Talk:Gaius Antius Restio/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 07:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy to review this article.

Review comments

• I’m unclear about the title of the article, why isn’t Gaius Antius Restio sufficient?
  • You're right, but his son had the same name, and they were often confused in the older literature, so I made a disamb in the title. If you think it's not needed I'll remove it.

Yes, please remove it. AM

Done.

Lead section

• lex Antia sumptuaria - looking at List of Roman laws, I would give this law a red link, it is one of the few laws listed in the article that is not linked in blue or red.
  • My intention was initially to write about this law, but there is so little to say that I wrote about Restio instead. I don't think it's possible to write a stand-alone article about the law. I will probably create a redirect to Restio.

The redirect would be fine. AM

Done.

• (fl. 68 BC) - using {{fl.|68 BC}} may be helpful to some readers.
  • Done.
• Antius' – Antius's (see MOS:'S).
  • Done, but I have used the cognomen Restio instead of Antius, to avoid the "s's".
• Introduce Publius Sestius.
  • Done.
• Link magistrate (Roman magistrate); political corruption.
  • Done.

1.1 Lex Antia (68 BC)

• Link Republic, which should be 'Roman Republic', as in the lead.
  • Done.
• Introduce Sulla.
  • I ended rewriting the sentence by putting Sulla first. Is it better?

Looks good now. AM

• Link consul.
  • Done.

1.2 In Catullus 44

• Unlink Catullus (duplicate link). Ditto Cicero (in a letter of Cicero).
  • Catullus is only linked in the lead before? Unlinked Cicero.

Catullus is also linked in the quote box, this counts as a duplicated link. AM

Done, removed the link in quote box.

• Introduce Cicero, Marcus Aufidius Lurco and Francis Ryan.
  • Done.
• whose telling cognomen means "glutton" – telling sounds here like an editorial opinion.
  • It comes from the source (Ryan), but I reworded the whole sentence. I hope it's better now.
• for austere Antius – ‘for the austere Antius’?
  • Done.
• this campaign – it’s not clear what campaign is being referred to here.
  • Done.
• Link cognomen; proscription.
  • Done.
• He was also a supporter – replace He with the proper name, for the sake of clarity.
  • Done.
• Introduce Julius Caesar, perhaps by mentioning his public role when Antius supported him.
  • Done, tell me if it's enough.

2.1 Ancient sources

• I can’t see why this subsection is needed here, as there are less than 20 citations in the whole article. I would combine 2.1 and 2.2 so that there is just one section, References.
  • I have separated ancient and modern sources because some editors have a problem with ancient sources. So, by splitting them I made it clearer that the text is not based on them. Moreover, the way ancient sources are cited differs from modern ones (there is no page number). So I do like this in all my articles.

Understood. AM

3.2 Modern sources

• n°48 - as far as I know, n° is discouraged (see MOS:CONTRACT) and should read 'number'.
  • Removed n°.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 4 June to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: thanks for the review. T8612 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@T8612: there are three points still to be sorted, otherwise all looks fine from this end. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: all points addressed. It seems the name change messed with the bot though. T8612 (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Passing

All looks fine now, passing the article. Thanks for your efforts. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)