Talk:Prosopography of ancient Rome

Criticism
The footnotes in the [ current version] of this article are not helpful. Consider this passage: "In German scholarship, Friedrich Münzer's many biographical articles for Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft took a prosopographical approach.[3] Matthias Gelzer, one of the founders of prosopographical methodology in relation to ancient Rome, focused on the social institution of patronage and its effects on the Roman political system.[4]"

Both footnotes provide a source for the assertion, which is unnecessary: looking at the texts indicated (viz., Münzer's biographical articles in RE, Gelzer's publications) ought to serve sufficiently to verify the truth of the statement. (It would be another matter if the truth required expert knowledge to see this.) Instead, the reader is referred to a text whose reliability is not as obvious -- no disrespect to Michael C. Alexander, but how do I know he is more expert in the matter than I?This is even more frustrating in the following paragraph. While Broughton's & Syme's works that exemplify the assertion are mentioned, we must either trust the article itself (e.g. T.P. Wiseman) or this Alexander (e.g. Erich Gruen) that the assertion is reliable. In some cases, namely "E. Badian, particularly his 1965 work on the trial of Gaius Norbanus", the document alluded to is not mentioned in Wikipedia for the reader to find & confirm for her/himself. (Yes, I looked at Ernst Badian & Gaius Norbanus to see if this monograph was cited, & was disappointed. Another short-coming of Wikipedia is a lack of coordination between articles.)Sometimes following Wikipedia rules slavishly results in a disappointing article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)