Talk:Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Haukurth (talk · contribs) 14:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to digging into this. Haukur (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Family background
Lucius Manlius Torquatus is apparently not the Lucius Manlius Torquatus who minted the coin in the "Family background" section. Is he a notable person and is he relevant enough to introduce here? "Or maybe we should just say "Denarius minted by one of the Manlii Torquati" or something like that?
 * The guy who minted the coin is the father of the Lucius Torquatus you linked, I detailed a bit to avoid the confusion with other people of the same name. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

What's a torque here? It's linked to torque which doesn't seem to help.
 * corrected link. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"He bore the agnomen Atticus" - a bit confusing since the last person mentioned isn't the subject of the article but his ancestor, and beginning paragraphs with pronouns isn't ideal. Maybe just "The agnomen Atticus is a reference..."
 * done. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Several other prominent politicians adopted Greek cognomen" > cognomen has already been linked, and should we use the plural cognomina here?
 * I corrected with "politicians adopted a Greek cognomen" T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"The same cognomen was used for the same reason", I note that this is uncited – is it a mild form of original research or can we cite a source that makes the comparison? I do feel it's nice to mention the more famous Atticus.
 * You're right, reworded and added a ref to Cicero. T8612  (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Censorship
"with already a long and successful career" > "with what was already..."
 * corrected by saying "plebeian with a distinguished career". T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"(twice consul in 258 and 254, dictator in 249)" > I think we can omit this. The reader can click on the name for more information.
 * I'd prefer to keep this information, to show the difference between their career. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Münzer furthermore suggested", I'd go with the full name for this first instance, Friedrich Münzer.
 * done. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"gens Fabia, and members of" > Commas before 'and' are generally not needed.
 * done. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"only six censors were in this situation" > This feels a little unclear, what situation? Becoming a censor without first being a consul?
 * "Becoming a censor without first being a consul", yes. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"commanders where needed" > were
 * done. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"on the field, and several" > another comma before 'and'. There are more instances and I won't make further notes on them.
 * done, removed subsequent commas. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Judiciously linking to year articles could be useful here in some cases, like 247 BC.
 * done. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Besides" is used twice in this section to start a sentence and feels a little colloquial.
 * Replaced besides. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"The censors might have appointed Gnaeus Cornelius Blasio as princeps senatus" > Maybe give a little context here? "One of the role of the censors was to..." It's easy to remember that the censors do the census but this is not as obvious.

The word lectio is not explained. Haukur (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reworded sentence to explain lectio and the appointment of the princeps. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

First consulship (244 BC)
"who relied on Livy for his list of consuls" > First mention of Livy so he should be linked.
 * done. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Nothing is known on their consulship" > Maybe this could be reworded since we do know some things that happened during this time, even if we don't know exactly what the consuls were up to. Haukur (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reworded "activity as consuls". T8612  (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Second consulship (241 BC)
"The Augustan pontiff Manlius Torquatus" > Do we know his praenomen?
 * Yes, added his name and ref. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, and of course he was named Aulus too. Traditionally minded people, the Romans. Haukur (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Ziolkowski thinks that this is dubious" > Introduce this guy? Give his full name?

"Staveley even considers" > And this guy? Haukur (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added their first names. Do you need something else? T8612  (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Cerco's and Atticus' consulship was marked by natural disasters in Rome, which according to Orosius "almost destroyed the City". > Are we missing a citation here?
 * Actually the ref is put after the third sentence as the first three sentences derive from Orosius. I've reworded a bit. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"that it was part of a deliberate strategy" > What does 'it' refer to here?
 * "It" refers to the war, reworded. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"The censors of 241 indeed built" > Why 'indeed'? I think I've lost the thread here a little bit.
 * Because these colonies were founded in the north of Roman territory, I've reworded, tell me if it needs further changes. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"on a Faliscan bronze plastron" > What's a plastron?
 * A breastplate, reworded. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Cornell and Staveley" > Again I'd like the full name at first mention.
 * Done. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"This view was nevertheless rejected" > "has nevertheless been rejected"? Also, is it clear that their view is in the minority? I feel like this discussion could be made clearer.
 * Reworded and added other sources rejecting Cornell's and Staveley's theory. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Princeps Senatus
"made by Ryan" > I'd like the full name.
 * Done. T8612 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"a consular named Aulus Torquatus" > What's a consular? A consul?*
 * A former consul, reworded. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Atticus was elected censor at a younger age than usual" > Wait, how do we know that? Do scholars suggest a range of years for when he might have been born? This is before Sulla, so was there no minimum age for particular offices?
 * Because he was censor before being consul. Ryan, who makes this suggestion, says there is no way of knowing his age. The cursus honorum was only formalised with the Lex Villia Annalis, in 180; before that, there were some weird careers, especially in times of war. I've reworded the paragraph. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Stemma
I see this is also at Titus Manlius Torquatus (consul 165 BC). I won't insist but maybe there could be a separate article or "List of..." hosting this information. Haukur (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The members of the gens and the stemma are already listed on Manlia (gens), but I thought it would be useful to have it here as well since--as you noted--Romans kept giving the same name to their sons. Since the page is not very long, I would keep it here. T8612  (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, I'm okay with this. Haukur (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Images
We're making good progress here. I'm looking at the images now and wondering that since the Fasti are repeatedly mentioned in the article maybe we could have an image or two showing the relevant parts.

Looking at this image, it looks like the first mention of our guy is in the leftmost column at line 17, counting from the bottom. The line reads something like "CENSA.ATILIVS.A.F.C.N.CAIATINVS.A.MANLIVS.T.F.T.N.TORQVAT.ATTIC.L.F.XXXVIII". So here we see that Caiatinus comes first as referred to in the text. I haven't read further but presumably the consul years are there down the line and might be nice to see too. Haukur (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but the picture is barely legible. How would you do it? I've added some help on this picture, tell me whether you think it could be added to the article like that. T8612  (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I like your solution! Haukur (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Bonus ideas

 * I'm putting some totally optional ideas here, in no way required to pass the GA review.


 * The breastplate is a very interesting object and there seems to be enough literature on it to sustain an article of its own. It would also be great to obtain a freely licensed photograph of it at some point.
 * I don't think there are copyright free pictures. The breastplate is in a private collection. It was shown at the Getty museum in the 1980s (the pics from Zimmermann come from there), and that's it. T8612  (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There probably aren't any now but some might be created. Whoever owns the artifact might, perhaps, be willing to donate some. But, again, I'm not asking you to go to mat on this. There are a million interesting things to try and we can't do them all. Haukur (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In my personal taste, a quote from a primary source can help make an article more exciting. In this case I'd be curious to hear something from Zonaras. Haukur (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not against it, but we have very few mentions of him. Zonaras is the only ancient author to talk about him (a bit), but he died in 1130 AD, 1350 years after Atticus. Though he mostly copied Cassius Dio. He is also not Thucydides; his account is minimalist (4 sentences), you can read it here. T8612  (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it! I hadn't managed to find it on my own. The current article relays the account closely and in this case quoting it directly wouldn't add much – as you say, it's not written in colorful style. Haukur (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Pass
It's a good article and a lot of good work has gone into it. It's definitely well-written, broad, neutral, stable and illustrated. It is also verifiable – it uses a somewhat unusual referencing system but there are lots of systems around and I don't feel it should be failed because of that. I don't feel it contains original research but it is a thorough article on a very obscure figure who doesn't normally get this sort of attention and that does lead it to lean a little heavily on the primary sources in a couple of places. But, to me at least, it never goes over the line into original research. It's an interesting example of what can be accomplished within Wikipedia's framework. I had fun reading it and making suggestions and at this point I'm happy to pass it. Haukur (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Do you think it can pass FA? I feel I well exceeded the normal level of details for a GA, and exhausted all possible sources on the subject. T8612  (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To satisfy FA reviewers you'd need to get the references into a more fashionable form – the Brothers Poem article is a nice benchmark for an article on a classical subject that recently passed FA review and I'd suggest imitating that referencing style. Beyond that, I don't have enough recent experience with FAC to say. You might try peer review first. Haukur (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)