Talk:Diocletianic Persecution/GA1

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

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Specific concerns
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * some prose spots that have glitches, the abbreviations of the citations needs some straightening out
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * a couple of spots that need some clearing up, one table that needs explanation
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * General note:
 * I'm not sure that this type of sentence construction uses a capital at the start of the second phrase, example "Christians had no such excuse: Their faith was new and unfamiliar, and was not typically identified with Judaism." Double check this with an expert in grammar though. Strongly suggest that you eliminate this construction, it's not often seen in writing any more and is slightly grating when encountered. Later you switch to using lower case like this "... the third century: from a population of 1.1 million..." At least go to lower case.
 * Eliminated.
 * Citations
 * Ditch the abbreviations. You've missed at least one (SHA is what? And What is the NE?) I know why you did it, but it's confusing because there is no central spot to find them, and I believe is against the MOS. I shouldn't have to look all through the references to find out what a citation is to, and with the way you've organized the abbreviations, I have to read the list looking for the abbreviation.
 * Done.
 * Make triple sure you are NOT using primary sources for stuff. Ideally, you'd only use primary sources for color quotes, not even for "basic" information, much less interpretation. You should be leaning on your secondary sources for most of the article, not primary sources.
 * Uh, I haven't. I had a big piece describing my use of the primary sources, but then I accidentally closed this tab (!), and lost the data. Curse you, Google Chrome! This is almost enough to make me want to go back to Firefox. The point of the matter: I use the secondary sources, and quote the primary sources where I think they support the secondary sources' point in an apposite way. I only quote the primary sources where the secondary sources have also quoted them, and I quote them for the same reasons. If there's any part of the article that seems to flaunt this policy, I'll be happy to check the source texts when I get back to my books.
 * I brought this up because you cite the primary sources a bunch in the footnotes. Someone may bring it up at FA, and I wanted you to be prepared. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright. Thanks for the heads-up. I keep the original sources as much as possible, more so when the secondary sources are conveying the contents of the primary sources directly or where textual/chronological details impinge on the historical narrative. I haven't made my practices into a rigorous system, though. There will probably be instances where I cite the primary sources more or less than is necessary. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * first paragraph - "unrepentant Christians"? Perhaps a different phrasing would be better, I keep thinking of little Christians not doing their penances.... maybe just leave off the "unrepentant"?
 * Done.
 * first paragraph - instead of "demanded universal sacrifice" try "ordered that all inhabitants perform pagan sacrifices" which is more clear
 * Done. Can I keep the second instance of "universal sacrifice"?
 * If you explain what it is in the first instance. Something like "universal sacrifice, or the order that all inhabitants perform pagan sacrifices" Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Prior persecutions -
 * I'd be happier if instead of "conversion of Contstatine" you said "Constantine made it legal"... because that fits the information... it explains who made it legal, rather than leaving it kinda inferred that because Constatine became a christian it became legal.
 * Done.
 * suggest wikilinking "imperial cult", not everyone is going to know what it is.
 * Done.
 * "Christians were treated as any exotic and deviant minority would be, ..." that's just begging for an explanation. What was done to them?
 * Oh, Ealdgyth. It is "reading week" (what you would call "spring break") around these parts, and I am without my books. I only have JSTOR/Google Books right now, so I can't give you any specific examples or general descriptions of imperial policy towards deviant religious minorities. I can tell you that this phrase is meant to emphasize "other people were treated like Christians were" more than "Christians were treated like these other people". As in, "other religious groups were treated to the sporadic hostility we've described here". Is there a better way of putting that? Do I need examples of Roman behavior to other minorities for that?
 * Let's make a deal and you add it in when you get back to your books. I won't hold GA up on this little quibble. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deal. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fourth paragraph, second sentence you say "...rather than merely respond to the will of the crowd." but you haven't explained in previous paragraphs that this was the case. Instead, you say that "Persecutions, such as they were, were carried out under the authority of local government officials." but nothing is mentioned about local crowds driving the officials to persecutions.
 * I thought that was covered by "It was popular hostility which drove the earliest persecutions...". I've added "the anger of the crowd" to that sentence for emphasis.
 * Double check your quotation from Origen in the fourth paragrah "the multitude of people coming in to the faith even rich men and persons..." I think there is a comma missing between faith and even.
 * Nope. Frend got it wrong. Check it.
 * Explain Historia Augusta, don't just link it. A quick "a fourth century history of uncertain reliablity'' should do it.
 * I wrote "dubious reliability", since that's closer to the truth.
 * Don't just mention the church leaders who died, I'm sure others besides bishops were martyred? Didn't Origen get killed in the Decian persecution?
 * Blergh. Done.
 * Need to link/explain 'apostasy' .. that's a big word a lot of folks probably haven't heard before.
 * Done.
 * "This persecution, too, was stalled by the whims of fate. In June 260 Valerian was captured in battle and executed." the first sentence sounds more like a novel than an encyclopedia article. Suggest "This persecution also stalled in June 26 when Valerian was captured in battle and executed."
 * Oh, sure, sure. Done.
 * Persecution... section
 * The three sentences in the first paragraph that start "His co-emperor, Maximian, was associated with Hercules.[36] Religious backing became a second source of legitimacy, weakening the army's capacity to play kingmaker.[37] Diocletian wished to inspire a general religious revival..." are poorly connected together. I don't see how the middle sentence connects to the sentences before and after it. I'm not sure how to fix it exactly, though. And the last sentence of the paragraph feels similarly tacked on.
 * I've had another whack at it.
 * Need to wikilink or explain "tetrarchic government" Most folks aren't going to know what that is. You link it later, you should always link on the first occurance.
 * I've flipped the paragraphs around so the first link comes first, and added a gloss ("rule by four emperors") on Tetrarchy. Incidentally, I think the passage has better flow now.
 * suggest inserting "by this time" in the sentence in the third paragraph that starts "Christians had no such excuse: Their faith was new and unfamiliar,[48] and was not typically identified with Judaism." between "was" and "not typically"
 * Done.
 * Suggest moving the parenthetical sentence "The edict illegalized sibling marriage, which had long been customary in the East." either out of parenthesis, or into a explanatory note.
 * Moved it into a note.
 * Public support
 * First paragraph: This sentence "Churches in the later third century were no longer as inconspicuous as they had been in the first and second: large churches were prominent in certain major cities throughout the empire;[61] the church in Nicomedia even sat on a hill overlooking the imperial palace." is incredilby long and convoluted, suggest breaking it into two or three sentences.
 * Split into three.
 * third paragraph, this sentence "Pagan intolerance had become socially acceptable once more."... is odd since it's never been said that intolerance became unacceptable.
 * Oh, good point. This is a paraphrase of something Barnes said, and I don't remember him noting earlier pagan tolerance either. I've cut it.
 * Not sure why the need to say that Porphyry was a pupil of Plotinus, unless you bring up Plotinus elsewhere. Suggest cutting that bit.
 * Done.
 * Last paragraph, that quote from Arnobius probably should go in a block quote, it may be too long per the MOS.
 * Done.
 * Christians in the army section
 * Link Persian wars.
 * Done.
 * Why suddenly link sacrifice in this section when you've mentioned it a bunch prior to this? Strongly suggest unlinking this, I think most folks know what sacrifice is.
 * I ported the paragraph over from Diocletian, where this is, I believe, the first occurrence of "sacrifice". Delinked.
 * Quick explanation of Haruspices would be good, perhaps "...haruspices, or the diviners of omens from sacrificed animals, were unable to read their omens..."
 * Done.
 * This sentence "The master haruspex eventually declared that this failure was the result of interruptions in the process caused by profane men: certain Christians in the imperial household were seen to have made the sign of the cross to defend themselves against the demons called into service in the pagan ceremonies." is long, suggest breaking it up.
 * Done.
 * Any reason to link pension in the second paragraph?
 * Don't look at me. I have no idea how these things get linked. Delinked.
 * I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who suddenly finds things just link themselves. Do you have the great appearing navigation template problem also? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! I had a template called "List of leaders called 'the Great'" added to Constantine I a few weeks ago. Who thinks of these things? I did add the links to hanging and slavery that you were concerned about at the peer review, though, so I'm not completely without the linking habit. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain briefly that Eusebius is an ancient historian and that (presumabley) Peter Davies is a modern historian? We're not given any indication why Davies opinion matters...
 * I actually don't know what Peter Davies is. I couldn't find his credentials, what with a name as common as "Peter Davies". I've called him a "modern scholar".
 * fourth paragraph "... Galerius might have smarted at the memory of his humiliating appearance at Antioch, when Diocletian had forced him to walk at the front of the imperial caravan..." suggest "...Galerius may have wished to compensate for a previous humiliation at Antioch, when..." Smarted isn't very encyclopedic.
 * Done.
 * Manichaen persecution
 * Need direct citations on the quotations in the second paragraph
 * Done.
 * First edict
 * first paragraph "... and the treasures of the church collected as treasure." Suggest changing one of the treasures to something else to avoid repetition.
 * Done.
 * Need to link "senators", "decurions" as well as equestrians in the first paragraph. Roman senators are a different thing entirely than modern senators.
 * Most obviously. Done.
 * ".. imperial freedmen were reduced to the status of slaves." Do you mean that they became slaves again? Or was it a purely status drop? Clarify, please.
 * de-Ste-Croix says they were actually "re-enslaved", but that sounds implausible. If they were given up, who'd want to take them back? Since I don't have Clarke with me, I'll put in "re-enslaved" for now.
 * remember the Romans didn't "give up" slaves when they were freed, but they added the the ex-masters status and were still bound to him. Imperial freedmen even more so, so yeah, being re-enslaved makes perfect sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The practice..." You mean burning alive? Please make that explicit, it's not quite clear, and this is one of those things it's better to be clear about.
 * Done.
 * "... a man on the street named Eutius..." sounds entirely too much like a newspaper report. Suggest "..a commoner named Eutius..." or "plebian"
 * I don't think we know his status. I removed the "on the street" bit. He's just "a man" now.
 * Second, third...
 * This sentence "Diocletian should not have needed this second edict; that he issued one indicates that he was either unaware the first edict was being carried out, or that he felt it was not working as quickly as he needed it to." is pretty strong POV, and really should be attributed to a specific author rather than left unattributed.
 * Attributed.
 * Third paragraph "... and was still being applied in the Balkans..." I don't think you mean the "Still" there. I think you're implying that it began being enforced in March? That fits better with the rest of the paragraph. Suggest removing "still".
 * Done.
 * Need to link and quickly explain "Augusti"
 * Done.
 * Abdications...
 * I found "...and restored Christianity to its former status." to be very odd, since it was illegal before and after 306. Suggest something different there, perhaps "ended any persecutions."?
 * Done.
 * "Galerius made two attempts to unseat Maxentius, but failed both times. Severus was captured, imprisoned, and executed." the first sentence is totally unconnected to the second, we're missing some context here. Suggest explaining how Severus was captured or at least by who and when, and how this connects to the previous bits.
 * Explained.
 * The Peace..
 * "These conclusions seem specious today." Need to explain WHY they seem specious.
 * I appear to have been a little overenthused when I wrote that. Keresztes doesn't actually offer up a full-bodied criticism of these notions, he just glosses over them dismissively. I've cut the sentence.
 * Need a citatoin on the second long block quote.
 * Done.
 * Regional variation
 * Need a caption, explanation, something for the odd little table over to the right. right now, I have no clue what data its displaying.
 * I've put a caption on the table. There's some discussion in the text over to the left of the table.
 * Britain and Gaul.
 * Need a wikilink and quick explanation of "Donatist" You explain it later in respect to Africa, but it should be explained when first encountered
 * The Donatism of the bishops is irrelevant at this point, so I've removed the "Donatist" descriptor. Now it's just "a group of bishops".
 * Spain and Italy
 * Suggest retitling this to Italy and Spain, since the first bits are about Italy.
 * Done.
 * Need to explain and wikilink "prefect of Rome"
 * Done.
 * "... traditional ascent up the Capitoline Hill at the Temple of Jupiter." do you mean "to the temple"? that makes more sense
 * Fixed.
 * Oooh... They've decided that the sign that Constatine's army fought under was a cross? I've heard it might have been the chi-rho, which isn't exactly a cross.
 * Oh! You're right. Now it's "Christian sign". I had to put in this circumlocution because I can't make out a clear consensus in the secondary sources as to whether we should accept Lactantius' "slanted letter X with the top of its head bent round" or Eusebius' chi-rho. I thought they were both crosses, but, as you've made clear, neither of them are. My bad!
 * "... and a slew of Christian building projects..." slew sounds very unencylopedic, suggest rewording to "and many Christian"
 * Done.
 * Nicomedia
 * Before February in what year?
 * Any reason we need to wikilink 'decapitated" I think most folks know what it means.
 * Nope. Delinked.
 * Before Galerius' ...
 * Martyrs of Palestine or Martyribus Palestinae? Pick one and stick with it.
 * Thought I'd caught them all. Sorry! Martyrs in the text, Martyribus in the citations.
 * This sentence "On November 2, 307, Urbanus sentenced Domninus to be burned alive, three youths to fight as gladiators, a priest to be exposed to a beast, Silvanus, bishop of the churches around Gaza, and his thirty-nine companions to work in the coppermines (Silvanus was later beheaded[280]), and a number of others (including Pamphilus of Caesarea, a priest, scholar, and defender of the theologian Origen), to prison." is VERY long. Suggest breaking it down, which will also allow you to hopefully get rid of some of the parentheticals that really don't need to be parentheticals.
 * Not done. It's meant to be overwhelming. He did all of this on one day. I don't know how to split it up without making it irrelevant. "Oh, he did this and this and this, then."
 * How about starting the group "On one day...." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've broken it up. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * need a wikilink and explanation for praetorian prefect
 * Done.
 * need a wikilink and explanation for Marcionite
 * Done.
 * "At once, the executions stop." is very odd in an encyclopedia. Suggest "Then the executions stopped, although Eusebius..." which combines the very short sentence with the following.
 * I made it "then the executions stopped", but I didn't merge it with the next sentence.
 * need a short explanation for epigraphic.
 * Done, I think.
 * After Galerius'...
 * "Many other Egyptian bishops..." this is odd sounding since you don't explain who the previous two victims were, I assume they were bishops also? Would make more sense if it was explained near their names.
 * Removed the "other".
 * Legacy
 * Need a cite for the last two sentences of the second paragraph.
 * Really? Really? Lord. This is something "challenged or likely to be challenged"? I'm going to have to think about what I'm going to put there.
 * Unfortunately, yes. Always better to just cite everything, even obvious stuff. Stuff you and I would just "know" is going to be weird to people who don't read ancient or medieval history, and they'll want a cite. Just the way it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm actually having difficulty finding someone outright declaring "all emperors after Julian were Christian". Is this because not all of them were? I'll just scrap that bit, and end the paragraph at Theodosius. I have a heavy history of the Byzantine Empire that should be of use. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Need to explain (and link) Liber Pontificalis.
 * Done.
 * Notes:
 * Note four: "Hopkins assumes a constant growth rate of 3.35% per annum. Hopkins' study is cited at Potter, 314. The historian Robin Lane Fox gives a smaller estimate, of 4% or 5%, but allows that Christian numbers grew as a result of the hardship of the years from 250 to 280." Err... 4 to 5% is larger than 3.35%, correct?
 * Oh, the 4 to 5% isn't for the growth rate, it's for the portion of the total population (Hopkins' model gives 10%). I've clarified this.
 * Note 8.. need to italicise suda, I think. Also, might give a date range for the authorship of it.
 * Done.
 * References
 * Need to note non-English sources with the language they are in.
 * Done.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't feel comfortable striking out other people's comments, especially since Sandy makes such a fuss about it. It's so invasive. And the check marks too, incidentally. I just say "Done" when it's a simple "done" thing. I write more when it's not.
 * Oh oh oh! Thank you thank you thank you so much for the review Ealdgyth! I hope the article wasn't too bad! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just hope you're not made a me for such a ... "strong" review. Like I said on your page, I figured you were going to FAC, so reviewed with that in the back of my head. It's not a bad article at all, very good in fact. I do suggest a PR, since you share my sin, wordiness. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. Intense reviews are always better than weak ones. Thanks again! RE: Peer review. I already had a PR, and only you showed up! What I really need is a copy-editor. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)