Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Claudius/archive2

Claudius

Self Renomination. I submitted it to peer review after the last time I nominated. That peer review has now been archived. No one else has made more than minor edits, and the article is now in its complete form. It references every major English biography of Claudius from the last hundred years, all the ancient historians, and several important journal articles. Thank you for your time. LaurenCole 15:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - The article is up to featured standards. That was some very good work LaurenCole. --Ignignot 16:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ignignot. LaurenCole 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good article, but note that when I load the page in my browser, the middle succession boxes at the bottom are spammed with many repetitions of the message "You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires". I am not a vandal nor have I been blocked - the strange location and repetition of indicate a technical problem. I'm not having this problem with any other page with succession boxes, as far as I can tell (the succession tables for the current King of Spain and Pope pages work fine for me). So I assume this is a problem with this page that needs to be fixed. Bwithh 16:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this problem seems now to have gone away... Bwithh 19:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But I'd put in italics titles listed in the article and bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added LaurenCole 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object, mainly for technical reasons:

Three disambiguation statements at the top of the article is somewhat excessive. A single link to Claudius (disambiguation) should be added instead.
The second succession box is unclear as to what the title being succeeded to is. Clearly, Claudius is not replacing Caligula as the "Julio-Claudian Dynasty"—I assume this is meant to be "Head of Julio-Claudian Dynasty" or "Emperor of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty".
Some inline citations, particularly for statements of the "ancient sources say ..." type, would be helpful.

Other than that, it's a very good article. Kirill Lokshin 18:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2 have been fixed. As for "ancient sources say...," I used that when all the historians (or at least two or three) stated the same thing. I used individual names when it was only in one source. Thanks for your comments LaurenCole 22:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Links to the first FAC nomination on 4 November and Peer review. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My objection the first time around led to the FAC being withdrawn because it had been overhauled just before, but there is no reason to say no now. Well done Lauren. Harro5 07:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I still see a problem with the second succession box thought. Was he head of the Julio-Claudian dynasty all his life? The numbers in the Caligula succession box say different. Please make this blatantly obvious, and give a direct link to a list on Wikipedia offering the right info (maybe change this on the other emperors' pages too). Thanks.

Fixed. I'm not sure who created that text box, but now it has the same years as his reign.LaurenCole 04:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harro5 07:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. First, let me say that in it's current form this article is a major improvement over how it looked 18-24 months ago, the last time I looked at it. And I truly want it to reach FAC status: because of that, I fixed a number of minor points to help improve it & move it closer. Further, as it stands, it is a good article. Yet, the fact that this article has no references in the text bothers me: for example, the last paragraph of the section Claudius' affliction and personality makes a number of claims for Claudius (e.g., who describes "Claudius as generous and lowbrow", & who says that not only was he "paranoid and apathetic" but "also dull and easily confused"?), yet does not provide any sources for them. And as I read thru the rest of the article, there are many places where an inline reference to the appropriate ancient historian is badly needed. However, this is my only serious objection: if you can fix these, then there is no reason that this cannot become a FAC. -- llywrch 03:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that if things were repeated in nearly every source, that they were presumed to be common knowledge and therefore did not need references. Is this only scientific papers? I can add footnotes that list where each author states these things. Other than that, I cite individual authors in the text ("Tacitus states", "Scramuzza says"), but I can add footnotes with the page numbers of their books. I can't do this until next week (I'm out of town), but it will be taken care of. LaurenCole 04:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a few copy edits and joined a few short sentences to improve the "flow", but on the whole, the article reads very nicely. The referencing appears adequate as well, though I would appreciate footnotes giving specific page numbers (not the most critical thing for me, but helpful). Good work. Anville 07:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]