Wikipedia:Peer review/Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant/archive1

Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant
This peer review discussion has been closed.

Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant was promoted to GA in April 2010. The article is stable and the write-up seems comprehensive, sourced to an appropriately high standard, and balanced.

Input would be appreciated on ways to improve the article, how ready (or otherwise) it is for FAC, and tips on what more is needed.

Thanks for your help!

FT2 (Talk 14:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "three Roman historians born subsequent to the events of 52 AD" is rather awkward; I think there's a better phrasing to be found, perhaps '3 later Roman historians'
 * 'The first known record of the phrase is in the writings of Suetonius:'... The key quote is already given in the original Latin; why is this block quote in Latin when the later blockquote from Dio isn't?

In general looks pretty good. It would be nice if there were a more detailed modern-usage section (eg. didn't Gladiator (2000 film) have a nice sequence with this quote which could be screen-capped?), since I think pretty much everyone who reads this article is interested because of modern usage and not because they happened to be reading Suetonius and wondered if Wikipedia had an article on a very minor incident he mentions... --Gwern (contribs) 19:21 30 October 2010 (GMT)


 * Yes. I haven't changed it as much as this, because it's quite important to the correct context that the reader understands unambiguously that these people not only wrote after the events but were born after the events themselves took place. I've had a go at rewording it slightly to fix any awkward flow.
 * The reason is mainly "cite once at length in original and English, then further cites (including in other languages) show only those parts relevant". Probably one of those decisions that can be done a number of ways, see what others feel. One option is to do the first like the second and just translate the actual expression. I've provisionally done that now - is it any better?
 * The problem with the modern usage is that there is actually almost nothing else you can say about it, except to note it is pervasively used and evidence that. The only comment one can make on it seems to be the comments that have been made, namely that it is a pervasive image held of Roman times. The previous sections document that and the standing section shows and sources the degree of pervasiveness; as an encyclopedia that's really what needs coverage. A screenshot could be added to make that section more interesting but the text itself can't really be embellished – there doesn't seem to be a mainstream discussion or commentary on modern usage beyond that noted. I think the introduction makes it interesting enough that someone motivated to look up the phrase will find the article enlightening. (Surely they look up the phrase to find what it means and where it comes from!)
 * Thank you for the comments, more thoughts on this article equally warmly appreciated FT2 (Talk 00:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Current ref 3 has a bare numbered link in it, per the MOS it should be formatted with a link title.
 * Current ref 5 - can we get this formatted into something like " to match the other citations?
 * You should give publisher, year of publication, etc for information from books, even when you've given a Google books link.
 * Current ref 11 should have a source for the information. You may want to break your explanatory references out using the system of marking them. See Wilfrid or Hemming's Cartulary for examples in action.
 * Current ref 39 should give publisher and last access date at the least.
 * Current refs 40 and 41 need citations showing this is tied to the phrase.
 * In general, citation formatting and the quality of the sourcing is quite high for FAC candidates. You may have an issue with the number of primary sources that you're using - i.e. from the Roman period, without having much secondary commentary on the phrase itself.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)