Wikipedia:Featured article review/Third Servile War/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC) [1].

Third Servile War

Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Military history

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it relies almost exclusively on primary sources. Among the modern sources listed, we also have Smith (1875) and Mommsen (1854)... The only RS are Bradley, Broughton, Matyszak, and Strauss, but Broughton & Matyszak are only cited once, the latter is quoted through an interview. Only Bradley is cited 5 times. Other books cited in the modern sources section are just modern editions of ancient books.

Although there is some interesting ground work done on the primary sources, the massive lack of modern references on a widely discussed subject should be enough to remove the FA status of this article. T8612 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article could certainly use more secondary sources for analysis of the war and its significance. However, there's nothing wrong with citing the basic facts of the war to the original historians who recorded them, since those are the only sources that modern historians have to draw on in the first place. And in an article discussing the details of a revolt and the campaign to quash it, you'd expect quite a high proportion of the facts to be cited to them. Much of the problem here lies in the lack of analysis, which may also be due to the lack of controversial statements about the basic facts of the war. If the sources generally agree on the facts, then the article is less likely to require interpretation.

The issue here isn't the number of citations to primary sources; it's the lack of critical discussion by modern writers. And for what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with the secondary sources that are currently cited. If you're going to contend, as above, that older but still modern writers are not reliable sources simply because they're older and interpretations of events could have changed, without any evidence that what they have to say on this subject is unreliable, then you may as well give up on ever finding a reliable source, because anything written today will be equally unreliable in the future! But that's a digression I'm sure neither of us want to pursue. By all means, find more modern sources that provide context and analysis. I just want to be clear that the sources that are currently cited in the article aren't the problem. It's the ones that could be included, and haven't been, for whatever reason. P Aculeius (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favour of including ancient sources, and I often do it, but not alone. Here we have many paragraphs supported by only one or two references to ancient sources, including Appian, who is widely known for his numerous mistakes. T8612 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then we're in agreement (not that I'm surprised). I hope we have someone in the project who's interested enough in the Third Servile War to find more contemporary sources to add to those we already have, and perhaps add to the analysis of the war, its conduct, and its social and historical significance! P Aculeius (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is a probable gap regarding 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and possibly 1b, "it neglects no major facts or details". It seems likely that over the past 150 years or so there has been new relevant literature, which quite possibly raise new facts or details. As P Aculeius says "it's the lack of critical discussion by modern writers" which raises potential concerns. It would be interesting to know if there are more recent RSs and if they do raise new facts or details. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section "Motivation and leadership of the escaped slaves" does not cite a single modern source, apart from a 2min Youtube video of Barry Strauss, whose book is mentioned in the bibliography, but unfortunately not cited anywhere. Among missing sources, we have: Jean-Paul Brisson-Spartacus (1959), Allen Mason Ward-Crassus, (1976), Theresa Urbainczyk-Spartacus (2004) and Slave Revolts in Antiquity (2016), Rubinsohn "Was the Bellum Spartacium a Servile Insurrection?" (1976), Aldo Schiavone-Spartacus (2013), and many others. T8612 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anybody else? T8612 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this review. A very detailed article, but a topic as contentious as a rebellion cannot rely on primary sources so heavily. For an entire section to not cite a single(substantial)modern source does not seem like FA material to me. I'm confident however that this article can be relisted as FA in the future with the help of editors far more intelligent and knowledgeable than me. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Comments in the review section largely concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per the sourcing issues identified. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Fails 1c: there should be more use of relevant modern scholarly sources. DrKay (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Gog the Mild and DrKay. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.