Talk:Gaius Marius/GA2

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

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 09:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome Ave User:Cerebellum and User:Ifly6: I will be your reviewer for this, the second GA nomination of the article Gaius Marius. I am an apprentice-reviewer much less experienced than either of the nominators (Ifly6 has only 1742 edits; but definitively is a subject-expert). Please tell me when I go wrong. I see you nominated the article on 9 January 2022. I see it is rated "B" at present. The prose is 51 kB (8395 words), WP:SIZERULE says ">50 k: May need to be divided". I applied the Rater script the article, which calls ORES which rated your article "B or higher" with a confidence of 92.7%. This sounds all very positive. I start reading now. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The 6 GA criteria (WP:GA?) 1. Well written a) Clear, concise, understandable, grammatical, and correctly spelled. b) MOS:LEADLENGTH, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, WP:WAF, & MOS:LIST 2. Verifiable and no original research a) Notes, citations, & references MOS:NOTES b) Inline citations c} WP:OR d) Copyright violations and plagiarisms 3. Broad coverage a) Main aspects b) Focused 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated a) Copyright b) Relevant and captions

I start a first traverse.

English variety

 * Please add the English Variety (wp:engvar) under the Short description.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Image - The image is problematic because of the doubts about the identity of its sitter, why did you avoid using the photo of the Chiaramonti Marius (Musei Vaticani) that appears further down? If you keep the present image, it might be necessary to provide a citation for the claim that it might represent Scipio Asiaticus.
 * The Chiaramonti Marius is also problematic: "its identification is only tradition" (source). I added a source for the present image. The most reliable likeness of Marius is from this coin (source), but unfortunately it is very indistinct. I can put the coin in the infobox if you think I should. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citation Etcheto, Henri (2012) and footquote (WP:FOOTQUOTE), but why do you use instead of Sfn? Let us sort this out before going further. Johannes Schade (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake, changed to Sfn. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Alt - White bust. This sculpture is somewhere between a bust and a head as it shows very little of the shoulders. Perhaps the Alt text should give more detail.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done very well as "statue" is a full-length figure. As this is a sculpture, "depict" is awkward because, at least originally, it referred to "paint". As this head represents a man, I find it worthwhile saying that his beard is shaved (clean-shaven). Also that there is no drapery or clothing. Perhaps something about the hair. Perhaps, inspire yourself from a professional description of a similar sculpture in a museum catalogue.
 * I understand your concern but I don't want to violate MOS:ALT by giving too much detail: Alternative text should be short, such as "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush". How about Scuplture of a man's head and a small part of his shoulders? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fine. Besides, MOS:ALT, despite its name, is only a supplementary text, not a guideline, therefore being a bit longer does not violate the MOS. Thanks, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like "head" might work: that's, if I recall correctly, the standard term for those kinds of portraits (which is also an accepted term). Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

, (MOS:NOBR). I know they are sometimes difficult or awkward to avoid and I use them myself in some situations, but not in the infobox where they are easy to replace with Plainlist or Unbulleted list.
 * The Infobox should normally not use HTML breaks, i.e.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead might is short compared to the length of the text. WP:LEADLENGTH suggests 3 to 4 paragraphs of lead for a prose length > 30,000 characters (about 25 kB). You prose length is 51 kB.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * IMHO none of the claims made in the lead is so exceptional that it needs a citations immediately here in the lead (MOS:CITELEAD). The corresponding citations in the body should support the facts well enough.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Early career

 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Latin town of Arpinum. - The article Arpino says "Connected with the Pelasgi, the Volsci and Samnite people".
 * removed "Latin". --Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: southern Latium. - I would call it "south-east Latium".
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, Plutarch citation - Instead of citing Loeb's translation of Gaius Marius's life from Plutarch's Parallel Lives on a website, it would probably be better to cite it from the book in Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/L101PlutarchParallelLivesIXDemetriusAntonyPyrrhusGaiusMarius/page/n485/. The advantages are stability and being able to give page numbers.
 * Done and added page number to the citation, I still need to add page numbers for the other Plutarch citations. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am glad you agree :) Johannes Schade (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, Hyden citation - Hyden can be previewed in Google Books at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N9XLDwAAQBAJ. Add the URL in the source description
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, Duncan citation - Duncan can be previewed in Google Books at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ANcnDwAAQBAJ. Add the URL in the source description
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, Evans citation - If I understand it right, Evans 1995 refers to the thesis, which can be read in entirety on the website of UNISA. Wonderful. To give this thesis more weight you also describe it as a book, even if this book is inaccessible to the general reader. However, you should then |IMHO omit the url and {Para|oclc}} and content yourself with isbn. I feel a url should never point to WorldCat and if isbn is given oclc should be omitted. I would guess: ifly6=Richard John Evans.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not him. See also the references section where I give citations for the book version as well as the thesis version along with a review thereof. The thesis version is the one from which the page numbers are extracted. I don't own Evans' book, so cannot comment on pinpoints for it. Ifly6 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day, ifly6. So I was wrong. I should refrain from making such guesses. It would have been nice to cite the book, but the thesis has the huge advantage that it can be read on the Internet, which allows me to read it. That is fine. I wonder whether the book and the book's review should not go under "Further reading". I must admit that I have no experience with this situation. I would probably have put only the thesis into the source list and not even mentioned the book or its review anywhere. However, I understand that they do contribute.


 * 1st paragraph, 4th sentence, citation: Hildinger 2002, p. 59. - This book is in Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/swordsagainstsen0000hild/. It is incredible what IA all has! Please change this source from Google Books to IA. I suggested above to remove OCLC when ISBN is available, but if you want to give both, please do so. There is no rule against this in Wikipedia. Since you are again generously giving a footquote, may I ask you : why do you write "ps=. ", resulting in ". " in the footquote and not ": ", resulting in ": "? You probably have thought about this. I think it is not the first time I see it done like this. I also like to give my readers footquotes but I always write "ps=: " (see Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty) to see how I do it. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind changing to ":", but I'll wait to see if Ifly6 has a strong preference. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The main reason why I use a full stop rather than a colon is because the cite book quote parameter places the quote after a full stop. This way SFN and Cite book citations are consistent (normally I do not SFN unless the book was used multiple times). Ifly6 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean and it looks like a good reason. So go on with "dot". I will experiment a bit with it myself and will probably adopt your style. Thanks for explaining, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed OCLC and changed url to Internet Archive. Tomorrow I'll scrub the page and make the same changes (OCLC and Internet Archive) on the other citations, where applicable. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 5th sentence, citation: Evans, Richard (2008). - Why do you implement your citations mostly with Sfn but then sometimes also with instead. Both are accepted for GA purposes but I think they should not be mixed haphazardly. Or is there some order and method in this? (I personally by far prefer Sfn).
 * I agree with you, I will change them all to Sfn. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why I did not make changes for consistency there was because Wikipedia's guidelines generally prohibit editors from changing from one acceptable form of inline citations to another without consensus, especially for reasons of personal preference or to make one article match the style in another article.. See Template:Citation style. Also, thanks, Cerebellum for doing the grunt work of normalising the citations. Ifly6 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes WP:CITEVAR. However, an article should have a consistent logical citation style (WP:CITESTYLE says "any given article should follow a consistent style"). If somebody has started referencing an article with inline citations in a certain consistent style, then this obliges later editors to follow that style whether they like it or not, unless they obtain consensus to change that style. This is usually done on the talk page by pinging the editors involved and ask for permission to change. In practice this consultation for consensus can often be bypassed for various reasons. The article may not yet have inline citations, none of the editors concerned are active any more in Wikipedia. Possibly also when the citations in the article are erratic inconsistent, a mess, since a long time and nobody has cared. Otherwise, ask the editors of the article now for permission to change the citation style. I have asked for a change in citation style from to Sfn quite a few times and usually had positive reactions or no response, except in one case where the main contributor found Sfn "exotic". If there is no response within a reasonable time, you can go ahead and change the style. See for example Richard Butler 1st Earl of Arran where I changed the style after request on the talk page, having had no response for a month. That seems a long time but passes quickly and is worthwhile.


 * 1st paragraph, 6th sentence, praetor. - I suggest replacing "praetor" with "a praetor" in "He was elected as praetor for 102&BC" as there were more than one praetor in office at the same time, which the reader might not know.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation: Conti, Flavio (2003). - Another citation implemented with.
 * Fixed! --Cerebellum (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: While he was serving. - "While serving" might be sufficient." Johannes Schade (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 6th paragraph, This connection may be. - I suggest simply: "this may be".
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Subordinate to Metellus

 * 1st paragraph: March under the yoke. - would not "pass under the yoke" be a better translation for sub iugum mittere? See the illustration in the article Tigurini. The yoke remains in place, the Roman soldiers pass through bending deeply under the yoke.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

More to come, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph: Caecilii Metelli. - Are the "Caecilii Metelli" a specific branch of the Metelli? Why "Caecilii"?
 * The Caecilii Metelli were an influential family in the late republic. Caecilii Metelli family tree. They produced a ridiculous number of consuls. Their nomen is Caecilius; their cognomen is Metellus. The nomen alone is not descriptive because there are other Caecilii (eg L Caecilius Secundus of Pompeii and Cambridge Latin fame); the cognomen alone also is not descriptive as there are other Metelli. Ifly6 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was caught by the three names of the Romans that I have never really mastered. To the general reader it looks confusing how you sometimes just say "the Metelli" and sometimes the "Caeclii Metelli". Besides just a bit further you write "Metellii", a typo. Essentially you are right. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph: Jugurthine War. - We are in a section "Subordinate of Metellus". There is a section "Run for the Consulship" and then a section "Jugurthine War" further dow. It seems we are in plain Jugurthine War long before the start of the corresponding section. This is confusing.
 * There is an ongoing Jugurthine war. Marius served as a Metellus' subordinate in the war. He criticised Metellus' handling of the campaign when he stood for the consulship and was then assigned to take over from Metellus. Ifly6 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is well so. However, would you not think it is confusing to the reader to encounter this heading so late. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph: Metellus'. - Possessive singular, not plural: Metellus'-> Metellus's; Marius'-> Marius's. (see e.g. William Strunk, The Elements of Style).
 * Done. Ifly6 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. It seems we do agree after all. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that standard practice in non-classics context is to use Xius's. That said, in classics books, you will not find this commonly followed (I am sure there are those who do follow it). I changed merely to avoid a meaningless argument, not because "we do agree after all". Possessives are almost always without trailing s. Eg:
 * "Gracchus' settlement", "Aemilianus' considerable ability", "Africanus' son", "Perseus' wide estates", "Africanus' old confederate". Adrian Goldsworthy, In the name of Rome (Yale, 2016) 112-13.
 * "Posidonius' personal remembrance", "Hyrcanus' reign". TRS Broughton, 1 Magistrates of the Roman Republic (1951) 509.
 * "Tiberius' reform". Saskia Roselaar, Public land in the Roman Republic (2010) 224.
 * "Tiberius' attempt", "Gracchus' desire", "Gracchus' first cousin", "Tiberius' fellow tribune", "Tiberius' agrarian bill", 'Tiberius' initiative". Harriet Flower, Roman Republics (2010) 83.
 * "Marius' tribunate", "Marius' performance". RJ Evans, Gaius Marius: a political biography (1995) Univ S Africa thesis, 51.
 * "Marius' consular candidature", "Lepidus' high-minded rhetoric". Henrik Mouritsen, Politics in the Roman republic (2017) 125.
 * Ifly6 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please pardon my ignorance. I am not a Classics scholar—but nor is Wikipedia an encyclopedia for Classics scholars. Obviously, when I said "we agree after all" I meant that the "'s" singular possessive is the correct form in British English. I will well believe you that it is otherwise in Classics jargon: you are the expert. It is interesting to discuss with you and I enjoy learning from you. I just today started replacing "ps=:" with "ps=.". There are quite a few articles in need of this. I found that user:Buidhe also uses it like you do, e.g. in her article Armenian genocide denial, and she is an eminent Wikipidian with many offices and honours, among others FA coordinator. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pardon my earlier confusion, I had believed for a second that you had meant the opposite (that I must use Marius', which while acceptable in classical scholarship, is also outside of BrE conventions). I reverted my comment when I re-read your comment and realised what it actually meant. Ifly6 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 3rd paragraph: citation Sallust 1921, 48–55. - This cites Sallust's Jugurthine War from a website. I do not know what the loc=48–55 means. The cited website shows subdivisions ("paragraphs") 1–35. I therefore do not know which part of the text you are trying to cite. Like it already was the case with Plutarch above, it would be much better to cite Sallust from an online book than from a website. See https://archive.org/details/L116LacusCurtiusSallustWarWithCatilineWarWithJugurtha/page/n155/
 * The website has multiple pages. See https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Sallust/Bellum_Jugurthinum/2*.html. The first page is provided in the citation because that citation needs to stand alone. I prefer using paragraph numbers because that is both normal and standard in citation of classical works. Eg Flower, Roman Republics (2010) 4 (citing Cicero in note 2 as "Cicero De orat. 2.12.51-53"). Ifly6 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do understand now and see that you are right to say that among specialists the paragraph numbers are generally preferred over the page numbers. However, would you not agree that it would be better to cite from a book and not from a website? And to treat this book then like any other source for consistency and in the interest of the general reader? Johannes Schade (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many versions and reprints of various classical texts. What is on page 42 of some specific edition you have of Cic De Orat is not going to also be on page 42 of different editions. Classicists use 'canonical' paragraph numbers because there are so many editions of the same works. Providing the page numbers for, say, the modern Loeb edition is not helpful if I have the Latin-only edition or the 1920s Loeb or some recent non-Loeb translation. Ifly6 (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are of course right and I am convinced that the system has its merits as you so well pointed out. Nevertheless, don't you think it would be better to cite an online book rather than a website? Perhaps there is a way to give both canonical paragraph and sentence numbers as well as pages as printed in the book. I suppose this problem must have been encountered in other Classics arcticles. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're really serious about citing a book version, then the probable best way is to use traditional format with rather than directly to the page numbers, because those page numbers are basically useless given the plethora of different reprints, editions, etc. Basically all 1850+ editions are indexed both on pages and on the paragraph numbers. Ifly6 (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day There will be an unforeseen delay. I work as a freelance translator and received an urgent request for a translation that needs to be submitted on Monday, the 28 February. I have to ask you for some time. With apologies and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem :) --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Run for the consulship
1st paragraph: campaign 20 years in the future. - How do you come to precisely 20 years?
 * Consuls were usually elected after the age of 40. Metellus told Marius 'Don't be in a hurry to go to Rome, it will be soon enough for you to be a candidate [for the consulship] when my son becomes one' when Metellus' son was about 20. Duncan, Storm before the storm (2017) 109. 'Decades' is a better term, as it conveys the same kind of delay without being overly precise. Ifly6 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

War in Numidia
2nd paragraph: Marius was supposedly unhappy. - I suggest a more precise handling of the tenses: "Marius had been supposedly unhappy ..."
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

3rd paragraph: Gaetulian and Numidian". I first mistook Gaetulian for the name of a person. I had never heard of the Gaetuli. I would suggest to inverse and write "Numidian and Gaetuliasn" as "Numidian" will be recognised as an adjective by the readers as they have already encountered the noun "Numidia" above.
 * I see Gaetulian and Mauretanian, changed to Mauretanian and Gaetulian. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

5th paragraph": been immediately responsible. - "Responsible" sound a bit too passive. I suggest "taken the risk and done the deed" if this can be supported by the cited source (Duncan), the relevant part of which I cannot access. The preview in Google Books is short and lacks page numbers.
 * ✅, quote from Duncan is "But Marius was not able to enjoy his triumph in peace. Men who disdained the usurping novus homo praised the young noble Sulla as the real captor of Jugurtha.According to military and political tradition, the man who held Imperium over a province received all credit and all blame for the fortunes of war. It was how it had always been done. It was mos maiorum. But enemies of Marius encouraged Sulla to tell his story." --Cerebellum (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cimbri and Teutones
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: their defeat of. - Very misleading. First I thought the Cimbri had been defeated. I suggest to change to "their victory over". This is the first mention of the Cimbri in the text of the body. Some explanation about who they were might be needed. Perhaps bring it forward from the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph.
 * Changed to In 109 BC a migrating Germanic tribe called the Cimbri appeared in Gaul and routed the Roman army there under Marcus Junius Silanus. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 1st sentence: had crippled Roman prestige - Can prestige be crippled? A person, an animal, a car or a machine can be crippled if a member or important part is missing; but prestige? I suggest "had led to loss of Roman prestige" but that is a bit long. Perhaps "had diminished Roman prestige" or "had damaged Roman prestige". You can find better.
 * Duncan actually does use "crippled" ("The crushing defeats at the hands of the Cimbri in 113 and 109 crippled Roman prestige") but we shouldn't reuse his phrasing verbatim, how about This defeat reduced Roman prestige? --Cerebellum (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Tigurini. - The reader might be surprised to hear about the Tigurini here. How does their story link up with that of Marius?
 * It is part of the pattern of Roman defeats in Gaul which made the Senate so desperate that they brought in Marius to save the day. The Tigurini were also inspired by the Cimbri, per Duncan: "The Cimbri themselves had gone back up the Rhone to central Gaul after destroying Silanus’s legions in 109. But that only opened the door for other tribes to take advantage of the power vacuum. A tribe from modern Switzerland called the Tigurini took advantage of Roman setbacks and moved down out of the mountains." --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: march under the yoke. - We have discussed this before (if you still need this).
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 4th sentence: Tolosa. - It looks to me as if the capture of Tolosa and the treasure are not needed for Marius's story. It is treated in the article Quintus Servilius Caepio (comsul 106 BC).
 * I agree that it has nothing to do with Marius, but I'm worried that the narrative will become disjointed without it. The paragraph has to explain what Caepio was doing in 106 (looking for the gold in Tolosa) that led him to be prorogued in 105, assigned to work with Mallius, and then defeated at Arausio. Should I remove the bit about the gold and abbreviat to There, he captured of Tolosa (modern Toulouse). While Caepio was prorogued into the next year, the new consul for 105 BC, Gnaeus Mallius Maximus…? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What Caepio did in 106 BC as consul does not matter. He was proconsul in 105 BC, "assigned to Gaul", and commanded an army. That should be enough. I feel you do not need to mention Tolosa at all. Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed to The next year, 106 BC, another consul, Quintus Servilius Caepio, marched to Gaul with a new army to salvage the situation. Caepio was prorogued into the next year and the new consul for 105 BC, Gnaeus Mallius Maximus, was also assigned to southern Gaul with another army. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 4th sentence: there he captured the town community of Tolosa .... - Looks unnecessarily complicated. I suggest to simplify to "He captured Tolosa ..." (if you still need this).
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: The Cimbri and the Teutones (both migrating Germanic tribes) .... - This is the first mention of the Teutones in the text of the body. I suggest changing to "The Cimbri, now accompanied by the Teutones (another Germanic tribe), ..." (if this is well so and can be substantiated by the citations).
 * My only issue with this is that the same resulting sentence will have too many commas, how about The Cimbri and another tribe called the Teutones appeared on the Rhône? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Arausio. - Mention this is modern Orange. The reader should be able to follow your narrative without having to look up wikilinks. I find it is importatnt for the reader to know where this Arausio was. The reader might know the modern names.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, 21st sentence, citation: Evans 2017. - There is no Evans 2017 in the source list.
 * Fixed, the info was in Evans 1995. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As consul
1st paragraph, 4th & last sentence: or sortition. - I suggest "or by sortion".
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: bBsing his army around a core .... - Sounds strange because normally you base something on something, not around something. I suggest "Building his army aroung a core ...".
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, last sentence: Aquae Sextiae. - Mention this is modern Aix-en-Provence. The reader should be able to follow your narrative without having to look up wikilinks. I find it is importatnt for the reader to know where this Aquae Sextiae was. The reader might know the modern names.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

5th paragraph. - What is the relevance of the slave revolt to Marius's story?
 * I don't think it is relevant, removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Reforms to the military
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: called for repeal of .... - I suggest: "called for the repeal of ..." (with the definite article).
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Gracchus'. - Grachus' -> Grachus's.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: term of services. - I think you do not mean "term of service" (the length of time of the military service) but rather "terms of service" (the conditions under which the recruits provided military service) or perhaps more precisely the "prerequisites that a recruit had to comply with" (which is not covered by the citation). Which one?. In fact I would suggest to write "Gracchus's recruitment requirements.".
 * From what Rich says I think "term of service" is correct, he writes "Plutarch tells us that Ti. Gracchus announced a number of legislative proposals when he was seeking reelection, one of which was for the reduction of the period of military service", and "It is thus clear that between 133 and 109 two or more laws were passed, presumably by popularis tribunes, reducing the number of years for which citizens were liable to serve; one of these may have been C. Gracchus' lex militaris." --Cerebellum (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you not say "the senate proposed to extend the duration of the military service by the repeal of Gaius Gracchus's restrictions thereof." instead of "the senate called for the repeal of Gaius Gracchus's restrictions on the levy's term of service." I think that would be much clearer. If that is well what you mean and what Rich supports on p.320. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation: Rich 1983. - The footquote has a quotation and a sentence after the close of the quote. I suppose only the quotation is from Rich whereas the last sentence is a comment from a Wikipedia editor. If this is so, I feel that it would be better to transform this into an explanatory note (Efn) that include the citatio.
 * Removed the footquote, is that ok? I think it is unnecessarily confusing since have the quote is in Latin. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes you can drop the footquote. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 4th sentence: While enrollment .... - I find the sentence difficult to understand mainly because you replaced Rich's "since" with "because". In addition a semicolon instead of the comma before the conjunction would make it easier to read: "disapproval; since ...".
 * How about While enrollment of volunteers without property provoked disapproval, none had been enrolled against their will, so legal action could not be taken? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fine. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 5th sentence: ... unqualified volunteers.. - I find it is not necessary to quote here. Rather paraphrase. The "unqualified" could be interpreted in more than one way. I suggest to clarify "... volunteers that did not comply with the property requirements."
 * Revised to Modern historians view this enrollment in near-sighted political terms: forcing men with property to serve would have made Marius unpopular, so he resorted to recruiting among the poor. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot make a sweeping statement "Modern historians..." unless the cited source directly says so (WP:RS/AC). Rich's p236 does not mention "Modern historians". Reformulate. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is on page 325, "Most modern historians explain Marius' action in terms of the supposed shortage of assidui...To avoid losing popularity by conscripting men against their will, he took unqualified volunteers." --Cerebellum (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry got the wrong page. This is fine. Johannes Schade (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Battle with the Germanic tribes
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: returned from Hispania. - The return from Spain seems to have been stated twice.
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Ambrones. - Wikilink. The article Ambrones exists.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

4th paragraph: the slave revolt. - I still feel that the slave revolt should be omitted in section "As consul" and only "a slave revolt" should be mentioned here.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

6th paragraph, terminal citation: Evans 1995, pp. 112. - A single page, therefor pp. -> p.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sixth consulship
2nd paragraph. - Very difficult to make sense of, but so is Evans's text on which most of it is based. This can perhaps be shortenend to the general ideas and objectives of Saturninus (more power to the people and less to the Senate) and inspiration for this might be found in the article Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and the sources cited there.
 * I've simplified to the basic idea that Marius worked with Saturninus to pass the land bill and get rid of Numidicus, then turned against him. Let me know what you think. C.f. Duncan: "But as they celebrated finally nailing Metellus, Saturninus and Glaucia were about to discover that their marriage of convenience with Marius had come to an end. With land for his veterans secured, and his old nemesis Metellus finally dispensed with, Maria had nothing further to gain from backing the radicals." --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that "Maria" -> "Marius" and make clear what radicalism is meant "radical populares" (or similar). Johannes Schade (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: Badian argues .... - Who is Badian? he is not wikilinked and does not appear as an author in the source list.
 * Ernst Badian, Evans is referring to an article he wrote called "The death of Saturninus", but I've revised the text so his name doesn't appear anymore. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine with me Johannes Schade (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

90s BC
3rd paragraph, last sentence: lex Licinia Mucia. - This is not understandable unless the reader reads about the law following the wikilink.
 * Revised to who was now being prosecuted under a new citizenship law.
 * Fine with me Johannes Schade (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Social war
1st paragraph, last sentence: Italian states then revolted. - I suggest "Italian states revolted" (without the "then").
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, last sentence: ally, socii. - Ally is singular but socii is plural, thus either "ally, socius" or "allies, socii".
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: With Marius in command of their camp .... - I suggest "With Marius in control of their camp ...".
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, last sentence: Quintus Poppaedius Silo himself.. - This is the first mention of Q. Poppaedius Silo. He is also mentioned further down and explained as "one of their generals". That should rather be explained here.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

5th paragraph, 1st sentence: Marius's experience in the conflict .... - The word "experience" might be interpreted in more than one way. I suggest "Marius's efforts in this conflict ..." (if this is what you meant).
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

5th paragraph, 1st sentence: ... brought him few honors.. - Since British English was chosen, it should read "honours", not "honors".
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sulla and the First Civil War
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: In response, King Mithridates of Pontus responded .... - I suggest "In response King Mithridates of Pontus invaded both kingdoms as well as the Roman holdings ...".
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: After news of Mithridates's atrocities .... - We have not heard of Mithridates's atrocities yet. Something missing?
 * Changed to "actions". --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's worthwhile to spend at least a sentence describing the Roman casus belli against Mithridates, lest it appear that the Romans have no reasons of any sort to mount a punitive expedition; they are covered in both Duncan and Evans' thesis at least at a surface level. Ifly6 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, 5th sentence: After killing Marius's legate .... - We hear of two legates: "legates" or "one of Marius's legates"?
 * Both were killed, fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, last sentence: who were promptly murdered by Sulla's troops.. - The relative pronoun "who" seems to refer to the legions.
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Seventh consulship and death
5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... rather than an actual change in policy.. - Perhaps "avoiding an actual change in policy"?
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Legacy
1st paragraph, 1st sentence after the block quote, citation: Evans 1995, p. 169. - The statement "modern historians ..." needs a quote that says "modern historians" I do not find such a passage on page 169 (WP:RS/AC).
 * Changed to "According to Evans". --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Reforms to the legions
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: In the traditional narratives .... - It might not be clear to all readers which are the "traditional narratives". The term has not been used before. I suppose it is Sallust and Plutarch?
 * Changed to "the narratives of Plutarch and Sallust". --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1st paragraph, last sentence, quotation: "the composition of the post-Marian armies ...". - It is not clear from where the quote is taken as two inline citations follow. MOS:QUOTE says "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote." It also does not really seem necessary to give a quotation. Paraphrasing what the cited authors say would probably work just as well.
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, quotation: "The property qualification for army service ...". - somewhat similar as above. The MOS says "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion."
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, last sentence, quotation: "increasingly irksome chore ...". - somewhat similar as above. The MOS says "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion."
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Assemblies and foreign affairs
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: lex Sempronia. - What has this lex Sempronia to do with Marius? It was passed during his early career but is not mentioned in the discussion of that time in his life.
 * I think you are right, info removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Political violence
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, note: "See both Sulla and Marius's purges ...". - I suppose it should be "Sulla's"
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline
The timeline is cut off at the right end.
 * Fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

END OF 1st TRAVERSE
I should probably do a 2nd traverse. However, there are many remarks waiting for replies and possibly actions. The nominators' latest reply is by ifly6 in the remarks made on section "Run for the consulship", dating from 11 February, eight days ago.

The Step 4 of the GA reviewers' instructions says (Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions): "You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner (if you absolutely cannot, make sure another editor can). Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer. Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow you time to fix any issues that may arise (reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit if they wish). If a review stalls or there is disagreement over interpretation of the good article criteria, you may want to consider allowing the review to fail, then renominating the article (to get a different reviewer). Or, you may try asking the nominator to ask for a second opinion. Otherwise, you can ask for assistance at the GA nominations talk page."

I know I lack experience and your article probably merits a better reviewer, but if I do not review, how should I gain the experience? My mentor told me to do 12 reviews after my nomination Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty passed A-Class. If you wish so, I could fail Gaius Marius and you can then nominate the article again and get another review with a better reviewer. However, I am also ready to go on if you simply need a bit more time.

With thanks and best reagards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello there – I'll be frank, this sort of time commitment is why I didn't really want to bring a Good article nomination by myself (an abortive attempt having cemented that opinion). That said, I agree that delays are bad and skimming your feedback, a lot of it is useful, especially for lay-readers who might not be very familiar with the republican legal and political context. do you have time to review Johannes' feedback? Ifly6 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! I'll go through the feedback tomorrow! Cerebellum (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I have responded to everything, please take a look and let me know where I have erred. Johannes, for what it's worth I think you are doing an excellent job of reviewing, more thorough than most. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Lost comments
Thank you so much! Looking forward to your feedback. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I note that some tags were added on 6 February, I'll add the citations as soon as I can. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Re whether Sulla was took the risk and done the deed, to borrow that terminology, it wasn't him alone. He was directly responsible for the negotiations with Bocchus; Marius had approved the negotiations and encouraged them. As with most group projects, everyone had a different view of how much everyone else did. Ifly6 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Some general remarks

Length (2nd Traverse)
The articles length has diminished from 51 kB (8395 words) to 50 kB (8320 words), which is an improvement as WP:SIZERULE says ">50 k: May need to be divided". So keep in mind that the article should not be made longer.

More to come Johannes Schade (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead (2nd traverse)

 * 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "... Assembly elected Marius consul.". - I suggest to link assemply to Centuriate Assembly, as this was the body that elected the consuls.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: "... and Marius fought in the war but his military success was limited. ". - I suggest: "... in which Marius fought with limited success."
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 4th paragraph, end of 3rd, beginning of 4th sentence sentence: "... in 86 BC. His life ...". - Two successive spaces. Please make a search for obnoxious consecutive spaces and eliminate them.
 * Is that required by the MOS? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right: it isn't. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Early career (2nd traverse)

 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "Cereatae". - I suggest to link to Casamari Abbey and perhaps explain "modern Casamari" as you find suitable.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, citation: "Plutarch 1920, p. 469". - This is the first of several Plutarch citations. The GA criteria are very lenient on how citations are done. However, I find it weird that you use sometimes p and sometimes loc for citations from the same source. We have discussed this before and I understand that the numbers given with loc are the canonical paragraph and sentence numbers. However, the general Wikipedia reader will not understand. I propose to always give the page numbers and give a one-click llink to the source in the Sfn so that the classicist can jump directly to the page where he will be able to see the canonical paragraph numbers so that he can find the corresponding page in a paper book of his choice. Like this: "" . If you agree, please go through your Plutarch 1916 and 1920 citations, replace the loc with p or pp and provide one-click links directly to the cited page. Furthermore, regarding the long citation in the source list, note that the url given there, which points to the beginning of the chapter, should stop at the page, excluding display instructions ("mode/2up"). Like this: "https://archive.org/details/L101PlutarchParallelLivesIXDemetriusAntonyPyrrhusGaiusMarius/page/n485/" (not like "https://archive.org/details/L101PlutarchParallelLivesIXDemetriusAntonyPyrrhusGaiusMarius/page/n485/mode/2up"). Perhaps go through all your url parameters and remove the needless tails. As online books are static, you can omit the access-date parameter.
 * I'm hesitant to make the changes on this and the Sallust citation until we agree on this point. Some other recognized Classics content uses the paragraph numbers instead of the pages, such as Augustus, Alexander the Great, Battle of Marathon. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, paragraph numbers should be what is cited, as is the common (almost only) practice in scholarship. Ifly6 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: "The military tribunate shows ...". - I suggest to delete the sentence. I do not see its interest. His military tribunship has been discussed above.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Subordinate to Metellus (2nd traverse)

 * 3rd paragraph, final citation: "Sallust 1921, 48–55". - This is the first citation from Sallust's Jugurthine War. We have already discussed this. I still feel Sallust should be treated like Plutarch and be taken from a online book (at Internet Archive), not a website (such as https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Sallust/Bellum_Jugurthinum/2*.html in this case), and pages should be cited, not canonical paragraphs and sentence numbers. The website might not be acceptable as a reliable source. It seems to be self-published by a guy called Bill Thayer.
 * The site, LacusCurtius, is frequently cited on Wikipedia. I don't know if it is reliable, the last discussion I could find on it is from 2007: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If this website were the only possible source I would understand that you want to defend this source to save the useful and true content that it support from being thrown away. I know that hurts. But it is not so. We all know that Sallust's book is available online in Internet Archive. Why waste your time in reading discussions about whether a self-published website can be RS, in finding out who this guy Thayer is and whether he has a tenure position at the University of Chicago, if the indisputable true RS is there at Internet Archive ready for you to use. Fix it here, make nails with heads, and be assured that you will not have to confront this issue again at FA level. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this? I checked and the site is used in at least two FAs: First Punic War and Augustus. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify as to what I should be thinking of? Ifly6 (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the article currently links to Sallust's Jugurthine War on this website. Johannes proposes to replace the website with a version from the Internet Archive. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I looked at the two FAs you refer to. They seem indeed to be vailid precedents that prove that Thayer's website is acceptable. Fine.

Run for the consulship (2nd traverse)

 * 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: "... have the Assembly override the Senate's decision ...". - I suggest to link "assembly" to whatever type of Roman assembly this was.
 * Do you know which assembly this was? I'm guess the Plebeian Council but Duncan doesn't specify. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I discovered the page cite was wrong; I wrote 110 instead of 113, this was corrected. Duncan cites Sallust, Jug ch 73, which says a tribune raised the matter. Evans (1995) p 135 is more explicit saying a plebiscitum was passed; plebiscites can only be passed by the concilium plebis (as the name implies). Evans' justification is also by implication: the unstated assumption is that the tribune responsible, wouldn't have had the authority to convene the tribes qua tribes, so he must have convened the tribes as plebs. Clarification, and citation to Evans, effected. Ifly6 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

More to come, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Command in Numidia (2nd traverse)

 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, citation: Beard, Mary 2015 .... - This citation is using . I suggest to change it to Sfn as the majority of the citations use that style. There are a couple of others that need the same conversion. You might want to do that in the same go. Mary Beard's book is at https://archive.org/details/spqrhistoryofanc0000bear/.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: He arrived comparatively late .... - I suggest "Marius arrived comparatively late ...". Grammatically the "He" refers to Jugurtha, which is not what you mean.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... Cirta.. - I suggest explaining that Cirta is modern Constantine in Algeria.
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

More to come, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just want to check in with you, what else do we need to do on this article? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. Do not hesitate to ping me. Johannes Schade (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph, last sentence: ... proved a highly competent. - I think "proved a competent" is good enough.


 * 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence: ..., and for a time. - A comma is needed before "and" as it joins two independent clauses.


 * 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: "friend and ally of the Roman people". - Quotations in the main body need be attributed (MOS:QUOTATIONS). I suggest to add a citation.


 * 4th paragraph, last sentence, citation: "Plutarch 1920, 12.1–4". - This citation refers to the Life of Marius in Plutarch's Parallel Lives, but it leaves to the reader to find the page. Quite obviously, the Life of Marius is not the only one that comprises a 12th paragraph. The given canonical location is therefore not easy to find. The description of the book in the source list should give the page on which the Life of Marius' starts. I also believe the Sfn should give a page number (perhaps a directly clickable one) rather than a canonical number. The reader, once he has found the page will discover what the canonical paragraph number is, which he might use to find the same location in a different edition.


 * 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation: "... deed and had a signet ring made ...". - I know I have already made you change this sentence once, but I was not entirely successful. I now find it has become too long. I suggest to cut it in two by inserting a full stop before the "and", thus: "... deed. He had a signet ring made ..."; but think about the entre passage, perhaps you can find better.

More to comme, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. Typically a GA review lasts 7 days, we have now been at this for a month, and I'm afraid your patience has exceeded mine.  I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong but I'm going to move on to other projects and I'm happy for you to close the review and fail the article. I suppose it is up to Ifly6 if they want to continue with the review. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Cerebellum, I understand. I was busy with the review and a edit conflict resulted. I think I will wait a bit and see what User:Ifly6 has to say. I hope you still go on in Wikipedia and we will perhaps meat another time, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * First, you'll find that clicking Plutarch 1920 links directly to "Life of Marius" rather than every other element of Parallel Lives. This is again a case where you prefer page numbers and every classicist on the planet prefers paragraph numbers. I'll be more frank: I'm not going to change it. This also is not part of the GA requirements and have not been interpreted to be so: Mistakes to avoid: Requiring page numbers where these are not essential ... Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA. I also think that citation of Plutarch should be reverted to Penelope, which is more readily searchable (Command-F, type in the number). They're even the same books. EDIT. I altered to use Tufts Perseus.
 * The phrase "friend and ally..." was added in this diff. The original source was removed; it, regardless, did not link to any specific work by Mommsen which could have provided guidance (even ignoring that Mommsen's work is really too old to be citing). Note that the quoted portion also is a status not a quote. I have no idea why it was so noted. Regardless, I omitted it in preference to Britannica 2017's clearer "ally" terminology.
 * The sentence "... deed and had a signet ring made ..." is 22 words long and scores a Flesch-Kincaid grade 10. It isn't at all long or complex. Regardless, I rewrote the description to more clearly describe a conflict over who got credit rather than the specific things they did in chronological order. Ifly6 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As Consul (2nd traverse)

 * 1st paragraph, last sentence, citation: "Evans 1995, p. 99". - The relevant passage ("He was immediately assigned Gaul as his proconsular command ...") starts on p.98: perhaps "pp. 98–99".


 * 3rd paragraph, last sentence, citation: "Atkinson 1995, p. 106". - I had difficulties to find where the claims made in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph are supported on page 106 of Atkinson 1995. It might be helpful to ad "Note 2" and extend the page to the range "pp. 106–107".

Battles with the Germanic tribes (2nd traverse)

 * 4th paragraph, 1st sentence, quotation: 'spend a fruitless year employed with garrison duty'. - Quotation marks are normally double and not single in Wikipedia (MOS:QUOTEMARKS).
 * ✅ You have done this. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sixt consulship (2nd traverse)

 * 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation: "Sherwin-White 1956, p. 5". - The corresponding entry in the list of sources says page 5, like in the Sfn, however the article occupies pages 1–9.
 * ✅ You have done this. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

More to come, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I fixed the problems described in "As Consul", "Battles with Germanic tribes", and "Sixth consulship" [recte]. These are, however, minor problems which the Good Articles instructions assert you can help in fixing: In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. I'd appreciate it if you have the fixes in hand (eg "pages 1–9"). Ifly6 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Ifly6. Thank you very much for still continuing and for referring me, the apprentice-reviewer, back to the GA instructions and criteria. I seem to have a tendency to forget the limitations and to make excessive suggestions based on instructions in the Manual of Style (WP:MOS) or other guidelines (e.g. WP:CITE) that are not part of the GA criteria. It is your right to reject such suggestions. You can also complain about me to any administrator (WP:BLOCKREQUESTS) and have me blocked. There is also a list of GA mentors at WP:Good article help/mentor who would censor me. You can also ask for a second opinion, which might well lead to me being replaced with a more experienced reviewer. With regard to editing "marginally non-compliant nomination"s, I am not sure whether your nomination (even if it is surely very good) falls into that category and fear that I might intrude into your prerogatives by edits that you would then reject. More in general edits by the reviewer would risk to blur the limits between the roles. As reviewer I should of course not be or become a major contributor of the text. - I like the lead image with a nose. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 5th paragraph, 1st sentence, citation: "Plutarch 1920, 30.4". - This sentence reads "At the end of his consulship, Plutarch states that Marius's reputation was in tatters." The citation mark is numbered 131 at present. When I click from the citation mark through to the source, I land on a website "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0007.tlg031.perseus-eng1", which indeed shows the beginning of the "Life of Marius" of Plutarch's "Parallel Lifes" as you said it would. However, how do I get to "30.4"? I thought 30 was a paragraph, but the website offers links to chapters and sections, so I assume 30 is a chapter and 4 a section, but when I go to chapter 30, section 4, I get a text about the murder of Saturninus, whereas I expected a passage that supports that Marius's reputation was in tatters. In 31.2 there is a passage "And now, thinking that his influence and reputation were gradually fading away because of his inactivity and quietude", which might be what you were trying to cite. I might of course be entirely wrong. Do you think the general English Wikipedia reader (from Nigeria for example) will know his way through this? I had never heard of Sallust and Plutarch and canonical references before starting this review. Otherwise, having been educated about these by you, I understand that the canonical method of citing should be taken into account as the classicist like you is perhaps more prone to want to look up the references than the Nigerian. I wonder whether there is not a way that would give both, the page and the canonical reference, in the Sfn. Would you agree with ?

More to come, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * In the search box above the text, type in Plut. Mar. 30.4, yielding:
 * "[4] Marius did all he could to save the men, but it was of no avail, and when they came down into the forum they were put to death. This affair made Marius obnoxious alike to the nobles and to the people, and when the time for electing censors came he did not present himself as a candidate, although everyone expected that he would, but allowed other and inferior men to be elected, for fear that he would be defeated. However, he tried to put a good face upon his conduct by saying that he was unwilling to incur the hatred of many citizens by a severe examination into their lives and manners."


 * If you think that doesn't support the claim, remove it.
 * It is not up to me as reviewer to remove a citation. Under the GA criteria I cannot demand that you add citations, except for an unsupported quotation or a claim that "is likely to be challenged". I think the reviewer should not be the one that challenges. But if a citation exists, then there was somebody who found it was needed. The reviewer is therefore right to expect that the citation should support the statement. I think this one does not. I believe that you should replace it with a better one. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel it does support the claim (especially in a Roman political environment where one's reputation and fides is definitionally an external sense of honour), but softened regardless, to "alienate". Ifly6 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that you italicized for me (thank you!) which part of 30.4 (namely: This affair made Marius obnoxious alike to the nobles and to the people) supports the statement, I do understand. This is often a problem for me, apprentice-reviewer, that I need to read a lengthy text and isolate in it the part that is relevant as support of the statement. A footquote can be helpful but there are editors that object to footquotes or delete footquotes as irrelevant.✅. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * SFN doesn't support pages and loc at the same time. It generates a nonsense citation like Blah 1990, p. 123, 1.2.3 which is not helpful. I have no idea whether Nigerians are looking into Plutarch or not. I do know that if they are, they won't necessarily be paging through a c. 1920 edition of Parallel Lives. Ifly6 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is not satisfactory. I thought that Wikipedia is more for the Nigerian than for the specialist, but of course it is for all of us. I have tried to see whether there are some FA ot GA articles who have solved the problem but I have not found any. I suppose we will have to leave this for others to solve. The GA criteria only say the reviewer must be able to find the source. It does not mention the Nigerian and it does not say it needs to be easy. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

90s BC (2nd traverse)

 * 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence, citation: "Cicero, De oratore 2.194–196". - The GA criteria prescribe "it contains a list of all references (sources of information)". Cicero's works cited in the article are omitted in the list of sources. You might want to add them, but the GA criteria do not require it ("consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required").
 * Cicero, De oratore is sufficiently specific. Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not required by the GA criteria, as already admitted.

Social War (2nd traverse)

 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: "... proposed a greater division of state lands, ...". - I wonder what the "greater division" means and would welcome a clarification. I suspect the proposal did not only subdivide stateland in smaller parcels but also distribute or allot these parcels to landless people. Unluckily I cannot preview Duncan 2017 p 216.
 * Accepted that land reform is a clearer statement. Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sulla and the First Civil War (2nd traverse)

 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: "... Lesbos ...". - Link Lesbos (the Greek island).
 * Done. Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Reforms to the legions (2nd traverse)

 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "... beneficence of ability ...". - Do you mean "beneficence or ability"?
 * Done. Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: "Willingness". - Perhaps rather |readiness"?\
 * Non-concur. Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I just wondered about this. I may have been wrong.

Timeline (2nd traverse)
I think a timeline is a good idea, but there are Wikipedians going around that delete them as "duplicative".


 * The word "Lusitania" is not mentioned anywhere else. Is it another name for Hispania Ulterior?
 * ✅ You have done this. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The word "Defense" is American spelling. I had the impression your English is British, at least you say so on your user page. Probably Oxford spelling more precisely.
 * ✅ You have done this. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Should not the War in Numidia appear somewhere?
 * ✅ You have done this. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The realistic timewise spacing along the line results in empty space during calm times on one hand and insufficient space on the other hand when things get busy. There might be other events less directly related to Marius that could be added for context, e.g. the reforms of the Gracchi, the Punic wars while he was a child. An ordinary tabular format would probably be more efficient. Se e.g. the timetable (collapsed) in James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond. These are of course just comments that you can happily ignore.

So far. I will pause and think about whether there is anything outstanding. Best regards and thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the timeline. See Talk:Gaius Marius#Timeline update. Suggestions accepted; non-concur on extraneous events. Note also that the Second Punic war ended in 201, which is decades before he was born. The Third Punic war was a mopping-up operation. Regardless, there could not have been Punic wars while he was a child. Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your hesitation to intervene into some other editors work, but this is unavoidable in reviews, unless the nominator has written the entire article alone. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear User:Ifly6 I think all concerns that are relevant according to the GA criteria have been resolved. Congratulations and many thanks for your patient explanations and replies. I learned a lot from you. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review! Ifly6 (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)