Historia Augusta has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 6, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Even though the Penguin version is only one half, it's far more common on bookstore shelves, and it's useful for people to know how it relates to the full history. (sort of a modern-day version of listing the various corrupt MSS. of an ancient work. :-) ) Stan 06:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there some example of obvious falsehoods short enough for modern readers to pick? I ask because the article talks a lot about unreliability but gives no examples. -- 84.20.17.84 08:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've introduced a new section with some examples. The list could be extended indefinitely! Cenedi 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The recent edits of this article by an anonymous author indicate an attempt to threat basic freedom of speech; there is no reason to censor the criticism of the current orthodox view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatus.Pistor ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
My updates of the article were victim of vandalism (if you look at the article's history). This is a debated topic in current academic research (see for instance the reference to Cameron 2011 there), but for some reason it contains only one side of the controversy, and there were users who tried to edit out/censor the subsection on 'criticism of the current orthodox view'. In addition, the article--as it was before I started working on it--contained originally factual errors or statements that were far from being substantiated. (talk) 15:55 17 June 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatus.Pistor ( talk • contribs)
I am not familiar with the whole debate, but parts of the life of Claudius Gothicus are dependent on Ammianus, and at least one passage refers to Austrogothi, who probably did not exist, under that name, in the 360s-380s. 71.191.233.216 ( talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the requests for citations, but when a section is tagged "unreferenced", it's superfluous (per WP:OVERTAGGING) to tag most or all sentences within it. The article still seems excessively burdened with requests for citations, especially when there's no discussion on the talk page, and at points where it's likely that the whole paragraph comes from the same source. Cynwolfe ( talk) 02:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just completed a comprehensive cleanup of the article, mostly adding citations where required. Consequently, I have removed the citation required and original research boxes. Oatley2112 ( talk) 13:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In general this is looking fantastic. Roman history is by no means my specialty, but I have a couple of small points:
Furius ( talk) 12:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mr rnddude ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there I will be taking on the review of this article, expect a full review up by tomorrow or the day after.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 09:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | All issues with prose have been cleared, therefore, this criterion is a pass. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I am satisfied that this article meets the criteria, it is cleanly broken up into appropriate sections and section titles, the article is neatly laid out, I haven't come across nearly any puffery, as this is a work about a non-fictional topic the MOS fiction requirements do not apply and the embedded lists (I count two) are neatly and correctly set out. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The issues with the layout of the sources has been fixed. The sources are verifiable and attribution has been properly made. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I am reasonably confident that all of the sources used are of repute and are reliable secondary sources, this is a combination of having used some of these sources myself and the known publications.
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | The below issues have been rectified and this article is now good to pass criterion 2c.
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article covers the topic excellently, this article meets this criterion. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article is written well, it covers the major points of the history, authorship, use as both a historical and literary source and does so without going into excruciating and minute detail. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | There is an insignificant issue of puffery, a single minute instance of it in the article, that will be dealt with under criterion 1a. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is in a stable condition, there aren't any outstanding disputes on the article or on the talk page. I will be looking at how Furius' suggestions were incorporated and note that they don't require all (or even any) of their suggestions to be included. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | I made a slight amendment to the PD-art tag of trebellianus, it had an error tag show up because the PD-1923 tag needs to also be included in the image. Other than that, all the image issues have been resolved. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The licenses for a few images need an update; Herman Dessau and Trebellianus can be update by the nominator, we'll have to await confirmation from the uploader of CiceroBust before I can prescribe a necessary action there. That said, all of the captions on the images are suitable. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
I will be using the above table to complete the review for this article. Mr rnddude ( talk) 09:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-reviewer comment:
Non-Reviewer comment:
A big thank you to everyone who contributed to making this article into a
Good Article, in particular the reviewer
Mr rnddude, as well as
Furius and
Llywrch.
Oatley2112 (
talk) 05:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like more expansion on this claim. What 6th century historians objected to this work, and in what way? Koopinator ( talk) 16:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Historia Augusta has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 6, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Even though the Penguin version is only one half, it's far more common on bookstore shelves, and it's useful for people to know how it relates to the full history. (sort of a modern-day version of listing the various corrupt MSS. of an ancient work. :-) ) Stan 06:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there some example of obvious falsehoods short enough for modern readers to pick? I ask because the article talks a lot about unreliability but gives no examples. -- 84.20.17.84 08:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've introduced a new section with some examples. The list could be extended indefinitely! Cenedi 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The recent edits of this article by an anonymous author indicate an attempt to threat basic freedom of speech; there is no reason to censor the criticism of the current orthodox view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatus.Pistor ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
My updates of the article were victim of vandalism (if you look at the article's history). This is a debated topic in current academic research (see for instance the reference to Cameron 2011 there), but for some reason it contains only one side of the controversy, and there were users who tried to edit out/censor the subsection on 'criticism of the current orthodox view'. In addition, the article--as it was before I started working on it--contained originally factual errors or statements that were far from being substantiated. (talk) 15:55 17 June 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatus.Pistor ( talk • contribs)
I am not familiar with the whole debate, but parts of the life of Claudius Gothicus are dependent on Ammianus, and at least one passage refers to Austrogothi, who probably did not exist, under that name, in the 360s-380s. 71.191.233.216 ( talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the requests for citations, but when a section is tagged "unreferenced", it's superfluous (per WP:OVERTAGGING) to tag most or all sentences within it. The article still seems excessively burdened with requests for citations, especially when there's no discussion on the talk page, and at points where it's likely that the whole paragraph comes from the same source. Cynwolfe ( talk) 02:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just completed a comprehensive cleanup of the article, mostly adding citations where required. Consequently, I have removed the citation required and original research boxes. Oatley2112 ( talk) 13:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In general this is looking fantastic. Roman history is by no means my specialty, but I have a couple of small points:
Furius ( talk) 12:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mr rnddude ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there I will be taking on the review of this article, expect a full review up by tomorrow or the day after.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 09:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | All issues with prose have been cleared, therefore, this criterion is a pass. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I am satisfied that this article meets the criteria, it is cleanly broken up into appropriate sections and section titles, the article is neatly laid out, I haven't come across nearly any puffery, as this is a work about a non-fictional topic the MOS fiction requirements do not apply and the embedded lists (I count two) are neatly and correctly set out. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The issues with the layout of the sources has been fixed. The sources are verifiable and attribution has been properly made. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I am reasonably confident that all of the sources used are of repute and are reliable secondary sources, this is a combination of having used some of these sources myself and the known publications.
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | The below issues have been rectified and this article is now good to pass criterion 2c.
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article covers the topic excellently, this article meets this criterion. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article is written well, it covers the major points of the history, authorship, use as both a historical and literary source and does so without going into excruciating and minute detail. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | There is an insignificant issue of puffery, a single minute instance of it in the article, that will be dealt with under criterion 1a. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is in a stable condition, there aren't any outstanding disputes on the article or on the talk page. I will be looking at how Furius' suggestions were incorporated and note that they don't require all (or even any) of their suggestions to be included. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | I made a slight amendment to the PD-art tag of trebellianus, it had an error tag show up because the PD-1923 tag needs to also be included in the image. Other than that, all the image issues have been resolved. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The licenses for a few images need an update; Herman Dessau and Trebellianus can be update by the nominator, we'll have to await confirmation from the uploader of CiceroBust before I can prescribe a necessary action there. That said, all of the captions on the images are suitable. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
I will be using the above table to complete the review for this article. Mr rnddude ( talk) 09:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-reviewer comment:
Non-Reviewer comment:
A big thank you to everyone who contributed to making this article into a
Good Article, in particular the reviewer
Mr rnddude, as well as
Furius and
Llywrch.
Oatley2112 (
talk) 05:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like more expansion on this claim. What 6th century historians objected to this work, and in what way? Koopinator ( talk) 16:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)