Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constantine III (Western Roman emperor)/archive1

Constantine III (Western Roman emperor)

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Many people are vaguely aware that the Roman army left Britain around 400 (February 407) and never returned, ushering the Dark Ages into Britain. Have you ever wondered why? Or who ordered it? Or what happened to them, and why they never returned? Read on. I took this article to GAN in June 2018. (Six months before my first FAC.) I recently reread it and winced. So I have rewritten it, which turned out to take more work than I had anticipated. Hopefully the effort was worthwhile. Your views on this would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Unlimitedlead
You know I jump at the chance to review something from you, Gog. Leaving my place here; comments will follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "making his capital at Arles" Awkward prose: maybe replace "making" with "establishing"
 * Done.


 * Link Roman Italy to Italy in the lead?
 * MOS:OVERLINK states "... the following are usually not linked ... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of ... countries".


 * "Meanwhile Constantine invaded northern Italy, but his plans misfired" Interesting: I've never heard the word "misfired" used in this way before. Would "backfired" work here instead?
 * No, backfire means something different. Happy to change, but having a bit of a mental block. Any other suggestions?
 * Nope, I was just confused at the meaning.


 * The word "withdrew" is repeated several times in the lead; try finding synonyms like "retreated".
 * Twice. One changed. I have also substituted one usage in the main article.


 * I have tweaked the infobox to make it easier on the eyes. Feel free to tweak it yourself or undo.
 * It looks good. Thanks.


 * Link Stilicho.
 * Done.


 * Roman Britain is linked in the lead, but not in the body.
 * Whoops. Done.


 * You don't need to, but I would insert a brief phrase to help the reader unserstand what (or rather, who) Niall of the Nine Hostages was. At first, I thought it was some kind of group, but then I hovered over the link and saw it was a person.
 * It's a Seattle grunge band. Done.


 * Slavery in ancient Rome might be an appropriate link to place somewhere in the area about the captives being sold as slaves. Then again, this could be considered a trivia link.
 * Not done, although happy to discuss further. I think most readers will know what a slave is.


 * Highly unlikely, but not every reader will immediately understand what "the continent" means. I would link it.
 * Done.


 * "and overrun the Roman defensive works" Wrong verb tense. Replace "overrun" with "overran".
 * Done.


 * Note four seems like it could be placed somewhere in the article's body. It is rather on the short side.
 * Done.


 * Is note five relevant in this article? It seems like what one might call a "fun fact".
 * Removed.


 * Link Tyrian purple to purple?
 * Seems Easter eggy to me. I mean, in what way is how the dye for the cloak was obtained relevant to the article?


 * MOS recommends not linking common locations, but I do not believe Tarragona is one of those common places. I suggest linking in order to spare readers the hassle of looking it up.
 * Done.


 * "He bears some relation to the Constantine" How so?
 * Who cares, this is summary style on a barely relevant piece of cultural trivia. I could change to "He has been associated with ..."?
 * Yes, that would work.


 * Why does the succession box at the bottom of the article not include the title of Roman Emperor?
 * I may not have grasped your point. Does this address it?
 * Yes.

I am pleased with this article. It involved all my favorite stuff: Rome, the Eastern Empire, Britain, and unecessary violence and death! Woo-hoo! There actually weren't that many instances where I felt the need to insert commas either. These comments are all I have for this article; I will be glad to support once they have been adressed. Great work as always, Gog. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , yes, an all-against-all death match. How times have changed. Thanks for the review, all coments addressed, a couple with dissents or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild Support this nomination. It was a delightful read. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. Re "misfire", how would you feel about 'but his plan failed and ...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that is okay. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Chris

 * "An army under the Gerontius" - the Gerontius?
 * Bleh! The general Gerontius. Fixed.


 * "After concentrating his forces, Stilicho caught the Goths while besieging Florentia" - who was doing the besieging, Stilicho or the Goths?
 * Ah, good point. Added.


 * "including the Vandals, the Alans and the Sueves crossed the Rhine" - I'd be tempted to mention the Alans last to break up a slight sea of blue
 * Crafty. Done.


 * That's what I got as far as the end of "Rise" but unfortunately I have to unexpectedly break off now. Back to finish the job later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks CtD, good spots one and all, much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

More comments
 * "The moved from Epirus" => "They moved from Epirus"
 * Done.


 * "But a rift between him and Honorius was obvious." - very brief sentence and starting it with "but" doesn't read brilliantly IMO, can it be merged with another sentence?
 * I think, in context, it reads fine.

You have a problem with my starting sentences with "But"? Is that a BritEng thing? Amended.
 * "But Honorius continued to refuse to reach an agreement with Alaric." - similar to above
 * "It also likely he was counting" => "It is also likely he was counting"
 * Done.


 * That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again ChrisTheDude, addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from Iazyges

 * Claiming a spot. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Lede
 * "He was co-emperor of the Roman Empire from 409 until 411." perhaps add "a legitimate" before co-emperor; to explain to a layman the distinction that he had now achieved recognition as emperor from the others.
 * I really don't want to go there. If he had overcome Honorius and ruled the west for a further 20 years, his "legitimacy" from 407 would be universally accepted. I have inserted "recognised as", that do? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me; just wanted a distinction that he was no longer seen as a random dude with an army. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Body
 * "were sold into slavery that the market in slaves collapsed" is somewhat awkward, I think it might be better as simply "were sold into slavery that the market collapsed"
 * I don't see that your suggestion is any less awkward (I don't find either awkward) but has the issue of leaving it unclear just what collapsed. "the market" is a different thing from "the market in slaves".


 * "the Gallic Roman Jovinus," should change Gallic Roman to Gallo-Roman (as this is a distinct culture he belonged to, rather than a Roman who merely lived in Gaul, as Gallic Roman implies) and link to Gallo-Roman culture.
 * Done.


 * Footnote 1 ( Constantine was a usurper against Emperor Honorius from 407–409.) should I think be removed or have a citation; I prefer removal as it's very superfluous to the lede.
 * Removed.


 * That's all my comments, glad to see my neurotic nit-picks from the Constans II GAN were carried over here. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But of course. Comments tightening up the prose are most welcome. If I disagree, I'll say so; if I don't I'll copy them through to any other relevant articles. (Unless I forget.)
 * Thanks, your comments all addressed above. Given your familiarity with the period, you fancy doing the source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to support, and take on the source review. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

 * Will take this on. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hughes, Ian (2010): Pen and Sword is not a great source; while Ian Hughes is applauded for being an easy-to-read historian, and is certainly among the best of the pop historians, he has also been noted as making a few mistakes that, to be honest, would not likely pass a more rigorous academic press' review. I would challenge the book, as a product of both him and Pen and Sword, as being an HQRS. Further, the text of the article reads "Stilicho sent orders and funds to strengthen the defences around Hadrian's Wall at about the same time" cited to Hughes, making no mention that Hughes himself qualifies the entire matter with the fact that Stilicho seems to have done it, and goes on to say the narrative is "unsupported except perhaps by archeology" (which is odd in the face of the fact that archeological support for the war is quite weak). The best source I could find to replace it is At the Gates of Rome: The Fall of the Eternal City, AD 410 by Don Hollway (can be found on Definitely-not-Libgen), page 175 says: "Stilicho put Rome’s money – Gildo’s money – to good use. He sent a large part of it to Britannia, to recruit more troops and rebuild and strengthen Hadrian’s Wall and the coastal forts."
 * Well, well. I have found Pen & Sword books to be pretty sound, but that is one editor's anecdotal view from a limited sample. This source certainly seems to be best avoided, and given my single cite to it I see no point in attempting to defend it - even if I were inclined to, which I am not. (That said, nonsense crops up in surprising places. I have just read Glantz's Before Stalingrad. Glantz is supposed to be the gold standard for the Eastern Front during WWII, but much of this reads like a so-so GAN. Ah well.) Thanks for spotting this and for spelling out the issue so clearly. Even more thanks for finding an alternate source and handing it to me on a plate. Text lightly edited and Hughes replaced with Holloway.
 * I tend to agree with you that Pen & Sword are usually sound; happy to defend it as just an RS for that reason, but too much slips through IMO for HQRS. Thanks for being so flexible, source review passes. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you that Pen & Sword are usually sound; happy to defend it as just an RS for that reason, but too much slips through IMO for HQRS. Thanks for being so flexible, source review passes. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Spotchecks: ref 17: Drinkwater 1998, p. 275. Good.
 * Ref 28: Wijnendaele 2018, pp. 261–262. Good.
 * Ref 30: Elton 1999. Good.
 * Ref 51: Kulikowski 2000, p. 333. Good.
 * Ref 70: Higham 1992, pp. 71–72. Good.
 * Ref 83: Curley 1994, p. 34. Good.
 * That concludes my source review. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, many thanks for taking this on and for spotting a subtle flaw which I had missed. Fixed as you suggest. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Aside from the outstanding source issue, for the note "After Constantine's death Heros was disposed and exiled, and replaced by Patroclus." should it be "deposed" instead of "disposed?" Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It was quite probably both ;-) but my brain was clearly on holiday. Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim
Started reading, will comment tomorrow-ish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll support anyway, but a few quibbles for your consideration. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * had strengthened his army with barbarians&mdash; I think you say elsewhere that they are Germans of various kinds, which would be more specific
 * Done.


 * so many captives were sold into slavery that the market in slaves collapsed.&mdash;any way of avoiding slavery/slaves in the same sentence?
 * Ho hum. "into slavery" removed.


 * IustinianusMy Latin O level was many decades ago, but I thought that initial "I" was always written as "J" in English, like Justinian
 * I think I may have inherited that and not spotted it. Thanks. Corrected.


 * Constantine appointed him to the position of caesar (title) &mdash; the title is capped in its own article
 * No doubt by an editor who hasn't read the MoS, especially MOS:JOBTITLE. Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source.


 * himself at Saragossa&mdash; Zaragoza is how the town spells itself, and I think it's the prevalent form in English too
 * Umm. I have rarely come across it in English. While an Ngram - a blunt tool at best, but indicative - suggests that it has become prevalent recently, it does not seem to be overwhelmingly so. The sources don't help - they refer to Caesaraugusta.


 * Generalissimowill younger readers know this term? Does it need a link?
 * I hadn't realised how much its use had diminished in recent decades, linked.
 * That's all, great stuff
 * Thanks Jim. Despite having your support in the bank :-), I would be grateful if you could skim my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All the responses are fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

SC

 * Lead & IB
 * You have Constans II listed linked twice
 * I am not seeing it. Which is probably another sign of encroaching senility. Could you help me out?
 * In the IB: Alongside Constans II (409-411) and Issue Constans II
 * Ah. Thank you. I took "listed" to mean something else. I have unlinked the second mention. Does that fix the issue?
 * Yes - something of a typo there - it should have been "linked". Looks good now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "In Hispania Honorius's": I don't normally suggest extra commas, but I think one after Hispania will stop people wondering who Hispania Honorius was...
 * Hispania Honorius, co-consul alongside Biggus Dikkus; you have not heard of him. Comma inserted.
 * I know his wife...


 * Rise
 * Almannics: is there a link that could be used here?
 * Ah ha. Yes there is. Thank you. Done.


 * Co-emperor
 * "respecting the person of the Emperor": lower case e?
 * As it refers to a known specific individual, I don't think so.

That's it from me – nicely done article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers SchroCat, good spots there; appreciated. Two done, one not done and one cry for help. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support My pleasure! The duplicate link in the IB will be sorted, I am sure, so moving to support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks SC. Fixed, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass
 * Will do one after supper. Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * File:Solidus of Constantine III (west).png - coin is PD and VRT for photograph - OK
 * File:Theodosius I's empire.png - own work w/ source - OK
 * File:Roman Gaul - AD 400.png - own work w/ source - OK
 * File:Siliqua Constantine III-RIC 1355.jpg - coin is PD and VRT for photograph - OK
 * File:Siliqua Constans II Arelate.jpg - ditto - OK
 * File:Gold Solidus of Constantine III, Lugdunum.jpg - public domain for coin, verified at source link that the photograph is freely license - OK
 * File:Solidus of Constantius III.png - public domain for coin and VRT for photograph - OK

Everything with the images looks to be in order, passing. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators
Greetings oh mighty ones. This humble supplicant, viewing their current offering and considering that all is estimable, craves the boon of being permitted to present a further oblation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz
Hi Gog, Just when you thought... I've been watching this and have a few very minor comments...
 * Woo hoo! Welcome back Jenny. I reserve the right to change my mind about that once I have actually read your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Infobox - perhaps change Constans link from Constans II (usurper) to son of per elsewhere?
 * Ok.


 * I think with the edit 12:17, 11 March 2023 you may have accidentally undone 2 previous edits (had older version open?). It relinked Roman Britain and also removed the clarifying comma from "In Hispania, Honorius's relatives" (though maybe it might be even better to say 'Honorius's relatives in Hispania rose...')?
 * Bleh! Good spot. Thanks.


 * The year 402 is the last date Roman coinage is found - last date from which Roman coinage is found?
 * Tweaked.


 * map caption The Eastern and Western Roman Empires at the death of Theodosius I in 395 - maybe swap order to Western and Eastern because west is on left (and the colours aren't mentioned)?
 * Done.


 * Constans is only an eggy link at "Constantine's oldest son. Would it be better to use the link at "gave him the imperial-sounding name of Constans"?
 * Ok.


 * the Visigoths were settled on land - and the Visigoths were...?
 * Done.


 * whereupon Constantius' son, assumed the throne - apostrophe s per other s's names
 * Done.

Done.
 * following Gracianus Municeps' reign - apos s
 * succession box - change Constans link from usurper to the son of dab again?
 * Done.

And that's all I have. JennyOz (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff, thank you Jenny. All done. Can I *cough* draw your attention to Featured article candidates/Battle of the Great Plains/archive1? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog, happy to s'port. So, back to Carthage? It's on my list. JennyOz (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)