Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Antioch (218)/archive1

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[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 believe that it meets the criteria. Please leave as many comments as possible on how I can improve the article (or need to). Summarizing the article; This article deals with the lead-up, battle and aftermath to the ancient battle that took place near Antioch between the ancient Roman emperor Macrinus and the future Roman emperor Elagabalus. Notably in this case, the battle was not the primary focus of the article. You may thank Dio and Herodian for this since they weren't concerned with the battle either and are the primary historical sources for information on this topic. Thanks to anyone and everyone who decides to review this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day and welcome to Milhist A-class Review. Good work with this one. Thanks for your efforts. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • narrative flow, in the lead: "After a period of little improvement, Elagabalus would himself be plotted against before being dispatched after a short reign of only four years" --> "After a short reign of only four years, Elagabalus was also dispatched, after which a short period of stability followed."
Changed, for the better I think.
  • capitalisation: "A 20th Century Map of..." --> "A 20th Century map of..."
Done.
  • "and Historia Augusta, merely gloss over..." (should Historia Augusta be presented in italics here?)
Since you mention it, I think it would be more appropriate in italics. Done
  • inconsistent: "Cassius Dio" v. "Dio, Cassius" (in the References and Citations, I'm not sure which is correct, sorry, but they should be consistent for A-class)
I noticed an edit that changed this in one place, I will revert the edit since surname should always come first before first name. Just standard convention, thanks for picking up on this. Done.
  • inconsistent: "of Antioch, Herodian" v. "Herodian of Antioch" (in the Citations, I suggest changing "of Antioch, Herodian" to "Herodian of Antioch" as it seems more intuitive)
Aye, of Antioch isn't a surname. One minor thing, using the citation template I have to put in a first and last name or else I get this first1=missing and last1=missing error. I reversed it so it comes out as Herodian, of Antioch. Is there anyway to fix this, or will this suffice as a fix?
G'day, I believe if you use the "|author=Herodian of Antioch" parameter in the template (and remove "|last= |first= "), it should work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • in the lead, link: Caracalla, Antioch, Herodian, Cassius Dio; Roman Senate;
Done.
  • in the body of the article, link: Adventus, Sesterces, Apamea (ensuring to choose the correct disambig link), Syria Coele, Syria Phoenice, Praetorian Guard, Emesa, Roman legion, Artabanus V of Parthia, Cilicia, Chalcedon, Procurator (Roman);
Done. However, Adventus links to a few places, but not to the Adventus that is referred to in the article, is their another name for Adventus that I don't know of? Also capitalized Praetorian Guard as it's a noun (in the article).
Potentially, it could just be red linked, then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure no problem, I'll have it linked. Done.
  • clarity: "may have been observed performing ritual rites by soldiers stationed there..." What is the significance of this? Was this a bad thing...later in the article it seems to be clarified but at this point it doesn't seem clear;
It would have been the first time the soldiers stationed there encountered Elagabalus, and Julia Maesa is hinted at having used this opportunity (not the ritual but the stationed soldiers) to further her agenda. It's not particularly significant as the actual ritual doesn't really correlate to anything. Just that this is how the soldiers came to know of Elagabalus. Should I keep the sentence, dump it, or try rewording it?
I'd suggest rewording it, if possible, otherwise it should probably just be dropped (my opinion only, and I am by no means an expert, though). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ritual part is relevant, but does need a rewrite. The story goes that the soldiers stationed at the city frequently visited the temple where Elagabalus performed the ritual and that during one of these visits, Maesa either telling the truth or inventing the story told the soldiers that Elagabalus was in fact the son of Caracalla. To summarize herodian's words. I will edit this section to make its relevance clearer. And... Done.
  • clarity: "The merits of this sum have been called into question..." by whom?
Andrew Scott, one of the references says it quite openly that Dio wasn't familiar with economics and may have greatly exaggerated the actual figure. Done.
  • "measures to reduce the expenditures of Rome, he reinstated..." --> "measures to reduce the expenditures of Rome, reinstating..."
Done.
  • "however" --> probably needs paired commas (either side of the word in most instances in which it is used)
Done.
  • this is not a sentence: "Enhanced by the monetary contributions of Julia Maesa."
Whoops, let me just fix that, meant to put a comma, realized a comma wasn't necessary. Ended up putting a period. Done.
  • "This forced Macrinus to leave, either in retreat[27] or attack.[22]" --> "This forced Macrinus to leave. According to Cassius Dio, he left in retreat, but Downey asserts that he intended to launch an attack." (or something similar which explains to different intentions and attributes the opinions).
Done.
  • clarity: "his efforts here however..." (to whom does "his" refer here?)
Macrinus' efforts, although this was utterly ambiguous as it was written and has now been clarified.
  • "The shift of power had been..." --> "The balance of power had been..."
Done.
  • "... to the army, as such the..." (comma splice) --> "... to the army; as such the..." or "...to the army. As such the..."
Semi-colon seemed more appropriate. Done.
  • "...while the Senate existed solely to officiate the affairs without any real authority" --> "...while the Senate existed solely to officiate state affairs without any real authority."
Done.
  • watch your English variation. I see some US spelling (e.g. "honor") and some British (e.g. "favour"). Either is probably fine, so long as it is consistent;
I prefer British, cause I live in Australia.
  • clarity: "with one source suggesting..." --> please clarify which source says this, e.g. "with Smith suggesting..."
Done. Added this cause it made me laugh, I accidentally fixed this to say "With one, Downey, source suggesting..." I know, I know, childish out of ten.
  • grammar: "met against the Praetorian Guard of Macrinus..." --> "met with the Praetorian Guard of Macrinus..." or "fought against the Praetorian Guard of Macrinus..." or "clashed with the Praetorian Guard of Macrinus"
Met with seems most appropriate. Done.
  • punctuation: "narrowly-fought pitched battle..." --> "narrowly fought pitched battle"
Done.
  • punctuation: "At this point Macrinus fearing defeat, fled back to the city of Antioch..." --> "At this point Macrinus, fearing defeat, fled back to the city of Antioch"
Done.
  • punctuation: "Beyond this details regarding the engagement are vague, the primary ..." --> "Beyond this, details regarding the engagement are vague. The primary..."
Done
  • " with little detail beyond that a battle was fought..." --> "...with little detail beyond stating that a battle was fought..."
Done
  • "...transported "like the commonest criminal" back to..." --> the quote should be attributed in text, for instance "...transported according to Smith "like the commonest criminal" back..."
Done.
  • "while masquerading as a courier for the military..." --> "while masquerading as a military courier..."
Done
  • word order: " he was beheaded in Cappadocia, shortly after injuring himself in an escape attempt, by the centurion Marcianus Taurus..." --> "shortly after injuring himself in an escape attempt, he was beheaded in Cappadocia by the centurion Marcianus Taurus..."
Done.
I think I've covered all of the major points that you brought up. If I missed something or broke something else, just give me a heads up. Thanks for the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is mainly based on primary sources (and described as such in the article) and thus does not comply with WP:OR. However, I hope that the nominator will not be discouraged and look at a wider range of secondary sources, which in my view is required for A Class standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where specifically, the use of primary sources violates OR please. As I am not aware of this. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to this clause "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." than can you specify where I am violating it. Also thanks for taking the time to review the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the triple post; I think you're referring to this: " Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" yes? in which case, oh boy. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would point to "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". I personally would go further and say that historical articles should never rely on ancient sources for facts (as opposed to illustration) as they are inevitably biased and need expert interpretation, but not all editors agree. I do not know enough about the period to know what are the best secondary sources, but one which is easily available is Gibbon's Decline and Fall.
Thanks for offering a secondary source, I'll take a look at it. In terms of expert interpretation, not really necessary in this case as the sources spelled it out unambiguously, I know what you are referring to with ancient sources being superfluous flowery and full of bias (and the bias applies here heavily) but both sides of the conflict were equally hated. Not a positive thing is said about either party, the only exception being Julia Maesa who was praised for being a genius. However, I will take a look at finding a few secondary sources and confirming that which is already written and dispelling with anything that is not in consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment copied from User talk:Dudley Miles#Request for Opinion so other editors can comment on it:

Hello again, I've taken the time to go through the entire article, I've looked at Gibbon, Downey, (Goldsworthy) How Rome Fell, and a couple others as well. I've managed to get citations and sourcing to about equal, 49 secondary to 44 primary citations. Of these 44 primary ones, more than half are supported by secondary sources and can be removed (if necessary, I'd leave them in for the reader to be aware).

A few are in a state of semi agreement, for example;

"Thus on the night of 15 May 218, Elagabalus was taken, by either Julia Maesa[28] or Gannys,[29] to the camp of the Legio III Gallica at Raphanaea and presented to the soldiers stationed there.[30] Some accounts claim that upon being presented to them, that Elagabalus was immediately hailed Antoninus, after Caracalla.[31] Enhanced by the monetary contributions of Julia Maesa the legion proclaimed Elagabalus emperor on 16 May 218.[26][32][33]" - ignore the numbers, I've left them in if you want to cross reference and confirm what I'm saying.

The first sentence is supported by Scott who also notes the disagreement between Dio and Herodian. The second has no specific support, but also no dissent. The last sentence is agreed upon unanimously by all sources.

This leaves only a single issue almost all of the secondary sources I have come across ignore Macrinus after the battle (aftermath), just saying he escaped and was later captured and killed. Dio and Herodian go into alot more detail here, is it an issue to leave that section as it is (primary source dependent with some secondary source input), or does it need a massive trim. I've taken a look at what would happen and the first paragraph would be reduced to this; "After escaping from the battle, Macrinus returned to Antioch. He was later captured and killed (on Elagabalus' orders (if I'm lucky)). The second paragraph, I'll look into but I'd be surprised if it had any issues. Since, Downey, Gibbon, Goldsworthy (How Rome Fell) are the only ones that even mention this, the other secondary sources just say killed after the battle. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might find Syme at [1] helpful. If you do not have access to JSTOR I can email you a copy. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I'll check if I can access JSTOR today, will tell you later. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay in responding, I'll try to get on it over the weekend, having a busy week. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is an interesting topic and definitely something that should be A-class, but in its current form the article requires considerable copyediting. So much so that I can't believe it made it through GA. I consider myself fairly adept at reading convoluted passages, but some of the wording in this article is really difficult and really has to be fixed before moving on.

  • "Rather the importance of the event is in the precursors, beginning sometime during the reign of Caracalla and ending with the end of Elagabalus' reign. " - I'm not sure what "the precursors" refers to here... is it referring to previous battles? General events leading up to this battle? This needs to be clarified.
By events I am referring to Caracalla and his death, Macrinus becoming emperor, the military revolt etc.
  • "was also dispatched" - do you mean "murdered"?
Yes. Will change.
  • "Macrinus' predecessor Caracalla was murdered by Justin Martialus, a soldier who had been incensed for being declined the rank of centurion, while traveling to visit a temple, during a period of war with the Parthians." - uhh, confused... was Martialus incensed while travelling, or did he kill Macrinus while he was traveling? And who was at war when? It seems there are two sentences here that have been mashed together.
He was incensed well before the trip, Macrinus convinced him to betray Caracalla and it succeeded. Parthians and Romans are at war. When? am not sure will have to check.
  • "The reason for Macrinus to plot against Caracalla may have been because he feared for his life" - which is tantalizing, but left completely unexplained!
This section I realize is confusing. The explanation literally comes right after (its the alternate explanation), why I put alternate explanation is because of a section that I have since deleted, so there is no longer an alternate explanation. Will fix.
  • "However, an alternate explanation is also provided alongside this" - what?
As above.
  • "Macrinus would commonly read dispatches sent to Caracalla for him, on one such occasion a dispatch was delivered from Materianus, a friend of Caracalla, detailing a prophecy, that may possibly have been fabricated, that Caracalla was being plotted against by Macrinus and that Macrinus would be destined to become the next emperor" - I cannot make head nor tails of this statement. So some guy had a prophecy and tried to tell Macrinus, and... ugh I can't figure this out.
A lot of things being crammed into a single sentence. Breakdown: 1. Macrinus reads Caracallas letters (it's a part of his job). 2. Materianus sent a letter to Caracalla who was his friend. 3. Materianus claims a prophecy that says Macrinus is plotting against Caracalla. 4. The prophecy may have been given by the Oracle at Delphi or made up by Materianus.
  • "The army then set its eyes on Macrinus" - "set its eyes" is jargon. It also fails to explain the very important issue of what the army is doing in the business of selecting an emperor. Is this the point in time when the army becomes the defacto selector of emperors? That seems to be what is being stated later in the section called "Senatorial response". If that is the case, that seems to be far more important than anything else in the article, and should be the primary focus of the lede. But perhaps this had this happened earlier? If so, the next section seems odd. In any event, I found this confusing and lacking in detail.
To summarize; by this time the Senate was more or less powerless, control the army, and you control the empire. That said, the Senate remains to make things official. They could choose not to, but that would have resulted in an all out revolt (possibly, Dio speculates on this) and with the army so far away and with no one capable of challenging it the Senate would have had to cave. This at most deserves a mention in the lede, the Senate being weakened, as the primary focus is on Elagabalus challenging Macrinus' ascendancy.
  • "Macrinus, they" - Macrons; they.
Macrons??, you mean Macrinus; they?
  • "feelings of 'love or esteem' towards" - is this a quote? If so, double quotes and a ref. If not, why is it in single quotes?
I'll double check, but this may be a quote within a quote.
  • "Thus the army hailed him Augustus, proclaiming Macrinus as emperor" - isn't being "hailed him Augustus" the same as "proclaiming Macrinus as emperor"?
Nope, Augustus is not a title all Emperors held, most did but not necessarily all. That is at least would I have found during my research, I originally had Augustus and Emperor as being one and the same.
  • by the Senate who were glad" - by the Senate, who were glad
  • "As the newly crowned emperor" - did they have a crown at this point? I thought Diocletian introduced this, which would be a good part of a century later.
Ah, no clue, I meant crowned as newly chosen. I can replace crowned if necessary.
  • "the equestrian class, this caused much discontent" - need to explain why, and link to equestrian.
Nobody of the equestrian class had ever been selected as emperor, it was usually a senator that got the position. Will fix however.
  • "about it, the military was at the time so concentrated in force at Edessa that nowhere else in the empire could a governor or senator oppose the army that had proclaimed Macrinus as emperor" - why? Why could the Senate not oppose them? Edessa is a long way from Rome.
Precisely, you know how much of the empire would fall to the army before the Senate could do anything about it. The entire eastern section of the empire is, literally, at risk of destruction. Second, about two thirds of the available Roman forces are at Edessa (maybe more since I'm estimating). Does this need explaining in the article?
  • "Dio is not known for being unreliable when discussing finances" - confused... IS known for being unreliable fits with the gist of the statement.
You are correct, the not is accidental.
  • "by this thus" - urg. "by this, and..."
urg?, will fix however.
  • "Julia Domna who was at Antioch at the time of Caracalla's death attempted suicide, eventually succeeding by starving herself" - Julia Domna, who was at Antioch at the time of Caracalla's death, attempted suicide. She eventually succeeded by starving herself,
  • "returned to Emesa with her finances intact, her suspicions" - what's this about finances? It seems out of place. Would this not be normal? And the part after the comma should be a new sentence.
I would assume not, you're thrown out of the palace and sent home, chances are all your possessions are going to be taken. It was important enough for most sources (the ones I used) to mention it though.
  • "On one such occasion Julia Maesa took the opportunity to inform the soldiers either truthfully or through fabrication that Elagabalus was Caracalla's son" - well it's one or the other, is he his son or not?
It's not black and white, nobody knows. He may be, he may not be. If he is, then he is a bastard (not in a derogative manner) son that's never been claimed.
  • "Thus on the night" - no need for "thus" here or in various other similar situations.
Can fix.
  • "was immediately hailed Antoninus, after Caracalla" - what does "hailed Antoninus", and why is it after Caracalla. Is this some sort of precession? If so, of what?
Antoninus is part of Caracalla's full name; Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus.
  • "however, drifting between the extremes of terror and security" - terror and security are not opposite terms, so you can't really drift between them. I'm also uncomfortable ascribing feelings to people without direct quotes - we know what he did with some certainty, but unless he is recorded at that time to state why, we should generally try not to guess.
I think that's close to a direct quote, from the source, will check. If it is what I think it is then it is slightly paraphrased.
  • "Had time been available" - this should be moved up, where the other issues of pressing time are mentioned.
  • "negating the advantage of light Parthian lancers" - who? where did these guys come from? Or is this "previously" as in "long previously"?
There were light Parthian lancers in the opposing army, part of the Roman troops. This isn't something I wrote tbh, I'll check it but I recall reading it in Dio's work.
  • "break through the enemy line" - break through Gannys' line - I don't think he considered his own troops to be the enemy.
Fair enough, will change. However, in my opinion, if my general had his head cut off and sent to me, I'd consider the opposition my enemy since they want to, you know, kill me.

I'm happy to handle all of the basic grammatical issues myself, but some of the items need your attention and expansion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, I will get to fixing it up as soon as I can, am currently extremely busy outside of Wikipedia and haven't had a chance to go through anything in the past week. Will update as soon as I am able to return to this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll make an attempt at addressing a couple of these here, since I'm on now. Again thanks for the review, I hope the few notes I chucked in between will help clear up some confusion, these are precursors to my fixing up the issues.

Update: Ok I've made a wide variety of edits that I think have cleaned up the GR to A-class (IMHO). I'm still happy to work with you on the other issues if you can clarify some of the things I didn't understand. My main concern is the section on the murder leading up to these events, which I still don't fully understand. A re-write of that section would greatly improve things. If you just keep explaining it to me I can likely address it myself. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thank you very much for all the effort you've put into fixing up the article while I have been away. I will try to get on to the wiki by the weekend and fix up the murder section. I fully understand the confusion regarding the section. I'll try to get it rewritten ASAP, again thank you very much for helping me with the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: While I had the time, I have made an attempt to rewrite the problem paragraph on Caracalla's death. I think this should clear up the confusion, although I may be overstepping it by mentioning narratives. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Aureus_Macrinus-RIC_0079.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, and based on the licensing I would guess it isn't the uploader's own work. Also, for completeness you should explicitly say that the coins themselves are PD due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry I'm not exactly great with image usage here. I took a look at the image you mentioned and noted the tag, is that an issue? do I need another image instead? also do you mean say that the image is PD on the article in the image description or somewhere else, if somewhere else then where? Apologies for any inconvenience. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the licensing tags, I would guess the author is someone at the Classical Numismatic Group - you could get someone who has OTRS access to confirm that, and we can get rid of the error tag.
As to the PD designation, yes, that would be on the image description page. The current licensing tags represent the photo of the coin, so you'd just need to add {{PD-US}} or {{PD-old-100}} for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hello again, I have added the PD designations on the image description page. As for OTRS members, is there anybody specific to talk to or just message anybody who's on the OTRS volunteers page? Also the original image up-loader has been permanently banned from Wikipedia or blocked (it says both?). Not sure what effect, if any, this has on the image. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any OTRS volunteer should be able to check. So long as the block is not related to copyright issues, it shouldn't matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Dudley Miles and Maury Markowitz: this has been open over two months now. In the interests of moving forward (either having the review closed as no consensus, or otherwise), can you please both clarify if you remain opposed to promotion, or if your concerns have been dealt with? Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I totally spaced on this. Mr rnddude's edit does improve things, but we still have this problem:
Macrinus' predecessor Caracalla was murdered by Justin Martialus, a soldier who had been incensed for being declined the rank of centurion, while traveling to visit a temple, during a period of war with the Parthians.
So was Justin incensed for being declined the rank of centurion while traveling to visit a temple? Or did he kill Caracalla while he was visiting a temple? Or was Caracalla visiting the temple? And what does the war have to do with anything? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit complex to respond to this, there's no indication for when Justin was refused the rank, just that he was (But, I think this should be removed in entirety, the cause is of no concern just the act). Caracalla was killed while traveling to the temple. The war has a lot to do with the period right after Macrinus became emperor. First, he made peace with the Parthians at great cost to Rome and this was considered to be a shameful display on his part (as mentioned in the article) and dealt a blow to Roman pride. Second, because of this great cost Macrinus had to make changes to the economic policies of Rome in order to curb spending, main point here is that he reduced pay for newly enlisting soldiers, this angered the entire army and caused the subsequent rebellion (also in the article). I hope that answers any questions on what is meant with the sentence. I figure it needs a re-write due to the confusion it's causing. So here's my suggestion for rewrite (implement if satisfactory);
Macrinus' predecessor Caracalla was murdered by Justin Martialus while traveling to visit a temple. At the time, Rome under Caracalla was at war with the Parthians.
It's pretty basic and limited in scope, The war with Parthia only becomes relevant when Macrinus becomes emperor. If it's of any consequence the cause of the war is debated to be either 1. Caracalla requested marriage to the Parthian king's daughter but was refused or 2. Caracalla requested the marriage, was accepted, and then betrayed the Parthians and had the people at the ceremony slaughtered. Given Caracalla's reputation the second one may be more likely and is the explanation given in the article on Caracalla himself. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm separating this because there is actually a second issue that remains open in terms of A-class for the article. The aftermath section is based primarily on primary sources, more or less secondary sources seem to disregard this period as being trivial. Dudley Miles offered a secondary source that might fix the issue but I haven't had the chance to look at it due to University studies. I am free, or ought to be free, this week to take a look at the source if I have access to it (I think I do). Lastly, there is also a minor image issue left to address. Sorry if it this is a bit long and/or ramble-y. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rupert. At present my oppose stands as much of the article is still based on primary sources, and therefore WP:OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks. Perhaps in this regard the review should be closed so that this issue can be worked on behind the scenes. It could then be renominated if, or when, the issue has been resolved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear here that while Ancient historians habitually call anything originally written in an ancient language or within a millennium or two of the event a "primary source", Wikipedia takes a narrower view, and regards them as secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take Hawkeye's point. In some cases ancient historians are describing events they have witnessed, in others events they have heard or read about, so in some cases it is a question of OR, in others RS. Ancient historians vary greatly in reliability, and I think we should be looking to modern ones rather than our own views what is WP:RS. The nominator has said that the great majority of the article could be sourced to modern historians, and I think he should be citing them instead of the original source. In the few cases where events described by an ancient historian are not covered by modern writers, I think it would be OK to say "According to x..." to signal that it is not the view of a modern historian. What does Hchc2009 think? I am happy to accept whatever is the consensus on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a quick look. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns with the editors above about the use of primary sources. To take an example, Herodian of Antioch's "History of the Roman Empire" is a 2nd/3rd century Greek writer. He's extensively used in this article as a source, around a dozen times or so. He's an entirely appropriate primary source for an academic to to draw on. But he's equally not a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which is what our policy requires us to use. I'd strongly recommend replacing the primary sources with reliable modern secondary sources, since I'm sure they're available, and then resubmitting for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am here, I would like to point out that while I do have references to Herodian and Dio well over a dozen times each, most of those are backed by secondary or modern sources. This excludes the aftermath section which is almost entirely based on those two sources since none of the secondary or modern sources I could get my hand on discuss anything past Macrinus' and Diadumenianus' being killed. If it would be preferred I can remove all of the references that have been backed by a secondary, leave only the ones that have no modern backing (but also no opposition), and then let that be considered for WP:OR and WP:RS. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to replace the ancient sources where a modern one is available. Regarding the period you do not have modern sources for, you said you have not yet had time to look at the source I suggested. Google Scholar and the ancient history section of your university library are also possibilities. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely true, that's why I excepted the aftermath. I will remove the doubled up references to the primary sources as a first step. This should clear up all of the issues up to the aftermath. Beyond this you are absolutely right, I have not had a look at the source you provided, due time constraints, but I have used library resources at my institute, actually most of my secondary references came from the library. I will most likely have to remove and rewrite the aftermath in order to get this up to the A-class standard or FA class since somebody mentioned it. I can have a go at this Friday 20th May if everyone is willing to wait, if not, I'll do it anyway and then resubmit. Thanks to all that have provided input on this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing co-ordinator comment: Whilst there has been a commendable amount of work done on this article during the review and I note the nominator’s comments above about their intention to rewrite the aftermath etc but for procedural reasons I think this one will need to be closed (in the past we have only kept ACRs open for 28 days, and although we now apply considerable leeway to this rule, this review has been open for double that). This in no way prejudices it from being re-nominated once further adjustments have been made to the article in line with the comments that are still outstanding and I certainly encourage Mr rnddude to do so. Thank you for your efforts in diligently bringing this article this far. Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2016 (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)/archive1&oldid=749811257"