User:Jon Pacilio/Bibliography for Article Improvements

'''I am practicing bold words. However, it is important to understand what it means to be bold on Wikipedia. Refer to this link in order to do so.'''

For further insight on the top of coinage that the Roman economy used, it is helpful to look at this website

It is commonly thought that to understand Rome, the story of Romulus and Remus must be understood first.

Thoughts About Ancient Rome Wikipedia Article

 * In evaluating the Ancient Rome Wikipedia page, I found it to be very encyclopedic but also unbiased and informative. The information presented comes from a very neutral point of view, in which I found no bias or persuasion in trying to talk about Ancient Rome to try and make it seem like something it was. The information was in fact accurate, cited properly, and made for a great, very informative, article about Ancient Rome. Some of the citations are out of date, for example I checked the citation regarding Romulus and Remus and the story of the rome and while the article dated back to 2007, after reading through that source, I found all of the information to be reputable and accurate as such.
 * I didn't find any information in the article to be irrelevant, it was also necessary and helpful in understanding Ancient Rome and that time period. For example, when talking about the evolution of Ancient Rome, the article does a great job not only outlining the time periods, but providing links to words that they use in order for the reader to understand the text better. The article is discussing the evolution of the Ancient Roman state, and instead of just saying how it evolved and being vague in helping the reader, the author links the wikipedia pages to monarchy, classical republic, and autocratic empire, but relative to Ancient Rome, so the reader can be more informed on the exact evolution of Ancient Rome and the different forms it took at different time periods. I practiced referencing other Wikipedia pages by using the article's references to highlight descriptions of Ancient Rome.

In evaluating the Ancient Rome wikipedia article, it was my first time truly evaluating a Wikipedia article for its credibility and accuracy. In doing so, I found this to be a perfect example of encyclopedic writing rather than persuasive writing as I noticed the articles unbiased viewpoint in describing Ancient Rome and its history through reputable information and credible sources. I feel I have been exposed to persuasive writing throughout my whole life, and the differences between the two are incredibly evident with this article: the article is not trying to persuade the reader into thinking a certain way about Ancient Rome, the article doesn't provide false information about Ancient Rome and provides citations with each claim and statement that it makes. It is a perfect example of encyclopedic writing in the way it provides accurate, unbiased, and reputable information about Ancient Rome by using various different credible sources.


 * These were notes taken prior to reading the "talk" section of the Ancient Rome page. After reading the talk page, I have some reconsidered thoughts
 * I was surprised to see that the Wikipedia community is having conversation regarding the questioning of proper citation and sources throughout the article. For instance, one user suggests that the Byzantine Empire should be included in the history of Ancient Rome wikipedia page, and did a great job of providing reason why, with sources and links that back it up in a well-structured paragraph. This showed me the detail and care put into the evaluation of Wikipedia pages that may or may not be entirely accurate or complete.
 * The talk page also helped me build a stronger eye for proper, encyclopedic, Wikipedia pages. I thought the article was highly-credit amongst the Wikipedia community and thought it did a great job providing accurate and credible information about ancient Rome, however I realized that I need to like with an even more keen eye to really see how credible statements are.
 * This article is rated as a level-3 vital article and C-Class, which Wikipedia writes "is useful to a casual reader."
 * I thought this article was of high-quality for the vast information it provided with what I thought and checked to be credible sources. However, with the level of rating the article received amongst the Wikipedia, it highlights the emphasis the community places on having articles on Wikipedia that are extremely accurate not just for the casual reader, but for people to use for scholarly documents and writing.
 * Although I found this article to be really informative and accurate with what it was saying and the support and citations behind the statements and information provided, the talk page proved that I need to strengthen my eye for more proper and better encyclopedic wikipedia pages.

Thoughts about Roman Law Wikipedia Article
Furthermore, the article provides really good information regarding Ius commune and how it was spread to continental Europe in the 16th century as rediscovered Roman Law, however that is a very big statement to make and would be much more supported with a strong citation from a historian or historical book.
 * Reading this article after the Ancient Rome article helped me have a better eye in evaluating good, credible, and informative wikipedia pages.
 * The Author of the [[Roman Law|Roman law article] claims that English and North American common law were influenced in their Latinate legal Glossary
 * It references certain words used to wikipedia pages to help understand what they mean, but after checking the authors source [1], it does not seem very credible or lead to enough accurate information or facts for this statement to be put in the article. Maybe a re-source or more accurate source that actually backs up said influence on Common Law in English and North America.
 * Author also says how Eastern European law was inlfuenced by the "farmers law" enacted during the Byzantine empire. While he provides proper links to understand what the Farmer's Law was, it is a one sentence vague claim, and a citation after that sentence that proves it to be more credible instead of an author's claim would be better.
 * The Author does a good job using credible historic sources such as the Book of Livy and uses a credible citation with the book "A Short History of Roman Law" by Olga Tellegen-Couperus. This was a good example of a proper statement and evidence of a statement's credibility on wikipedia by backing it up with an accurate sources or source(s) in this case with the book of Livy and the authors citation [4].
 * When it comes to the article's Private Law section, I found there to be a lot of viable information, except some of it seemed to be claims rather than cold hard facts about Private Law which caused me to question the credibility of what was being said.
 * The article mentions Stipulatio and how it was the basic form of contract in Roman Law. This could be a very informative sentence and provide the reader with much more information on what exactly Stipulatio was, how it came about, and how it acted as the form of contract in Roman Law. However, the author fails to provide any link to Stipulatio that can be read so the reader can understand what exactly that word means, and a better understanding of Roman law as a whole.
 * I also found a problem with the credibility of the article's discussion regarding the introduction of Roman Law and how it came about. It mentions how it was created and led by the Kings and nobility, but it's a lot of talking and summarizing. It would mean more if it was cited with a reputable source.

I thought the article had a great introduction and did a good job of providing a summary of Roman Law from the inception of the Twelve Tables, to the further development of Roman law, and even discusses Ius commune. While the article references wikipedia pages to help understand these words and certain definitions, I feel the article could be improved by adding proper citations to the claims and sentences mentioned above, but also as a whole. Roman Law is a very broad concept and defintion, and proper citations help to solidify the information regarding its history. I believe that the article wanes away from talking about what Roman Law actually was, the characteristics of Roman Law and what represents Roman Law, and leans more towards a broad application of the Roman Law to different areas and time periods. Since the article is about Roman Law, the godfather of Civil Law, the article would serve a stronger and more accurate purpose in my opinion to focus on what constitutes Roman Law and its characteristics, and using more accurate and credible citations to support such focus.

When looking at the "talk" page of the Roman Law article, I found some of my thoughts and concerns to be in line with what most of the people were discussing. It is a level C-class on the quality scale with High importance, and I believe that to be true because while it provides accurate information, those claims and statements need to be backed up more by proper and more credible citations. Roman Law is a huge area of study and a very significant topic even today, and one user had a suggestion about the "Style and Detail" of the article such as I did above in that, Roman Law is such an important subject, so instead of giving a full overview of its expansion and application to other areas, the article should focus more on what Roman Law actually was, its actions and procedural issues, etc. etc. While other users on the talk page suggest a full rewrite of the article, my criticism is not that intense as I think it does a good job for the most part in describing Roman Law, however it definitely could use better citation and a stronger focus on what actual Roman Law is.

Thoughts about Roman Economy Wikipedia Article
I found this article to be a really good example of a well-written, cited, unbiased, credible, and accurate Wikipedia page that directly addresses what it is trying to. In talking about the Roman economy, the article does a really good job of explaining the evolution of the Roman economy. The article cites very credible and scholarly sources such as the MIT Department of Economics, Johns Hopkins Press, and Cambridge University throughout the article which gave the article a lot more credibility and sense of accuracy when reading it. For example, when the article introduces the Roman economy by mentioning how it was a monetized economy, it mentions the different types of coinage in silver and gold that was used, provides wikipedia links to those terms for readers to understand what their reading, and uses scholarly and unbiased sources to back the information up.

The article also provides a great understanding of the Roman Economy in terms of how it evolved and what made it stand so strong for so long. The sections on how Roman coinage was mined was clear and well-explained with many citations which, upon review, where accurate and properly referenced in the article without paraphrising or copywriting what the original citiation was saying. I was really able to understand the evolution of the Roman economy from coin minage, to the use of commodities in trading overseas and within Rome, to the types of Jobs that were being taken about Romans who were attributing to the economy. The article was incredibly relevant on the Roman Economy and its history, and I learned a lot about the Economy particularly with the debasement of coinage as supported through the articles citation [6], and the credit shortage that took place as supported by citation [14]. The article did a good job of accurately encompassing the history and development of the Roman economy and I thought this article was a strong of example of a proper Wikipedia entry in accordance with the six characteristics.
 * Specifically, within the Trading and Commodities section and Labour and Occupations section of the article, I was really able to understand the structure of the Roman economy, what drove it, and what helped expand it to be so massive. I did not know that trading commodities was more preffered by sea than land, as I thought that sea transportation would be a little more difficult, however I was informed otherwise and made sure to check the source that the article referenced to ensure the new knowledge I obtained was accurate.

Upon review of the talk page, my feelings and thoughts regarding the article were further supported with the lack of discussion and suggestions for change to the article. One user solely suggested expansion on certain areas mentioned, however that is a desire and suggestion on a readers part, but has nothing to do with the quality of credibility and sourcing that this article uses.

Thoughts Regarding First Evaluation Process
After evaluating these three articles above, I feel that I now have a better eye for the difference between an accurate and credible Wikipedia page and one that is not. For instance, when reading the Ancient Rome article first, I noticed it lacked a lot of proper citations and a lot of the time the information was summarized by who wrote it, without being properly backed up or explained. While the information provided was helpful and informative, it was not exactly accurate and credible, and that can mess with a readers perception of what they are reading about. However, upon evaluating the Roman Economy article, I had a more trained eye for evaluating a good and bad wikipedia page, and I thought that the Roman Economy page serves as a great example for a great Wikipedia page. It contains sources that are scholarly and credible, and when it makes claims that would be viewed as summaries, it supports them with proper citations and links that further explain what the page was talking about. It was concise in the sense that it covered the Roman Economy and its history in a very descriptive and credible manner, without adding too much unnecessary information as I thought was the case with the Roman Law wikipedia page. Overall, after evaluating these three articles, I feel that I have now developed a great evaluating eye for what is and makes a credible and strong Wikipedia page compared to one that is weak and lacking in legitimacy.

Possible Topics

 * Ancient Rome since it's so vague and I feel that if I do enough outside research, I can contribute positively to the article and hopefully raise it's class rating.
 * Culture of ancient Rome because there appears to be a lot of information except most of it is unsupported by citations and seem like claims. I feel I can contribute to the article by editing it in a way that includes reputable sources and citations.
 * Roman economy this Wikipedia page I found to be already very well-written and published according to the six criteria, but there are areas that I can explore in which I can put forth to the article and make it even more informative and reputable.

Thoughts for Improving Roman Economy Article
Notes
 * I believe that I can improve the introduction section of the Roman economy article. After looking at the Ada Lovelace introduction, I see a lot of room to take out vague and unnecessary sentences, but also include more relevant information and concise and sourced sentences that would help to improve the introduction of the Roman economy to readers.
 * When looking at the Trade and commodities, I noticed a bunch of vagueness. It briefly mentioned the means of trade and types of commodities, but as an economics major, I know I am intrigued to and can definitely improve this area by finding sources that more specficially mention the characteristics of trade and types of commodities being trade in the Roman economy.
 * I feel like I can also draw parallels with the Roman economy with US economy today and that can help readers who may not be have an economic background understand the impact and significance of fiat money as the article mentions and terminology such as that.

Bibliography for Article Improvements
For my Roman History course, I will be looking for reputable sources and contributing in other ways in order to improve this article and make it all the more credible, accurate, and up-to standard with Wikipedia's six-criteria. Here are some sources that I found through JSTOR and my College libraries online database. I feel that they can help improve the introduction of the article in terms of proper sourcing some of the sentences made, but also sources that can be used to draw information to improve the Trade and Commodities section as I felt that to be the weakest in terms of the criteria Wikipedia uses. Any thoughts or critique on my bibliography would be appreciated and helpful.

Roman Economy Introduction Section
The early Empire was monetized to a near-universal extent, in the sense of using money as a way to express prices and debts. The sestertius (plural sestertii, English "sesterces", symbolized as HS) was the basic unit of reckoning value into the 4th century, though the silver denarius, worth four sesterces, was used also for accounting beginning in the Severan dynasty. The smallest coin commonly circulated was the bronze as (plural asses), one-fourth sestertius. Bullion and ingots seem not to have counted as pecunia, "money," and were used only on the frontiers for transacting business or buying property. Romans in the 1st and 2nd centuries counted coins, rather than weighing them—an indication that the coin was valued on its face, not for its metal content. This tendency toward fiat money led eventually to the debasement of Roman coinage, with consequences in the later Empire. The standardization of money throughout the Empire promoted trade and market integration. The high amount of metal coinage in circulation increased the money supply for trading or saving.

Rome had no central bank, and regulation of the banking system was minimal. Banks of classical antiquity typically kept less in reserves than the full total of customers' deposits. A typical bank had fairly limited capital, and often only one principal, though a bank might have as many as six to fifteen principals. Seneca assumes that anyone involved in commerce needs access to credit.

A professional deposit banker (argentarius, coactor argentarius, or later nummularius) received and held deposits for a fixed or indefinite term, and lent money to third parties. The senatorial elite were involved heavily in private lending, both as creditors and borrowers, making loans from their personal fortunes on the basis of social connections. The holder of a debt could use it as a means of payment by transferring it to another party, without cash changing hands. Although it has sometimes been thought that ancient Rome lacked "paper" or documentary transactions, the system of banks throughout the Empire also permitted the exchange of very large sums without the physical transfer of coins, in part because of the risks of moving large amounts of cash, particularly by sea. Only one serious credit shortage is known to have occurred in the early Empire, a credit crisis in 33 AD that put a number of senators at risk; the central government rescued the market through a small loan of 100 million HS made by the emperor Tiberius to the banks (mensae). Generally, available capital exceeded the amount needed by borrowers. The central government itself did not borrow money, and without public debt had to fund deficits from cash reserves.

Emperors of the Antonine and Severan dynasties overall debased the currency, particularly the denarius, under the pressures of meeting military payrolls. Sudden inflation during the reign of Commodus damaged the credit market. In the mid-200s, the supply of specie contracted sharply. Conditions during the Crisis of the Third Century—such as reductions in long-distance trade, disruption of mining operations, and the physical transfer of gold coinage outside the empire by invading enemies—greatly diminished the money supply and the banking sector by the year 300. Although Roman coinage had long been fiat money or fiduciary currency, general economic anxieties came to a head under Aurelian, and bankers lost confidence in coins legitimately issued by the central government. Despite Diocletian's introduction of the gold solidus and monetary reforms, the credit market of the Empire never recovered its former robustness.

My Changes
Remove the few sentences that discuss the coins and coinage of Roman Economy in the first paragraph. This information, in my opinion, is more pertinent to the Roman currency wikipedia page as it is kind of unnecessary additional information that is describing the different coins and forms of coins and their values. When I read it, every time I feel it is out of place and provides information that can confuse readers on whether the article will be talking about the Economy and characteristics, or coinage. I concised it, but am considering removing it entirely. A relatively established and advanced economy in Ancient Rome begins with the Roman Empire. Prior to the Roman Empire, the Roman Economy was largely agrarian based, thriving off the basic trading of commodities such as grain and wine. Financial markets were established through such trade, and financial institutions which extended credit for personal use and public infrastructure, were established primarily through inter-family wealth. Beginning in the Roman Empire, the economy was monetized to a near-universal extent, in the sense of using money as a way to express prices and debts. This was in part of the various Emperor's using money to stamp their faces onto coins to notify the public of their status. Successive Emperor's made use of coinage to spread throughout the Empire knowledge of their victories, to disseminate propaganda, and to create goodwill concerning their constitutional position. The Roman Economy was often unstable during the Roman Empire age as Emperor's would inflate the economy with money for often naive purposes such as public infrastructure and the funding of unnecessary wars to show the public their success as a Roman emperor. This was large in part because the economy at the time had no central bank to monitor the money supply and economic conditions, and close to no regulation of the banking system. Banks of classical antiquity typically kept less in reserves than the full total of customers' deposits, as they had no incentive to ensure that customers' deposits would be insured in the event of a bank run (See: Panic of 1907). At times of warfare, as can be seen in the First Punic War, Roman officials and banks would often over-print money, creating economic distortion and difficulties. It was common consensus among the Romans at the time, especially Seneca, that anyone involved in commerce needs access to credit, which further led to fiat money practices and an often fluctuating money supply, a characteristic of the Roman economy in the age of the Empire until Aurelian cooled down the credit market. For the second paragraph, Remove the sentence about capital and principal, as it can be confusing to a reader who doesn't understand those terms and doesn't necessarily need to be stated. Include more information or expand on banks keeping less in reserves and significance of that. Combine with common thoughts at the time and monetary practices to further expand on fiat money and instability in money supply in the ancient roman economy.

Re-phrased the paper or documentary transactions sentence to flow better. Instead of credit shortage (most readers may not understand this) and with no link, I linked credit crunch in its place so that readers can do a quick click and understand what took place. The Financial Crisis of 33AD is pretty significant in the Roman Economy and highlights characteristics of the economy and banking system. Sparked interest in adding a section. With no central bank, a professional deposit banker (argentarius, coactor argentarius, or later nummularius) received and held deposits for a fixed or indefinite term, and lent money to third parties. The senatorial elite were involved heavily in private lending, both as creditors and borrowers, making loans from their personal fortunes on the basis of social connections. The holder of a debt could use it as a means of payment by transferring it to another party, without cash changing hands. Although the ancient Roman Economy lacked "paper" or documentary transactions, the system of banks throughout the Empire allowed the exchange of very large sums of money without the physical transfer of coins, which reduced the risks of moving large amounts of cash, done mainly by sea. Only one serious credit crunch is known to have occurred in the early Empire, in 33 AD, that put a number of senators at risk; the central government rescued the market through a small loan of 100 million HS made by the emperor Tiberius to the banks (mensae). Generally, available capital exceeded the amount needed by borrowers. The central government itself did not borrow money, and without public debt had to fund deficits from cash reserves. As I read more of my sources, may change this paragraph, but I like having it at the end of the introduction as I believe it summarizes and ties up the above ideas well and provides some specific examples with good links and credible sources. Emperors of the Antonine and Severan dynasties overall debased the currency, particularly the denarius, under the pressures of meeting military payrolls. Sudden inflation during the reign of Commodus damaged the credit market. In the mid-200s, the supply of specie contracted sharply. Conditions during the Crisis of the Third Century—such as reductions in long-distance trade, disruption of mining operations, and the physical transfer of gold coinage outside the empire by invading enemies—greatly diminished the money supply and the banking sector by the year 300. Although Roman coinage had long been fiat money or fiduciary currency, general economic anxieties came to a head under Aurelian, and bankers lost confidence in coins legitimately issued by the central government. Despite Diocletian's introduction of the gold solidus and monetary reforms, the credit market of the Empire never recovered to its former robustness.

Financial Crises in Ancient Roman Economy (new addition)
I think adding a financial crisis section and providing evidence of one, how and why it happened and its effects, can help readers get an understanding of the roman economy during that specific time and better grasp how the money system worked.

The Financial Crisis of 33AD
The financial crisis of 33AD is largely considered to be caused by credit easing policies that Tiberius took in order to limit the Aristocrats' wealth and land-ownership, and to make up for Augustus's previously massive private and public expenditure actions. Prior to 33AD, Augustus had enacted in lavish spending in the public and private sector, and greatly encouraged land ownership and real estate investment. While doing so, Augustus ordered that all citizens should have access to land and money, and thus engaged in a massive extension of credit and encouraged loans. Land and real estate prices rose dramatically up until 33AD with Augustus' policies. Tiberius looked to curb the amount of land that the wealthy and elites owned, as well as control the rapidly inflating money supply. He order that all loans be paid off immediately, began confiscating property from the wealthy land-owners, in what is one of the first signs of what we call monetary easing. By restricting loans for land purchasing, and the demand to pay loans in full, debtors were forced to sell off their property and real estate, which drastically dropped real estate and land prices. Paired with Tiberius' credit easing policy and the Senate naively demanding that people continue to invest in land despite what was going on, there became a significantly limited amount of cash available and the market collapsed.

(Adding Paragraphs to Trade and Commodities Section)
Trade and commodities section seems short and bland. Going to add a section about how trade changed so much with the end of the emperor period and include some more insight from scholarly and credible sources. Found source(s), added these two following paragraphs to the trade and commodities section. Trade in the early Roman Empire allowed Rome to become as vast and great as it did. Under Emperor Augustus, besides intense public and private spending, he took control of trade from the government, and expanded Roman influence by opening new trading markets in overseas areas such as Britain, Germany, and Africa. Rome dominated trade and influence over the world in the age of the Roman Empire, except they could not advance in their industrial and manufacturing processes. This ultimately threatened the expanding trading and commerce industries that Augustus brought about, and the strong standing of the Empire in the eyes of the Romans and the world.

Whereas the Roman Economy was able to thrive in the first few centuries AD thanks to its advanced trade and commerce, the boom was tempered as their ways of conducting business changed drastically. As mentioned earlier, Augustus ensured himself and his noble friends held the large majority of land in wealth and Rome. As such, trade and commerce in the basic every day commodities began to decline, and was only taking place for the more luxurious commodities as the large majority of Romans were poor. Foreign trade was also incredibly significant to the rise and complexity of the Roman Economy, and the Romans traded commodities such as wine, oil, grain, salt, arms, and iron to countries primarily in the West. When those countries came under decline in around 2nd century AD, and respected trade between them and the Roman Empire had to cease as a result, this put a dent in the strength of the Roman economy as foreign trade was a major factor of economic growth for the superfluously resourced Roman Empire. Compounded with their inability to make proper production advancements to keep up with their growing and evolving economy, these events hindered Roman trade, limited their array of commodities and harmed the economy.