Talk:Massacre of Thessalonica/GA2

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

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this up; I should have comments in the relatively near future. While I'll consider the points made in the previous review, I'm not bound by them: all GA reviews begin on a clean slate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I look forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments
I'll have more for you briefly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation to Cotten (currently number 17 15) is a masters' thesis. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, masters' theses "are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence"; this one doesn't appear to meet that standard. Since it's only used once, replacing it shouldn't be too great a challenge.
 * I'm not sure what citations 8 and 11 add - they don't support anything in the text, and there's really no need to give us the author's web page. Let me know if there's something I'm missing.
 * When I first started on Wikipedia a very dear and helpful friendly editor would repeatedly put a citation saying next to my citations of people without WP pages telling who they were. He suggested I include some information on them to explain why they should be paid any attention to, so for awhile I added references for the scholars themselves. Wonderful and amazing  buidhe  has been gradually breaking me of the notion that this is a good idea. I forgot these were here. They are gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like Buidhe kindly took care of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we both tried to remove them at the same time - but whoo hoo!!  buidhe  showed up!!! We are cookin' now!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a link in-text to Stephen N. Williams, but I can't imagine that theologian wrote a book on Theodosius. Assuming our Williams is the same as this Williams, he should have been born in 1942, not '52.
 * You're right. Link removed. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. Link removed. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ Thank you. This is wonderful. You rock. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cameron, Averil; Garnsey, Peter, eds. (1928). The Cambridge Ancient History, Late empire, A.D. 337-425. Volume 13. Cambridge University Press. — This book has individual authors for chapters. You should indicate the author and chapter you are citing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And while you're at it, could you check the year? GBooks says 1928, but the copyright appears to be from '98 and the editors hadn't even been born in '28. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1998 is correct. I'm so glad to see you! I know now that between the two of you, everything's going to be okay. We'll get it fixed up and runnin'! Bless you both! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would probably be useful to provide a background section, telling the reader a bit about Theodosius, Ambrose, the previous interactions between the two, religion and politics in the fourth-century Roman Empire, and/or anything else that you might find relevant. Brown (p. 111 and whereabouts) has some useful information on that front.
 * I am working on that in my sandbox right now. I write 6 paragraphs, then delete down to one, so it takes me awhile, but I will get something that is appropriate to this topic and doesn't go - too far -- off into the weeds soon. I hope. I will.
 * In the paragraph beginning "Daniel Washburn writes", there seem to be some issues with the quotations. Washburn says "...intentionally or not, ended in a massacre", but you've changed it to "...intentionally or not, produced the 'massacre of Thessalonica'". Since you're quoting, stick with the original unless you want to modify it with brackets.
 * ✅ I should never attempt to quote from memory... thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The final sentence of that paragraph (beginning "While the precise date...") is a verbatim quote from Washburn, but it isn't in quotation marks. It might be better just to paraphrase - there's nothing special about the wording.
 * Is there a difference between citation 5 (Drake) and citation 8 (Biennial Conference)?
 * Oh no! Big oops! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Big oops! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about WP:OR in the template Campaignbox Fourth Century Roman Civil Wars since the article never states that this event was part of a civil war. If that can't be substantiated the event should be removed from the template, and the template should be removed from the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was in the article before my arrival and while I noted the problem, I didn't remove it immediately and then forgot about it, so thank you for reminding me. It's gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As you probably can tell by now, my reviews proceed in no particular order. I appreciate your responsiveness to my suggestions, and I look forward to analyzing the article further in the coming days. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC) I should have more for you soon. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In the sentence beginning One peculiarity of the story...: The citation is to page 95, which doesn't seem to back the sentence up. Page 100 seems to discuss it.
 * Theodosius' accountability: I'm not sure if "accountability" is quite the right word for that section since it talks mostly about the degree and motivation of his participation. Perhaps "Theodosius' role" would be a better summary?
 * Citation[s] are needed for the majority of the paragraph beginning Historian Daniel Washburn says.
 * Sentence beginning According to Washburn, Sozomen gives: You refer to Washburn, but the cite is to Doležal.
 * The explanatory footnote appears to be mostly verbatim from Doležal, but it's not marked as a quote. Again, a paraphrase would probably be preferable, and you might even consider bringing it up into the text.
 * First it was a quote; then I didn't like its prose so I changed some of it to read better and removed the quotes, but it is too close to the original not to quote, so now it is back as a quote with brackets for my additions. I like it being in the text. Good call.
 * De civitate Dei - Since the source also uses the English, you might as well make it easier on the reader and just write (and link) The City of God.
 * This article contains a lot of quotations. I certainly understand why: when scholars have such a diverse range of views, giving the various perspectives directly to the reader can be helpful. But we are a tertiary source, and MOS:QUOTE is clear about the dangers of over-quoting. I think it would improve the fluency of the article if you looked at each quotation and asked yourself whether a paraphrase would be just as good or better. If the wording is particularly useful, then by all means keep the quote. But there are plenty of places where it doesn't really add anything: e.g. The bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodoret.... If you wouldn't lose anything by summarizing, it's better to summarize.
 * You're right of course and  buidhe  will tell you she keeps trying to break me of my unnatural obsession with quotes, and I am trying to cut back, honestly I am, but I love them! I am addicted to quoting!! :-( I know you're right, really I do; it's a character flaw... I changed the bishop quote. :-) It looks so sad and bedraggled without the panache of a quote, but I will cope. I will change any you see fit. My problem is that whenever I remove one in one place, I tend to add one in another - I tell you it's a sickness! I am a recovering quotation-aholic. Please be patient with me.
 * The usual prescription for treating quotaphiles (and victims of various other modern-writing ailments) is a perusal through this. Once you've read through it, you'll never even be tempted to quote again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, Extraordinary Writ, I am laughing out loud! What a terrible un-followable mess! There's no text to hold those quotes together and explain them! That is not at all like me, no sir, not at all. I would never misuse quotes in such an abusive manner! Let me quote a doctor ... nevermind. ;-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As you're going through the quotations, make sure that they're all attributed in-text. There are a few places (e.g. "The reports of Rufinus, Sozemen and Theodoret are mutually exclusive") where the text doesn't make clear whom you're quoting.
 * are generally believed to have occurred in April of 390. There doesn't seem to be a cite for this (the nearest one, Brown, doesn't discuss it). You say earlier in the article that general consensus places it in the spring or summer of 390 CE, so I'm curious about how broadly accepted the April date is.
 * Added some content on that.
 * The usual prescription for treating quotaphiles (and victims of various other modern-writing ailments) is a perusal through this. Once you've read through it, you'll never even be tempted to quote again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, Extraordinary Writ, I am laughing out loud! What a terrible un-followable mess! There's no text to hold those quotes together and explain them! That is not at all like me, no sir, not at all. I would never misuse quotes in such an abusive manner! Let me quote a doctor ... nevermind. ;-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As you're going through the quotations, make sure that they're all attributed in-text. There are a few places (e.g. "The reports of Rufinus, Sozemen and Theodoret are mutually exclusive") where the text doesn't make clear whom you're quoting.
 * are generally believed to have occurred in April of 390. There doesn't seem to be a cite for this (the nearest one, Brown, doesn't discuss it). You say earlier in the article that general consensus places it in the spring or summer of 390 CE, so I'm curious about how broadly accepted the April date is.
 * Added some content on that.
 * Added some content on that.
 * Darlin', Extraordinary Writ you write whatever you want, in whatever order you want. This is wonderful. You and dear  buidhe  are the kinds of editors that make other editors better, and I can't tell you how much I admire and appreciate that. I am truly grateful. Thank you thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Doležal, the bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodoret wrote... - this makes it sound like Doležal is the bishop of Cyrrhus. You already explained who Theodoret was two sentences prior, so you can just remove the "bishop of Cyrrhus" clause.
 * The articles on Sozomen and Theodoret are each linked twice, and both in the same paragraph. (There's a wonderful script that detects these.)
 * Stanislav Doležal says these problems... - it's attributed in-text to Doležal but cited to Washburn.
 * Stanislav Doležal says these problems... - it's attributed in-text to Doležal but cited to Washburn.
 * Stanislav Doležal says these problems... - it's attributed in-text to Doležal but cited to Washburn.
 * Thank you! This is great!!!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC) This article has seen lots of progress, and I anticipate being able to wrap the review up in the next few days. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * had gathered in the circus of their town - I'd link circus just to prevent any misapprehensions.
 * Paragraph beginning Doležal summarizes the disparity of views: You can probably dispense with the names, years, and page numbers of the works that Doležal is citing - just the author will be adequate.
 * The sentence beginning Paulinus, Ambrose personal secretary, is a bit long/clunky; the fluidity would likely benefit if you split it into two.
 * Ditto for the sentence beginning McLynn writes that the relationship.
 * Ditto for the sentence beginning John Moorhead says that Ambrose.
 * Rewrote that one because it wouldn't divide easily
 * And ditto for the sentence beginning Washburn says the image.
 * Sorry, missed this one earlier. I have semi-divided it - using a semi-colon - because otherwise it would require a repetition of the attribution and that would just be weird. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In August of 390, Theodosius is alleged to have issued a law - this wording suggests that scholars dispute whether he issued the law at all. I think the "is alleged" is referring to the date; if so, you might try something along the lines of "Theodosius issued a law, allegedly in August of 390, ordering..."
 * The Thessalonian code was a collection of disparate laws, many of which had been issued by others at earlier times, so there is some dispute over whether it came from Theodosius or was a re-issue. I think the alleged represents what the sources say better than a conclusive 'Theodosius did it' does. If you feel strongly about it, I will look up more on this particular law and we can come to some kind of consensus on it. Otherwise, I request that we leave this one as it is.
 * That's fine. If the sources permit doing so, you might want to add a sentence about it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * consensus agreement - redundant; pick one word or the other.
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Thessalonian code was a collection of disparate laws, many of which had been issued by others at earlier times, so there is some dispute over whether it came from Theodosius or was a re-issue. I think the alleged represents what the sources say better than a conclusive 'Theodosius did it' does. If you feel strongly about it, I will look up more on this particular law and we can come to some kind of consensus on it. Otherwise, I request that we leave this one as it is.
 * That's fine. If the sources permit doing so, you might want to add a sentence about it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * consensus agreement - redundant; pick one word or the other.
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ I have now added the historical background section you requested, though I feel I should apologize for adding more on top of what you have already done. I had a hard time not writing a whole history of the Roman empire! I finally focused on the two main characters and was able, then, to cull the rest. I hope you find it adequate. If not, tell me what else you think might be required, and I will do it. That cooperation is at least partly because I think you might be the best reviewer I have ever had. You're quick, thorough, focused, reasonable and pretty much always right on in your comments. Being on the receiving end of that is truly awesome. :-) Thank you again. Cheers back at ya'! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sentence beginning He was a man who radiated strength - I would preface this with "According to Hebblewhite" or some equivalent. I realize that you just gave in-text attribution in the previous sentence, but I think it's important to make clear that this sentence isn't in wiki-voice.
 * Same thing for the sentence beginning He was accepting of different customs.
 * Neil B. McLynn, Fellow in Later Roman History... - your new background section already introduces him, so this subsequent reference can just read "McLynn".
 * Do you have access to Cambridge Core (either through TWL or otherwise)? If so, this book chapter might be valuable. (If you don't, WP:REREQ might be able to get it for you.) I can't see very much through GBooks, but it looks like it has quite a bit of interesting information, especially considering how recently it was published.
 * I will, but right now my browzer couldn't open that page and I have to go, but I will be back later tonight and check this.
 * I see we have an article on one of the paintings you use. Linking it in the caption might be useful.
 * Do you have access to Cambridge Core (either through TWL or otherwise)? If so, this book chapter might be valuable. (If you don't, WP:REREQ might be able to get it for you.) I can't see very much through GBooks, but it looks like it has quite a bit of interesting information, especially considering how recently it was published.
 * I will, but right now my browzer couldn't open that page and I have to go, but I will be back later tonight and check this.
 * I see we have an article on one of the paintings you use. Linking it in the caption might be useful.
 * Ditto! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Something is wrong with cite 23 (MacMullen) - it looks like some piece of template syntax is missing.
 * Any reason for keeping the two McLynn cites (3 and 14) separate? I see that they have different years and ISBNs, but they would appear to be the same book.
 * No, my bad.
 * The quote beginning The people of Thessalonica revolted seems to deviate quite a bit from Washburn's text.
 * It was one of those that went from a quote to a paraphrase, then I decided it was too close a paraphrase and added the quotation marks back without checking word for word content. My bad again!
 * Since we seem to be getting toward the end of this review, I'd encourage you to go back and expand the lead a bit more. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends "two or three paragraphs" for an article of this size, and you've added a good deal of content since you last worked on it. A decent guideline might be giving each section/sub-section two or three sentences in the lead. This allows for both thorough coverage and a leisurely pace in the article's most important part.
 * ✅ I hope...
 * Also in the lead: the present wording "an action by imperial soldiers in Thessalonica taken against civilians" is a bit opaque. I'd recommend being a bit clearer about what particularly is alleged to have happened. Then, of course, you can clarify the scholarly concerns with that narrative. (The body does this well, so it's just a question of doing it in the lead.)
 * See if you think it's any better now.
 * See if you think it's any better now.
 * It has seen a lot of progress thanx to you. Stepping up like you have, giving this very excellent and obviously needed review, and your many valuable and on point comments have brought this article to another level. I am so grateful I could pop! You have been wonderful, this review has been excellent, and I hope we become the best of friends forever after! I want you to review everything I write from now on! I cannot say thank you enough. Is there such a thing as a review board? Is there someone I can tell how great you are? I will if I can. You deserve it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you to say. Your generous comments, as well as the knowledge that my review has improved the article, are a sufficient reward for me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry had to move this - wrong place! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Gibbon factoid in the lead appears nowhere else in the article. Per MOS:LEAD, everything in the lead ought to appear in the body, so I'd either add it in (with a citation, of course) or remove it.
 * Moved him down to the body with the other naysayers. :-)
 * I'm not sure how much the paragraph beginning According to Henry Smith Williams adds. It doesn't really provide background since it speaks mostly to the effect of the massacre on Theodosius' reputation. Additionally, Williams is not a modern source, so his reliability is perhaps questionable. I'd recommend just axing that paragraph; the article wouldn't lose anything.
 * Well, I liked the symmetry with the paragraphs about Ambrose. Plus it indicates how important this event was in history and our understanding of the emperor. Instead of removing it, I added a sentence on modern scholarship. Would that be an acceptable compromise?
 * Hmmm. The background section is supposed to provide background, i.e. things that the reader needs to know before reading about the massacre. This paragraph would seem to belong in a sort of "legacy" section, i.e. discussing how the massacre made a difference in history and impacted our perceptions of Theodosius. If you want, you could certainly consider tacking on such a section at the end; you could also discuss there the impact on Ambrose' historical reputation and on church-state relations more broadly. But that's not really my concern: I just want to make sure that the background section is providing actual background, not conclusions. (Put another way, it doesn't make sense to talk about the massacre's effects before you've even told us what happened.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ Well I feel compelled to say that's a really good argument and I have to agree. Except now I have no idea of what history is actually pertinent to these events. It wasn't part of the Arian controversy. It had nothing to do with anti-paganism. It may have been about the Goths but probably not. It wasn't about the empire being in decline. Theodosius did sponsor a massacre once and he did offer clemency at two other points, do you think that qualifies? This seems like an isolated and unique incident, so I cannot see what history might have led up to this beyond the character of the men involved. Please help! Should I simply delete this stuff or move it to Aftermath maybe??? Yikes! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with providing information to situate the event and its key players in their historical context, which I think is what is happening here. As long as the section is limited to things that happened before the massacre (which, with the exception of the Williams paragraph, it is), I think it's useful in providing a preface of sorts to the reader. The article could survive without it, but I think explaining 1) where the Roman Empire stood at that point in history, 2) who Theodosius was and what he had done previously, and 3) who Ambrose was and what he had done previously is valuable to the non-expert reader. So I'd say just cut the Williams paragraph (and, if you're so inclined, replace it with more info about Theodosius) and this section will be good to go. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ Uh-oh!!!  I moved it to the bottom section!  It is now in two places in the article. I don't want to mess with reverts so if you would please, decide where you think it should go - or not - and remove at will! I will leave it to you. It's okay to remove it completely if it's off topic. It's kind of relevant to Ambrose' influence over Theodosius I think, but I thought you were right about it not being background.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right again and just the Williams paragraph should be moved or removed. Aaarrggh! As you wish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All right Extraordinary Writ. I can live with that. Poor Mr. Williams is non-compat. :-) Thank you for fixing that. SHEW! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We're almost there! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The in-text attributions for citation 20 vary: some of them attribute it to Hill and others to Liebeschuetz. From what I can tell, Liebeschuetz wrote the notes and Hill simply helped. If that's the case, I'd attribute the quotes solely to Liebeschuetz. (If that's right, just use control-f to find all references to "Carole Hill" and replace them with references to "Wolf Liebeschuetz".)
 * I think I used Carole Hill where she was referenced in other sources, but looking at this particular book, I think you're right that referencing it means using WL instead, so ✅
 * I'd say you could probably still expand the lead a bit more. You have three paragraphs, but they're all very short. I'd recommend bulking them up say, to five or seven sentences each  so as to give a thorough summary (an oxymoron, I know) of the contents of the article. You have room to explain what Ambrose' role was, what Theodosius' role was, the circumstances of Butheric's death, and the intentionality (or not) of the massacre. Obviously, there's no clear consensus on any of these issues, but it's just fine to provide the most prevalent explanation with the caveat that it's not accepted universally. If there's no prevailing explanation, you can just say "Some scholars believe X, while others argue Y." The main idea is to ensure that the lead "gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on" instead of just saying "It's all a mess and nobody agrees about anything." While the latter is probably true, that shouldn't stop you from giving the reader enough information to identify the main perspectives. Writing the lead is difficult! That's especially true when you're dealing with a situation in which scholarly opinions are so divided. Hopefully this is of value; I can try my hand at it too if that would be helpful.
 * Please feel free! I would love it if you would try your hand - that gives me the opportunity to revise you! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ I took a stab at redoing the lead. See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a solid improvement. (I was also working on rewriting the lead, so I'll put what I came up with below in case it's useful to you.) I'll have some more comments for you briefly.
 * Well dang, now I like yours too - in some ways more than mine. Can we combine them? I will try in my sandbox and see what I can come up with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ Done. See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The Massacre of Thessalonica (Thessaloniki) took place in the Roman-controlled Greek city of Thessalonica, probably in 390 CE. Although historians disagree about many of the details, the generally accepted narrative states that a mob killed Roman commander Butheric, possibly because he had refused to release a popular charioteer from custody. In retribution, Roman soldiers massacred thousands of citizens when they were assembled in Thessalonica's hippodrome. Most scholars agree that Emperor Theodosius I played at least some role in either ordering or permitting the massacre, although others contend that the soldiers simply got out of control. In light of the events, Christian bishop Ambrose refused Theodosius communion, insisting that he display penitence for his role in the massacre. While scholars dispute Theodosius' sincerity, he did comply with Ambrose' demands; the bishop restored the emperor to communion after eight months of repentance. - Modern historians have had difficulty discerning the details of the massacre and its aftermath. There are no contemporaneous accounts of the event; instead, the works of fifth-century church historians provide the earliest record of what happened. Many parts of these accounts contradict one another, and some are of questionable reliability. The pagan historians of late antiquity did not discuss the massacre at all. Scholars contend that most extant retellings of the events portray them from a moral perspective, emphasizing Ambrose' indignation and Theodosius' repentance rather than the historical and political details. This makes it difficult for modern historians to distinguish fact from legend. Nonetheless, most classicists accept at least the basic account of the massacre, although they continue to dispute when it happened, who was responsible for it, what motivated it, and what impact it had on subsequent events.

I'll give the article a thorough read-through tonight or tomorrow, and then we should be ready to go. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC) For the reasons below, I'm prepared to pass this article. Here are a few additional non-GA suggestions that might be helpful if you choose to work on this article further: Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With regard to your request above: I kept most of the relevant material in the original background section. I just think it makes more sense there; otherwise, we have to stop telling the story halfway through to introduce Ambrose and Theodosius. Of course, feel free to change that if you like. I just removed Williams because I couldn't find a logical place for it to go. As I said above, it would only really "fit" in some sort of "impact" or "legacy" section at the end. I would say just keep it out for now; that's probably the easiest thing to do. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ Thank you for fixing this! I accept your revision and like the result. I have nothing to add to the content. Mr.Williams can go take a nap. :-) I like what we've done. And all the sources are correct now thanx to you. I write in my sandbox, then copy paste and often end up with duplications. I need to get better. There's probably a quote I could use about that... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * was a massacre of civilians by imperial troops under Theodosius I - to me, anyway, this reads as if Theodosius was actually there leading the troops. I don't have a firm opinion on how to resolve it: either reword the sentence or just remove Theodosius from it. I'd also mention in the first sentence that these are Roman imperial troops.
 * Hatnotes on historical background section: I'd make them both "see also", e.g. "see also: Theodosius the Great and Ambrose". Unless I'm missing something, there's no reason why Theodosius is the main article.
 * probably the local magister militum - since this is the lead, you might want to just say "garrison commander" or something like that. Per MOS:INTRO, technical terms should be avoided in the lead if possible.
 * Extraordinary Writ These are all ✅. I'm going to miss you when this is done. Can I come visit some time? Ask you for special favors and reviews and stuff? :-) As long as I promise not to quote anyone? Seriously, you have been incredible and done a great job and I thank you from the bottom of my heart - and the top and the sides and pretty much the whole darn thing. If you ever need anything, please ask. I will be glad to give back even a little of what you have given here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Yes, you're always welcome to pay me a visit. I don't do a lot of formal content reviewing, but I'm glad to give articles a perusal on request. Of course, your quick responses and your hard work were also essential to improving this article, and I'm happy that you didn't give up after what must have been a difficult previous review. Wishing you the best in your future endeavors, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:CONTRACTIONS, no contractions.
 * Okay, I found four and fixed them. I read throiugh and also used control-F for every contraction I couod think of. If I missed any - please just fix them! :-) ✅
 * Add MOS:ALTTEXT.
 * Make sure words are linked the first time they appear in the body and not at some later point. (For instance, Theodosius and Sozomen aren't linked until their second occurrence in the article. This is likely because this article has had, to say the least, a lot of reorganization.)
 * Theodosius is linked in the lead. Sozomen is fixed now - since his first mention got moved. I think I got them all. If I missed any, please follow request per contractions.✅
 * As is true for most articles, a copyedit from WP:GOCE/REQ would likely be useful in ironing out prose issues, inconsistent citations, MOS concerns, etc.
 * What?!? What prose issues do you refer to kind sir - besides your feelings about quotes? I thought we had all the citations ironed out - what remains? Plkease advise on any MOS issues. I know we are done now, but I am still eager to learn and improve - while not completely losing myself and becoming a robot - so I would be glad of any input you have. I probably will never do everything exactly as you would, but I would like to meet WP's requirements in my own way if that's at all possible.
 * That was more of a general statement that someone with copyediting expertise would likely find things that both of us have missed. It's nothing personal: just a recognition that additional perspectives improve everyone's writing quality. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You rely pretty heavily on Washburn and particularly Doležal. While they're both great sources, the article would probably benefit if you were able to diversify the sourcing a bit.
 * The fact there are 27 sources is evidence of hours and hours of searching over weeks and even months. I never stopped looking even while we were doing this review. There are lots of books on Ambrose. There are lots on the fourth century and the emperors. But in those books, this event is often little more than a sentence or a footnote, and there is simply not a lot out there specifically on the massacre of Thessalonica. I was afraid someone would have a problem with how much Doleźal is used, but honestly, he was the best source and the source of half the other sources I found. The one you sent me on rhetoric referenced Sozomen mistakenly in one place when what he referred to was actually in Theodoret, which shook my faith in his scholarship, but honestly, he didn't say anything I didn't already have. I usually look at twice as many sources as I end up using, and this article was no exception. Much of what's out there is too old to use - like Williams - it's been OBE by now. If I run across anything, I will add it, but I won't be holding my breath on this one. It isn't laziness that produced a limited number of sources. That's the reality out there. It was frustrating, but there it is.
 * I certainly understand that. Of course, you shouldn't worry yourself too much about it: in this section, I'm just pointing out issues (or non-issues) that might come up in higher-level reviews. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'm sure there are still some quotes that could go.
 * Hah! You and buidhe! :-) I love using quotes, because they keep me grounded in what the scholars actually said, instead of my interpretation of what they said, which is always slightly different. I like that. I like the specificity a quote reflects. To me they are like using statistics. They reflect accuracy. There is great comfort in knowing that I am not getting the author's intent wrong or adding my personal views into the mix.
 * You guys can continue to work on paring me down! :-) I did cut out some and shorten others though, just because you asked, and I will acknowledge that is probably a good thing. There is no doubt your input improved this article, so perhaps with some perseverance you could manage to improve my writing as well. I love WP. I won writing awards all through college, but wiki is a world unto itself isn't it? It isn't like any other type of writing I have ever done. So, don't give up on me. Keep trying. It may get through my. thick skull one of these days.
 * You guys can continue to work on paring me down! :-) I did cut out some and shorten others though, just because you asked, and I will acknowledge that is probably a good thing. There is no doubt your input improved this article, so perhaps with some perseverance you could manage to improve my writing as well. I love WP. I won writing awards all through college, but wiki is a world unto itself isn't it? It isn't like any other type of writing I have ever done. So, don't give up on me. Keep trying. It may get through my. thick skull one of these days.
 * Again, I certainly understand that too. (Some people don't; see WT:MOS.) But, to employ a quote, "Everything that exceeds the bounds of moderation has an unstable foundation." Even good things like quotes lose their valence when overused. There's certainly no easy answer, but it does seem important to emphasize that, as an encyclopedia, our job is to summarize the consensus, not to reprint the opinions. But I definitely agree that some carefully chosen quotes can clarify the issues at hand, as well as giving the reader a brief break from the dull prose that Wikipedia sometimes rewards. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ Thank you!!!!! I think these are all ✅ now. Thank you for your skill, your focus, your perseverance, all of it. You have been wonderful - you did not just give me an easy pass, you gave a serious and careful review - you were prompt in your responses, always on point, and really just excellent in every way. Please note I am saying this after you have already awarded the GA. :-) It is one of the best reviews I have ever had. I am genuinely and deeply grateful. I don't know what I - or this article - would have done if you hadn't shown up. Thank you again and again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria As discussed below, I conclude that the article in its present form meets the good article criteria.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Each sentence's meaning is clear enough to be understood without difficulty. While there are plenty of wrinkles that could still be ironed out, the prose quality is good enough for GA purposes.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * All content is cited to reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are only used to supplement them.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * My spot checks of citations suggest that the content does indeed reflect what the cited sources say.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * All quotations are marked as such, and I'm reasonably confident that there are not so many quotations as to constitute a copyvio. See WP:NFCCEG.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The article seems to do a pretty good job of addressing all of the questions that the sources raise.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * A wide variety of perspectives are presented, and the article does not seem to elevate one over another. Since scholarly opinion is so divided, there aren't any due weight issues: the article permits the reader to decide which explanation (if any) is most persuasive.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The first and third images, being centuries old, are obviously in the public domain, and copyright doesn't vest in photographs of two-dimensional public-domain works. The second image has a valid CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks again for your great work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks again for your great work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your great work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)