "the reign of Macinus" doesn't sound right to me at all. Maybe; Macrinus' reign as emperor of Rome ended after nearly fourteen months (or) replace Macrinus with his. The rest of your prose changes, however, are a significant improvement to what was there, thanks for the effort. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I forgot to bring a "the" to the party... I guess the question in my mind is how long the nom will run given that it already has supports. If the nom can easily run 3 or so more weeks, then there is no reason to oppose yet. If not, then there is.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should naturally close in something over a week, actually it could already have been closed as a pass as 3 supports is a passing mark, but, with your late addition comments I'm fairly certain it'll stay open for at least a couple of weeks so that I can address your comments. A fourth uninvolved party has to close it and they will definitely see the comments you've put up. Hope that helps. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could try to ce but I have shtuff to do. CE requires genuine concentration (and thus taxes my scarce cognitive resources); other reviewing tasks (e.g., finding missing refs) are frequently paint-by-numbers. You could also ask someone else to ce... but I can do it if given time.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go through and tackle it myself first, I'll try your bottom up approach. Afterwards, I'll post a comment here notifying all involved that I've done my copy-edit. After that, when you get a chance take a look, and notify me if more work needs to be done or when you get the chance feel free to copy-edit the article yourself as well. I did take a look at GOCE but they are backlogged severely and I doubt they'd get to this article within the next month at least, so, that's probably not a time equitable solution. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Emesa on the mpa? Is it Hemesa (since Emesa is now called Homs, this seems reasonable)? If so, then the two supposed battles seem unlikly to have taken place on the same day, but you have given only one date. Because there was only one date, I added "sources agree", but maybe that was wrong to do? maybe "the decisive engagement took place on.."?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi - Yes, it is Hemesa on the map. I agree, the two battles couldn't have occured on the same day. I only have the date as given by Dio and used in relation to the battle at Antioch. The battle at Emesa mentioned by Herodian has forever remained undated. I think your proposed change is better. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Downey especially famous or influential?? If not, perhaps it would be best to consign the two-battle scenario to the depths of a footnote.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think so yes, he's been called an expert on ancient Byzantium (the successor to the Roman Empire). You can read all about him here and the specific work we're talking about has been cited in 536 works according to Google Books. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Elagabalus briefly emperor? If so, then this article disagrees with damnatio memoriae, which states that only three emperors (none of whose names begin with the letter "E") were ever subjected to the Eraser of Hell. Could you please do Wikipedia a favor and check the sources of both articles, fixing the one that is wrong? Or if both are properly sourced and the sources genuinely disagree, then more sources need to be found. Unless I am wrong. Which is frequently the case.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure that the damnatio memoriae article is wrong. Our FA class article Elagabalus mentions the damnatio memoriae as well. On top of this Macrinus and his son were also subject to DM. That makes six that including the supposed three. I didnt see a citatio in the DM article. I am on my phone and will double check later tonight. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Granny!! This site seems to list over 30 examples. I deleted the "three emperors" sentence from our article. Apparently that article blows goat chunks. Someone (not me, I'm busy) should heed {{sofixit}}.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I'm kinda busy in real life. Please consider me "Neutral" and let others decide. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries at all, thanks for the reply. @Nikkimaria: would you mind doing an image review? I think that is all that is left for this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Nikki. I will list this review for possible closure at WT:MHCOORD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi thank you for your efforts. I'm not sure that I can improve the prose further but I'll take a look today anyway. Thanks for listing the review for closure AR. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Antioch_(218)&oldid=759603340"