Talk:Gaius Porcius Cato (consul 114 BC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gaius Porcius Cato (consul 114 BC)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ll pick this one up...Ealdgyth (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • "Gaius left to Tarraco (modern Tarragona) in Spain" - is the "left to" a Britishism? I'd expect "left for" or "emmigrated to" ...

Not a Britishism, I'm just French and make grammatical mistakes sometimes. Fixed.

• Early career:
  • "He probably met him..." Who met whom? the last person mentioned was Ti. Gracchus - so which is the "he" and which is the "him" here?

Gaius met Tiberius there. Corrected.

• • "Gaius was likely on his way to take on (or returning from) his post in Syracuse" .. clunky. Maybe "Gaius was likely either on his way to or from his post in Syracuse."

Fixed.

• • per MOS:CIRCA, it's not italicized.

Fixed.

• Consul:
  • "One Greek and one Celtic couples" Britishism again? I would expect "One Greek and one Celtic couple" ... and couple here implies that they were in some sort of relationship to this Yank. Perhaps "A pair of Greeks and a pair of Celts.."?

I want to say that there were two couples, one Greek couple and one Celtic couple. I've changed to "Two couples (one Greek and one Celtic)"

• Sources:
  • Not a requirement, but suggestion - you give titles for most of your short footnotes, but not for Broughton?

Broughton's , Magistrates is possibly the most famous book on the Roman Republic of the 20th century, so it's usually obvious it's this book, but you're right, I've added a short title.

• • Also not a requirement, but you give the ISBN for Gruen, but none of the other books... might add those you can.

It was another editor who added it. Added the other isbn.

• Total aside - how is Champion's Peace of the Gods? I have it in my pile of things I need to read... but I keep finding things I think I need to read more... should I be putting it up higher?

Don't know, I've just read the pages for the article lol. It's a very specialised book though.

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ealdgyth Thanks for the review. Most issues fixed. T8612 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I am interested in Champion more to mine it for religious cultus practices, rather than the history. May I also commend you for not using any ancient primary sources. I detest the Greek/Roman wikiproject's monomania on the use of primary sources and it is refreshing to see editors bucking that trend. Thank you. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Why do you want to remove primary sources? There is nothing in the MoS against them, and it is very useful to have the references in the article, rather than going in the secondary source to find what are the original reference. When I write "Cicero says that...", readers may want to easily find what he actually said. T8612 (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the defeat of the consul Gaius Porcius Cato by a Celtic tribe in 114 BC led to the last human sacrifices in Ancient Rome? Source: A. M. Eckstein, "Human Sacrifice and Fear of Military Disaster in Republican Rome", in American Journal of Ancient History, 1982, n°7, pp. 71–73.

Improved to Good Article status by T8612 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC).

QPQ done here. T8612 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - See below.

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is a very worthy article and a great fact for DYK. I have three small questions. First, I'm not sure how grammatical the phrase "a defeat against x". A defeat at the hands of x, or simply a defeat by x, would perhaps be clearer. Second, four people were sacrificed, so perhaps human sacrifices would be better. Third, a wikilink clarifying what is meant by "Ancient Rome" would be useful. (And, bonus comment: The article links to itself by mistake; I have added {{clarify}}. It'd be good if you could resolve this, because the fix needed wasn't obvious to me.) Could you perhaps redraft the hook a little? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC) y

Changed: "a defeat by". "sacrifices" and wikilink. Fixed link in the article. Thanks. T8612 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff; good to go. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)