Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetricus I/archive2

Tetricus I

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fixed alt text.

@Nikkimaria: Thanks! Believe I have addressed all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

UC

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: The United States of America ... is a country primarily located in North America. Perhaps "was a Gallo-Roman nobleman who became...", otherwise?
The Gallic Empire is the historiographic name given to a state: I think MOS:REFERS applies here: better as "The Gallic Empire was a state..."
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".
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.
in the words of ancient Roman historian Eutropius: 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.

More to follow.

Gallienus attempted to invade the Gallic Empire twice but was repulsed both times: do we have dates for this?
he posted Aureolus, a military commander, in northern Italia: 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)
As praetorian prefect is English, it shouldn't be italicised.
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.
Tetricus's name was changed to Imperator Caesar Esuvius Tetricus Pius Felix Invictus Augustus Pontifex Maximus: 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.
Tribune: as "praetorian prefect" above: italicise if using the Latin, not if using the English.
the Roman tradition of emperors appointing themselves as consul, with Tetricus appointing himself as consul in 271, 272, 273, and 274; the names of the other consuls for 271–273 are not known: 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).
The unreliable Historia Augusta: 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.
the main threats to the Gallic Empire came from the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes.: 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.
The provinces that did not recognize Tetricus chose instead to recognize Roman Emperor Aurelian: as above on "Emperor X", but more strongly: much better and clearer as "to recognize Aurelian as [Roman] emperor".
even celebrating a triumph for one of his victories: 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.
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.
"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.
at the Battle of Châlons, near modern-day Châlons.: 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.
"eripe me his invicte malis": 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.
Lucania et Bruttium: as this is Latin, it should be italicised via a language template.
In translation, "corrector" should become "governor" consistently.
comes in c. 283: avoid abbreviations in flowing text: "comes from around 283" vel sim
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.
aurei : italicise via language template.
Reverse of an Aureus bearing the inscription of a standing Felicitas: 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.
I might clarify in the text that Aequitas etc are deities: something like with the reverses showing Tetricus, either riding a horse or holding an olive branch and scepter, or various deities: Aequitas, Jupiter...
Gloss "jugate" as (side-by-side)?
quinarius: 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.
the usage of epigraphs was in decline during the period: 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)[reply]
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.
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?

Matarisvan

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

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.
"or necessary after his defeat": Consider rephrasing to "or a surrender was necessary after his defeat..."? Former is a bit confusing.
"a few years after 274": Do we have the exact date?
Isn't the Regnal Name column of the infobox a WP:SEAOFBLUE? Do other rulers' infoboxes have the same template?
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?
"...by the province of Hispania": "provinces"?
"Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte": Offer a translation in the body?
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?
Instead of using PolferA, consider changing the publication year from 2000/1999 to 2000a/1999a? The sfn template allows for this.
Are Southern 2015 and Southern 2008 works by different authors? If not, consider using a consistent first name.
In the body, you say David Magie but in the biblio you have David Vagi. Which one is it?
Could we have a one liner on why Châlons was lost? This would be quite relevant here.
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.
Can we have some details on the Barbarous coins by Tetricus I & II? I stumbled upon this on JSTOR.
Are there any noteworthy events from Tetricus' work as corrector?

I may post some more comments if the JSTOR results throw up something. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 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)[reply]

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.
The infobox looks fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]