Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1

Article stats
FAC Nominator User:G.W. Authorship stats
 * 1) G.W.47.3%
 * 2) Tintero21	19%
 * 3) Cerme	6.4%
 * 4) CastJared	4.1%
 * 5) Caeciliusinhorto-public and  Caeciliusinhorto 1.7%
 * 6) Aza24	Top 1.6%

Top editor stats
 * 1)  G.W. · 863 (68.4%)
 * 2)  Cerme · 84 (6.7%)
 * 3)  Dppowell · 57 (4.5%)
 * 4)  Tataryn · 45 (3.6%)
 * 5)  Adam Bishop · 44 (3.5%)
 * 6)  Casliber · 37 (2.9%)
 * 7)  Paul August · 35 (2.8%)
 * 8)  SandyGeorgia · 35 (2.8%)

Iazyges top responder on the FAR

Stats excerpted as of 20 March, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award nominations
Please set up separate sections for each nomination. This FAR presents a FASA nomination challenge; although it was somewhat long and a bit difficult, with multiped editors helping out and responding, none of them rise to high levels of authorship. Nonetheless, the bronze star could not have been saved without their efforts. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

FASA nomination Caeciliusinhorto
I nominate for a Featured article save award for their effort towards restoring featured status to Diocletian. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion Caeciliusinhorto

 * 1) Support, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – ♠Vamí  _IV†♠  03:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

FASA nomination Aza24
I nominate for a Featured article save award for their effort towards restoring featured status to Diocletian. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion Aza24

 * 1) Support, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – ♠Vamí  _IV†♠  03:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

FASA nomination Iazyges
I nominate for a Featured article save award for their effort towards restoring featured status to Diocletian, particularly by keeping up with needed responses on the FAR page. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion Iazyges

 * 1) Support, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – ♠Vamí  _IV†♠  03:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * While I'm not opposed to receiving FAS awards, I feel I did very little in this particular review, so I respectfully decline to receive an award for this one. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway for the helpful effort, Iazyges; it was hard to sort out who should get credit for this one, and your feedback was appreciated. Withdrawing the nom as we do work to respect declines at FASA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)

HF comments

 * "Coins are issued in his name in Cyzicus at some time before the end of 284" - I'm not convinced the present tense is the best option here
 * Changed –  Aza24  (talk)   02:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "According to the Historia Augusta, he quoted from Virgil while doing so" - if the Historia Augusta is frequently unreliable, is this actually worth mentioning?
 * Would agree with removing, but refer to others –  Aza24  (talk)   02:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As nobody has spoken in favour, I have removed it. It's not at all clear why it matters, so unless there's some secondary source commentary discussing this episode I don't see that it adds anything. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are Numerian and Numerianus the same person?
 * I believe so, now adjusted –  Aza24  (talk)   02:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "The assassinations of Aurelian and Probus demonstrated that sole rulership was dangerous to the stability of the empire" - is this and the Probus mentioned earlier the same person, and is this Probus (emperor)?
 * These seem to both be Probus (emperor). Added wikilink on first mention. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ready for the Tetrarchy section, will resume tomorrow after church. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Back at it:
 * "The historian Fergus Millar notes, probably somewhere on the Balikh River)" - both a sentence fragment and an unmatched closing parantheses
 * Fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Other histories of the period do not note these events." - this may be just my opinion, but I've always felt that arguments from silence require a source
 * I can't see the point of including that comment other than to cast doubt upon Faustus' account, but the Cambridge Ancient History (cited for the battle) seems to take Faustus at face value. Removed.  Though to be honest I don't get the point of that entire footnote! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * CN tag in the retirement section needs addressed
 * Now fully sourced –  Aza24  (talk)   23:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "an inscription at Sexaginta Prista on the Lower Danube extolled restored tranquility to the region" - given the tetrarchy's tendency to manipulate records of history, is this really worth quoting?
 * With the source material clearly defined, I don't see much harm in it.  Aza24  (talk)   23:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , I think everything has been addressed, if you want to take a second look.  Aza24  (talk)   23:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)