Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetricus I/archive2

Tetricus I

 * Nominator(s): Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the last emperor of the short-lived but fascinating Gallic Empire, a state that split off from Rome during the crisis of the third century. This article passed GAN some time ago, and I took a run at FAC in the ancient past of 2018 (two degrees and a high school diploma ago) and attracted some supports, but came up short on prose concerns. For reasons that currently escape me, I did not attempt to re-nominate it later, so I am doing so now. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  02:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:INC-2045-a_Ауреус._Тетрик_I_Старший._Ок._271—274_гг._(аверс).png needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:INC-2045-r_Ауреус._Тетрик_I_Старший._Ок._271—274_гг._(реверс).png
 * Added.


 * File:Map_of_the_Gallic_Empire,_260_AD.jpg: why is this blurry? Also needs a source for the data presented, and see MOS:COLOUR
 * Replaced with another (sourced) map, fixed alt text.


 * File:Map_of_Ancient_Rome_271_AD.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed alt text.
 * Thanks! Believe I have addressed all. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Still having some colour issues. Aren't the two Palmyrenes the same colour? Why does the caption differ? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, rather embarrassing. My blue-light app turned my screen redder in between the captions, so I was seeing the yellow as orange. Is that the only color issue, or does more remain? I may simply be missing it but I believe the caption and alts are both no longer color-dependent. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

UC
Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Is it worth getting the word "Roman" into the first sentence: perhaps by using the alternative name of "Gallic Roman Empire"? It's usual practice in this part of the article to signpost as loudly as possible the rough area that we're talking about (see United States: . Perhaps "was a Gallo-Roman nobleman who became...", otherwise?
 * Did ; unless you think flows better.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Either looks good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * : I think MOS:REFERS applies here: better as "The Gallic Empire was a state..."
 * Done
 * I am not a huge fan of "Emperor X" (as in "Emperor Valerian") in a Roman context: it is somewhat anachronistic. Better, I think, as "the emperor Valerian".
 * Done.
 * It strikes me that practically the whole "Background" section is based on Nicholson: this isn't inherently a problem, but does make me twitchy about possibly copyvio (it's very hard to keep TSI without keeping anything creative from the source if you're only using the one) or balance issues. I have no specific complaints at the moment, but will try to get hold of the source later on just to reassure myself that everything is in order.
 * I have sent you an email with the full text; I adjusted a couple sentences/phrases that seemed a little too close in the mean-time, and changed the historiography section to quote him directly, since it's hard to present the information there without any change to wording being fairly superficial.
 * : how come Eutropius is "ancient Roman" but everyone else is simply "Roman"? On another note, we should be very careful about presenting ancient historians' words without context and at face value: I'm not an expert on Eutropius specifically, but the general rule is that historians' writings tell us a lot about the historians themselves and their own views, and that we trust them as evidence for their subjects at our peril. The immediate caveats here would be that Eutropius was writing a century after the events, and definitely had some vested interests in terms of government and emperorship.
 * I have changed all mentions of "ancient" to either date the person or "primary"

More to follow.


 * : do we have dates for this?
 * Added.
 * : I think you post someone to somewhere, but you station them in there (I'd suggest the latter here, to avoid the awkward to .. to repetition)
 * Done.
 * As praetorian prefect is English, it shouldn't be italicised.
 * Done.
 * Strictly, Marius couldn't have been commander of the praetorian guard under Postumus, as the (real, original) praetorian guard was in Rome: suggest "of his praetorian guard" vel sim.
 * Done.
 * : how much of this is strictly a name? At least Imperator and Pontifex Maximus would be understood by 100% of Romans (even Gallo-Romans) as titles, rather than personal names: the jury might be slightly out on Caesar and Augustus, but all three of those adjectival agnomina are at least a bit ambiguous. To be on the safe side, I'd frame this as his official style and titles rather than going the whole way to calling it a personal name. I'd also suggest linking some of these titles, particularly Pontifex Maximus.
 * Changed to and linked as appropriate
 * Tribune: as "praetorian prefect" above: italicise if using the Latin, not if using the English.
 * Done.
 * : it might be worth clarifying/reminding readers that there were typically two consuls at any one time (and perhaps that during this period it was common for there to be many in a single year).
 * Clarified; I think it's a bit of a WP:BLUESKY thing so I haven't added a specific citation for it, but I can if it's seen as needd.
 * : I think we have had this conversation before: I would prefer to cast it as "semi-fictional" or similar, rather than "unreliable": the latter implies that it's trying to be a work of history wie es eigentlich gewesen, and that it's somehow deceiving us, which isn't true: it just doesn't share our ideas of what a historical source ought to look like. Even the fictional bits are "true" in the sense that they serve the rhetorical/political-theoretical aims of the text: on its own terms, there's no deception involved: it is entirely what it sets out to be.
 * Done.
 * : consider "peoples" instead of "tribes", which can read as dismissive or condescending: the current framing of this sentence elevates the (rump) Roman Empire above them in a way that I'm not sure is warranted.
 * Done.
 * : as above on "Emperor X", but more strongly: much better and clearer as "to recognize Aurelian as [Roman] emperor".
 * Done.
 * : even is generally editorialising. More cynically, we shouldn't be so credulous as to assume that a triumph required a real victory -- think of Domitian dressing up Gallo-Roman aristocrats in "barbarian" clothes to play his imaginary German captives.
 * Removed.
 * We have two maps of the Roman empire that are very similar: could these perhaps be grouped into a double image template that would allow us more clearly to point at the (temporal and territorial) change between them? On another note, a zoomed-in map of north-eastern Gaul and environs would be very useful.
 * Stacked them; I have not been able to find a sourced map that provides similar detail.
 * "Empress Zenobia" (see my recurring grouch about the Roman equivalent) is almost unknown on Google Books outside Southern's book: "under its queen, Zenobia" would work better.
 * Done.
 * : any chance of an alternative geographical marker that might help a little more? I think most readers will figure that the Battle of Châlons was near Châlons.
 * done.
 * : no quote marks for italics, but do stick it into lang templates. A slight quibble on the translation: invicte is vocative, so you want something like "pluck me out, O undefeated one, from these troubles". Suggest also giving its provenance (to Aeneid 6.365), and perhaps some context (it's the shade of Palinurus to Aeneas: the subtext in the allusion being that Aurelian therefore takes the role of Aeneas/Augustus, and perhaps that Tetricus assumes the role of one already dead). There's an ILL to Italian (it:Eripe me his, invicte, malis) that you could include too.
 * Done; one of the other sources I consulted had this as the previous translation, adjusted now. I have done all except the context; I'm not sure of a good source to add it in, unless I'm missing something in the current sources.
 * There's an interesting, if somewhat by-the-by discussion of the phrase, here, p. 40 = here, p. 138, which at least allows you to say where it's from. Also here, p. 207. I wouldn't take much from those sources except to say that it's Virgil, and perhaps that it's Palinurus: I think most of the texts they discuss postdate Eutropius, but would have to check that one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Added.
 * : as this is Latin, it should be italicised via a language template.
 * Done.
 * In translation, "corrector" should become "governor" consistently.
 * done.
 * : avoid abbreviations in flowing text: "comes from around 283" vel sim
 * Done.
 * I would put dates on David Magie and Alaric Watson (what a name: I assume no relation?), to give an idea of how current this debate is or isn't.
 * Done; they neatly overlap by a whole two years. Was not able to discover if the latter had plans to sack rome, unfortunately.
 * : italicise via language template.
 * Done.
 * : decap and lang template for aureus. Nit-pickingly, an inscription is writing, so it bears the image of a standing Felicitas. Suggest linking her here as well as in body text.
 * Done.
 * I might clarify in the text that Aequitas etc are deities: something like
 * Done.
 * Gloss "jugate" as ?
 * Done.
 * : lang templates probably best here: this could be taken as either English or Latin, but going for the templates makes the formatting nice and consistent.
 * Done.
 * : not sure this is quite English. "Epigraphic sources" is just "stuff with writing on": do we mean that the habit of public inscriptions was gradually dying? While epigraphers often (largely?) work from big bits of marble with pompous titles on, they can equally work with scribbles on potsherds or animal bones. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added a bit more to specify it. From the third century on the practice of inscribing stuff as a whole fell out of favor pretty universally (for some reason).
 * Hm: big marble stuff, maybe, but we have an absolute explosion of papyrus, letters and so on from that period, to say nothing of literature (which was, after all, being written on something): the sheer quantity of surviving Christian texts is several times that of all "Classical" Latin combined. I'd be happier if we changed "the common use of epigraphs" to something like "the use of monumental inscriptions for public display" or similar, which is really what the "epigraphic habit" means anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * The Nicholson source in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity seems to be co-credited to P. J. Casey at the bottom of the page.
 * Added.
 * I notice that Nicholson cites Drinkwater in the CAH: we don't seem to use the CAH at all. Did you consult it at all during the writing process?
 * I did not at the time of writing; I have since consulted with it and added cotes where useful. There is some additional background of the detail of the Gallic secession, but I think that the current coverage is in detail without losing focus for the article. I did not discover any additional information for Tetricus himself.


 * Thanks for taking this on! I believe I have responded to all of your comments. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Believe I have responded to all of your follow-ups. Thanks! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have, and all happy there: I need to go through the article that you very kindly sent me, but that's just waiting on my own sluggishness and will hopefully get done soonest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, just going through Casey and Nicholson: thank you very much for sending that through, and making this job much easier:


 * Being slightly pedantic (out of character, I know), we have : I'm fairly sure the two Germanias were included too.
 * Done.
 * I'd look at the CLOP in : Nicholson and Casey have . This is too close in structure and phrasing.
 * I've rephrased it as best I can, but would appreciate any advice; it is hard with so many proper nouns in one sentence.
 * I would avoid the term "primary sources" in an article: it's historian's (and Wikipedians') trade jargon rather than an everyday-language term. Suggest some Roman historians wrote that... (and name them?)
 * Done.
 * praeses provinciae should really be glossed as provincial governor or something: we need to get the genitive across.
 * Done.
 * : five citations (presumably to different points of view): could we perhaps bundle them and explain who offers what hypothesis (e.g. "Jones and Smith say it was immediately after, on the grounds of XYZ, but Evans and White prefer a date of 123 because of ABC...")
 * I've cut down the sources; I haven't seen a real discussion on when the surrender happened, but the general mood of the sources is either the day of or soon thereafter (i.e. there's little suggestion of strong resistance after the battle).
 * I think I've been slightly unclear further up: structures like are discouraged by the MoS. Better to do the date of the source: "In 1960, David Magie suggested that..." or something like that.
 * Done.
 * We have . This isn't supported by the source (emphasis mine), which is much less confident:.
 * You are correct, fixed.
 * : this is, I think, too long a quote for WP:NFCC to bear, especially as it isn't doing very much more than conveying the bare information. Suggest having a think about how to rephrase it. Being even pickier, Casey and Nicholson don't give the Enmannsche in the title.
 * I would appreciate any advice in rephrasing this. It is hard to convey such a list of information without CLOP, or cutting off half the information within. I've removed the Emmansche part of the quote for now, but retained the "Emman's" in the gloss, as it's clear they're referencing that (and the Kaisergeschichte word is linked to the Emmanesche Kaisergeschichte article). Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  09:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For both of these, I think it will help to zoom out a little: if you just try to work on these individual passages, it's going to be tricky to come up with something substantially different, but you could instead look to rework the paragraph or so that they are in, mixing up the different sources and adjusting the overall sequence of the narrative, which currently relies heavily on that of the source material. In this one, for example, you could start by pointing out that Tetricus and other Gallic emperors minted a lot of coinage, which has an outsized role in their study relative to most figures of the time. You could then explain that by saying that the Greek-speaking Zosimus mentions Tetricus sporadically in the first book of his Historia Nova, written about 250 years after the latter's death, and that the remaining literary evidence consists of allusions to the now-lost EK transmitted through fourth-century Latin historians. Then, you could go back into the current discussion of the HA, and how it does mention T., does give a judgement of him, but has its own problems. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

All this is pretty easily fixed, though I would encourage a good look at the use of other sources to make sure we're on the right side of the line with TSI and CLOP. UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Apologies for the delay in addressing these, I am currently at the mercy of the client. I hope to have these done by this weekend. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments; insightful as always. Still thinking through how to rephrase some long sections, but have addressed all of the others. Apologies for the delay! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  09:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still not quite sold on the WP:CLOP concern: I can see the changes, but they're mostly a matter of replacing words and phrases with synonyms, which WP:CLOP explicitly says is not a way around the problem. I'll have a think about these specific issues and try to offer some suggestions, but it seems possible that there are similar passages from other sources: after all, I only looked quite briefly at a single source. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 13:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan
Hi, marking a spot here, will add comments soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I may post some more comments if the JSTOR results throw up something. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider expanding the lead with info from the body? MOS:LEAD says most FAs have a lead with 3 paragraphs, we have only 1 here.
 * I'm not against the idea, but I'm not quite certain what to add, if I did. Thoughts?
 * "or necessary after his defeat": Consider rephrasing to "or a surrender was necessary after his defeat..."? Former is a bit confusing.
 * Done with slight tweaks.
 * "a few years after 274": Do we have the exact date?
 * Unfortunately not.
 * Isn't the Regnal Name column of the infobox a WP:SEAOFBLUE? Do other rulers' infoboxes have the same template?
 * I've removed it.
 * Consider moving the image of the Antoninianus coin a little further down? Rn it is just below the map of the three empires, and then the rest of the section has no images. Wouldn't spacing them be better, wdyt?
 * Moved.
 * "...by the province of Hispania": "provinces"?
 * Fixed.
 * "Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte": Offer a translation in the body?
 * Done.
 * In the biblio, consider linking to British Archaeological Reports, John F. Drinkwater, Franz Steiner Verlag, Oxford University Press, Cornell University Press, Oneworld Publications, David Stone Potter, Routledge, Wayne G. Sayles, Krause Publications, Pat Southern, Bloomsbury Publishing, Fitzroy Dearborn?
 * Done all except Krause; did not see that in the bibliography.
 * Instead of using PolferA, consider changing the publication year from 2000/1999 to 2000a/1999a? The sfn template allows for this.
 * Done.
 * Are Southern 2015 and Southern 2008 works by different authors? If not, consider using a consistent first name.
 * Done.
 * In the body, you say David Magie but in the biblio you have David Vagi. Which one is it?
 * Different people here; one a historian and the other a numismatist.
 * Could we have a one liner on why Châlons was lost? This would be quite relevant here.
 * Done.
 * Has any scholar ever endeavoured to ascertain the total quantity of coins minted by or in the name of Tetricus? When I looked him up on JSTOR, I found about 20 numismatic papers on the first two pages, each paper listing at least 10 coins, with about 57 more pages I did not open. The total quantity then must be quite high, prob in the thousands, and thus their themes would be more in number than the 12 we have here.
 * Nicholson and Casey call the coinage "copious"; Our coverage is intended to be a quick review, rather than comprehensive, as being ancillary to Tetricus.
 * Can we have some details on the Barbarous coins by Tetricus I & II? I stumbled upon this on JSTOR.
 * They were actually indirectly described (the faked antoninianuses); I've mentioned them explicitly now.
 * Are there any noteworthy events from Tetricus' work as corrector?
 * No, Tetricus disappears from the record after that.
 * Thanks for the review! Believe I have responded to all. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
I am unfamiliar with the topic, which may be helpful to understand what someone unfamiliar may not understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead, infobox
 * I find confusing to read in the lead "emperor of the Gallic Empire" (no link for emperor), but in the infobox on top "Augustus of Gaul and Brittania", and only later "emperor of the Gallic Empire", then with a link to Roman emperor. While the explanation of the the term there is reasonable, I find the link confusing because I understand that wasn't a Roman emperor. - The best way for us unfamiliar might be to repeat more from the body, because there it's clear. I'd like to see "Augustus of Gaul and Brittania" also in the lead, for the connection.
 * Thanks for taking this on! Technically the "emperor of the Gallic Empire" is a much more historiographical correct title, I have standardized it to that, and added a link to Augustus (As they were, technically claiming whole dominion of Rome, just with very little interest in taking it). Does that work for you? I could also bring in a short parenthsis explaining the dominion they ruled over, if that is helpful? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox looks fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes. Reading further caused no problems, - support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment from SnowFire
This is not a full review (although I might do one later). However, as two nitpicks and a question... SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nitpick: Shouldn't "Epigraphic sources also provide some information" be followed with a semicolon, not a comma? It looks like a comma splice to me as is, but maybe it's a style difference.
 * Done.
 * I also made one minor MOS:LQ change, see the edit history. It's legit to change Source: "Blah blah." to "Blah blah", if the quote is early in the sentence but the sentence continues with more stuff after the quote.
 * "Inscriptions bearing Tetricus' name are very common throughout Gaul" - Is "very common" truly merited? I get that the source is precisely documenting a bunch of inscriptions of Tetricus's name, but page 68 mentions "the incomplete nature of the record" not "wow, it's so easy to find Tetricus everywhere."  Page 84 of the same source shows 14 inscriptions total across all of France.  I get that having 14 is way more than the 0 inscriptions for many historical figures, but I think "very common" is an exaggeration.  Maybe just list it out?  "Fourteen inscriptions bearing Tetricus's name have been found throughout Gaul" perhaps?
 * Agree it was overemphasized, done as you've suggested.
 * Thank's for all of your suggestions, done now. Apologies for the delay! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  09:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Was the close paraphrasing concern above ever resolved? I'd be willing to give this a fuller review but was hoping that would be out of the way first.

One thing I will say is that... and I'm not sure this is a fixable problem, so maybe more a thought than a request...  quite a lot of this article is really on the Gallic Empire background to set Tetricus up, and then the fall of the Gallic Empire to establish his later career as a governor (?). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity article on Tetricus is tiny. I could see an argument to perhaps shuffle some of this content into a History of the Gallic Empire type article, but I suppose it's fine as is. SnowFire (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka
Before starting the detailed review, I raise issues about the article's structure:
 * I think section "Historiography" is rather a section about primary sources, so it should be placed somewhere at the beginning of the article. The section should also be expanded or rewritten to provide a comprehensive list of the sources and a full picture of their assessment by historians.
 * I do not understand the list of primary sources (or external links?) in section "Primary sources": none of them are cited in the article.
 * I think section "Life" should be split into shorter sections/sub-sections. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think withdrawing the nomination is in order; the reviews thus far have uncovered some issues which I believe will take some time to resolve. Thank you to all reviewers! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Archiving as requested. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)