Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elagabalus

Elagabalus
This is largely a self nom as I rewrote and expanded the article in late March from an existing version. It has relevant pictures, references, external links and well divided sections and subsections. It has been stable since it was rewritten in March. -JCarriker 06:49, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems OK. I'm neutral, wish it had more detail. I went through and did some minor copyediting here and there. Everyking 13:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * May I ask what sort of details you would like to see? Perhaps I can try to improve what you think is missing, though I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more detailed account that doesn't make heavy use of the Historia Augusta as absolute truth. Please also keep in mind that this is a rather obscure historical figure whose memory was intentionally blackened and suffered a decree of Damnatio memoriae. -JCarriker 14:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because you say the Historia Augusta says something doesn't mean you need to treat it as absolute truth. A thoroughly comprehensive article here would mention all the known details of his life, all the uncertain things from the sources, and also discuss the various historical views of him up to the present day. Everyking 14:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There are quotes that do that, however I disagree that all the known or alleged details of his life should be included. Only the most important and relevant inforation should be included in the main article, detail is wonderful to have-- but you can have to much of a good thing). Perhaps a subarticle could be created to provide the controversies surrounding him in greater detail. I believe the current article provides a good thorough, but concise bio. I do appreciate your opinion though. Thanks. -JCarriker 15:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly wouldn't object if it were in a subarticle, but I wouldn't worry about a subarticle until the main article grows to a certain point. Everyking 15:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: I like this version very much. I remembering a time when i thought that this article was a mess beyhond any salvation. I was wrong! muriel@pt 14:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in this article there should be a derivations/explanations for the names "Elagabalus" and "Heliogabalus", presumably consistent with Elagabalus Sol Invictus. Paul August &#9742; 14:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. There is an derivations/explanations under the section Origin of his name. Please elaborate. -JCarriker 14:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK sorry I missed that. Perhaps something could be said about it in the lead? Paul August &#9742; 15:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Perhaps as an adendum to where the derivation of the god's name is described such as which is also from were his name is derived. -JCarriker 15:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Very interesting read.  Acegikmo1 16:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although now that I have the time I would like to add some details to the historiography of Elagabalus:
 * The Historia Augusta has been argued to be of uneven reliability, the earlier articles being based on the now-lost work of Marius Maximus (which is reliable), & the later on the author's idiosyncratic imagination; so to say that the entire work is "unreliable" is an oversimplification. The section on Elagabalus is a mixure of the two, according to a 1970 article by T.D. Barnes, where he is said to have marked the parts based on Marius.


 * Anthony Birley has translated the section of the Historia Augusta for Penguin, & supplied useful notes for this & the rest of the book. It deserves to be mentioned in the sources.


 * I think it's the right thing to first ask to make important changes like these at this point, rather than to be bold & edit. -- llywrch 18:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to make the changes. -JCarriker 00:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * object for most of your references it's not clear how they were used and it's not clear which sections should be looked up in which references. Please could you add some inline references.  I made the one external link into a link with full bibliographic information. Mozzerati 06:51, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have the syntax expertise to do so personally and I don't think I'd enjoy doing it either. I can help you crate them by providing the information. For what parts would you like to see inline refs? -JCarriker 20:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * In line references are neither mandatory nor a specific obligation of FACs. They are also, in my opinion, pedantic in the context of wikipedia. muriel@pt 10:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually that's incorrect. Direct from the criteria: "Include references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations.". They are important for the reasons Mozzerati mentions, and just to support the goals of the Verifiability policy. "Appropriate" is open to interpretation, but certainly means some, not none. The general consensus seems to be that important and potentially contentious points should be cited to a reliable source. JCarriker, I'll help with the syntax if you like, but you can use Template talk:Inote or something like Footnote3 to make it easier on you. Oh yeah, I do see one. More like that would be fine. - Taxman 20:43, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Inline references Taxman, of course i'm not questioning the presence of a Reference section. muriel@pt 13:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a rather good reference section in the article. The only material that is truly controversial to scholars is the transexual ref. The other informationis widely accepted and well known as far as scholarship in relation to Elagabalus goes. The quotes are properly attributed, and to give them inline refs would be redundant. If you have something specifically in mind for one, I'll be happy to give you the source so you can make an inlineref. -JCarriker 19:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comment as of 16:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC) 19:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC) this is the vote tally correct?
 * Support.- JCarriker
 * Neutral.- Everyking
 * Support.- muriel
 * Comment.- Paul August
 * Support.- Acegikmo1
 * Support.- Llywrch
 * Object.- Mozzerati
 * Support.- Pedro

Just checking. -JCarriker 16:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC) 19:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * support how interresting! This goes with something that I'm reading at the moment (The Roman Empire during Octavius rule), in which people married and diversorded has they changed their underware.The controversial area has already a proper reference, although I think it is really unnecessary. -Pedro 14:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)