Wikipedia:Peer review/Julius Nepos/archive1

Julius Nepos

Hi, I have been working on this article and want to see if it is comprehensive and readable enough for FA. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Cplakidas and @Borsoka, two very thorough and knowledgeable reviewers. Any reviews are totally optional, but I would appreciate even just a few comments! Thank you kindly, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I will gladly review the article but I need some time to start the review. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, it will take me a few days to get going due to other ongoing concerns. Constantine ✍ 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka I have pinged you at the FA nom at Henry II, so please take your time on this PR. Please do not feel obligated to do either one of them if you do not have the time or desire to! Thank you kindly, Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from UndercoverClassicist

I'll give this a look now, and post my thoughts below. I'm not a Late Antiquity specialist, but I'll dredge up what I can of undergraduate lectures and conversations with colleagues who really know the topic. In general, it looks like it's in good shape: I'm sure what follows will be mostly pedantry and nit-picking, so please feel free to take and leave what you will. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

General

• Latin terms should be in the {{lang|la}} template, to aid screen readers and to allow the Wiki software to properly categorise the article.
• Mathiesen is getting a lot of prominence here: I know he's a 'proper' academic, but what's the status of the Wordpress site he posted to as regards peer review and editorial control? I note that his bibliography is pretty dated; the most recent work he cites is 1994, and that's just RIC.
• I love that Category:Deaths by stabbing in Croatia exists.

Lead/Infobox

• The article seems to begin in medias res: in particular, the statement after losing power in Italy is confusing when we don't know how, when or why this happened. Other imperial FAs tend to begin either with the subject's birth or the circumstances in which he came to power, which seems like a good way to balance the basically chronological nature of a biography with the desire to put important material first.
• Should the abbreviations in the coin caption be translated or explained?
• Check the capitalisation in Roman emperor of the West: to my eyes, either emperor should be capitalised (if we're treating this as a formal title) or west decapitalised (if we're not). This is standard enough across imperial articles that it shouldn't be changed here, whatever the rights and wrongs.
• 9 May 480 is the most commonly cited date by modern historians (note B): do the three sources cited here actually say that it's the most cited, or are they simply examples of historians who cite the date?
• Fasti vindobonenses: (note c) notwithstanding the Wiki article name, Vindobonensis is an adjective derived from a proper noun (as well as part of the title of a work), so should surely be capitalised? On another note, usually the most accepted doesn't quite make sense; they're either usually accepted or the most accepted.
• Nepos worked to restore the prestige and authority of the Western Empire, though mostly unsuccessfully: suggest though he was mostly unsuccessful; using an adverb so far from its verb reads awkawrdly.
• managed to once more reduce the Burgundians into foederati: from my rather limited knowledge of the current state of the field, I'm led to believe that the concept of foederati is a deeply contentious one. Do you have a view here?
• The Augustulus part of Romulus Augustulus is a (not particularly kind) nickname; it feels a little odd in the sentence Orestes proclaimed his young son Romulus Augustulus as emperor, since nobody would have called him Augustulus until after he'd become emperor.
• the barbarian general Odoacer: barbarian is a loaded term (and very much a subjective judgement in the later Roman Empire, as Stilicho would attest). I understand the rationale for it here, but maybe worth a footnote to explain that it's used only because we can't do much better for Odoacer?
• In the infobox, his wife is a niece of Leo's; in the article, she's only possibly Leo's niece.

Background

• Images should generally be positioned to the right (which improves readability by keeping a consistent left margin), unless there's a good reason. Is there one for the map?
• the empire was firmly and permanently divided into western and eastern spheres of imperial administration from the death of emperor Theodosius I (r. 379–395) in 395.: I worry there's some hindsight bias creeping in here, particularly with the word firmly: what made this division firmer than those that went before (e.g. under Diocletian), except that nobody later managed to stick the two halves back together again?
• The Western Roman army gradually became increasingly reliant on barbarian mercenaries: Again, I'm speaking as an outsider, but my impression is that this basically-Gibbony narrative is now more contested: the Romans had paid non-citizens, including those from outside the empire, to serve since at least Augustus' day, and Italians had been a minority even among the legions since the 1st century CE or so. The 'mercenary' label is tricky; it implies that these soldiers primarily served for money (and their predecessors didn't), and had little loyalty to Rome itself (and their predecessors did). Moreover, the 'barbarian' label is also a little tricky, given that many of these 'barbarians' lived and were born within the Roman empire, and often only really get labelled as barbarians by historians like Ammianus Marcellinus once they're on the 'wrong' side. There's also a lot of work (see Guy Halsall in particular) suggesting that at least some of the barbarian 'vibe' of the late Roman army was a matter of the soldiers themselves consciously choosing/emphasising that identity and aesthetic versus a 'Roman' one.
• by which point he had also become a patrician: could this be explained a little? For most non-late-Antiquarians, patrician is a class you're born into.
• because of the violent end of Anthemius: explain what happened to him.
• Note 7 (Mathisen 1998) is cited three times in three consecutive sentences; it's normal just to cite it once at the end of the text it supports.

Reign

• Nepos was the last emperor to be crowned in Rome until the coronation of Charlemagne in 800: is it worth clarifying that Charlemagne isn't generally considered a Roman emperor?
• the Burgundians were once again made into foederati (barbarian allies of the empire): what had happened to make them no longer foederati (though see my query in the lead), and how did Nepos reverse it?
• Still, he was less successful in 475 as there simply were not enough remaining military resources to achieve victory.: what was he trying to achieve in 475?
• The Vandals ... their renewed and increased pirate attacks: surely either renewed or increased?
• Nepos tasked Orestes with leading another army against the Visigoths, and against the Burgundians, who were rebelling, in southern Gaul: this sentence isn't exactly clear on who was rebelling and what was in southern Gaul. Suggest something like Nepos tasked Orestes with leading another army into southern Gaul, against the Burgundians, who were rebelling, and against the Visigoths.
• Does the 'Exile in Dalmatia' section really belong under 'reign'? It seems that Nepos thought he was still emperor, but nobody else did. Further up (in note D), we've called Romulus Augustulus Nepos' successor, which implies that he stopped being emperor when Romulus Augustulus was crowned.
• Odoacer considered the Roman Empire from this point on as only requiring a single emperor, ruling from Constantinople: I'm not sure we can present this straightforwardly as Odoacer's motive: there's at least a strong school of thought that this was a diplomatic platitude, with the subtext that Zeno didn't need to send a successor to the west because Odoacer no longer considered it Zeno's place to do so.
• As with the map further up, could the map under 'exile' be aligned right (and Domitian's palace perhaps shifted down)?
• Zeno responded to the ambassadors sent by Odoacer, members of the Roman Senate, that they had killed one east-supported emperor (Anthemius) and driven one out (Nepos) and that they would do well in receiving Nepos back as their ruler. Zeno also stated that Odoacer would do best in receiving the rank of patrician, which he had requested, not from Zeno, but from the legal western ruler, Nepos, although Zeno promised to grant the rank if Nepos would not. Zeno also urged Odoacer to accept Nepos back as emperor in Italy.: this long bit of indirect speech reads like it's a quotation of or summary from a primary source. How confident are we of Zeno's exact words here? Separately, the term east-supported sounds a bit jargonistic to me.
• Theodoric seems to come out of nowhere here; given that Zeno was the one who sent him against Odoacer (and Odoacer first fought back, then made a deal with him, rather giving the lie to his protestations of fealty to Zeno), I think a short introduction as to why he's in a position to be leading Roman-ish armies around would be helpful.
• If Glycerius was not the instigator, it is possible that the murder was caused by Nepos in 480 actively beginning to prepare his forces for a real attempt at recovering Italy militarily, and that his supporters in Dalmatia were unwilling to embark on such an adventure: this is a little unclear: are you suggesting that those supporters murdered him so that the expedition wouldn't go ahead?
• becoming the first proper sole Roman emperor of the entire empire since the death of Theodosius I in 395 (though he continued to only effectively control the eastern provinces): two things here. Firstly, there are a lot of adjectives (what makes a proper Roman emperor different from an improper one, and had there been any non-Roman emperors of the entire empire?); secondly, it seems to fall into the problem we had further up as to whether the article takes Odoacer's claims of subordination to Zeno seriously. If Zeno didn't have any real authority over the west, it's difficult to say that he's the 'proper sole Roman emperor of the entire empire'. Personally, I'd take Odoacer less seriously and take this credit away from Zeno, but HQRS need to lead here. Heydemann's chapter in Brill's companion might be a good starting point?

Legacy

• Nepos shares a similar coincidence, in that he shares his first name, Julius, with Julius Caesar, Augustus' adoptive father and predecessor as authoritarian ruler of the Roman state: not sure this is really encyclopaedic; the point about Romulus Augustulus' name being (perhaps) an explanation for why he's preferred as the 'last of the Romans' rather than Nepos was reasonable, but the article doesn't do anything with this (at the moment, rather trivial) observation.
• I'd put Gibbon's name into the text: the historian Edward Gibbon remarked on the "strange coincidence"... vel sim.

Bibliography

• Some ISBNs seem to be oddly formatted: e.g. 978-0521201599 (should be 978-0-521-20159-9 or 9780521201599
• Bury 1923 is a century old and only ever cited in conjunction with another source; is there a reason not to simply remove it?
• Most citation styles would insist on page numbers for book chapters, though I don't think this is specifically required by the MOS.
• McEvoy's chapter here might be useful on the question of how far Odoacer's empire was really part of Zeno's, and Zeno's two-faced dealings with him and Nepos.
• Handley here has a lot on Nepos' family connections, including the interesting suggestion that he might have been related to Odoacer, and is also good on the political status of Nepos' little kingdom in Dalmatia.

Comments by Borsoka

• Why "Geopolitical background" instead of "Background"?
• ..., and was more appropriately governed by two co-ruling emperors,... Consider deleting because the empire was time to time governed by more than two co-emperors.
• ...Germanic barbarian invasions... The Alans and the Huns were not Germanic peoples.
• Consider linking the article Migration period, or refer to it in an other way (e.g. "See also").
• ... the Visigoths under Alaric I had sacked Rome... Why past perfect?
• Introduce the Theodosian dynasty somehow. For instance, when the death of Theodosius I is mentioned you could state that the empire was divided between his two sons.
• ...the western emperor Valentinian III... Do we need to repeat that he was the western emperor?
• The nephew of the magister militum ('master of troops', a high-ranking military officer) Marcellinus (died 468), being the son of one of Marcellinus' sisters. Who was Marcellinus's nephew?
• The Western Roman army gradually became increasingly reliant on barbarian mercenaries. Why? Gradually and increasingly?
• Nepos may have been part of a prominent local Roman family in Dalmatia. This is supported by memorial inscriptions from four roughly contemporary individuals; Aelia Nepotes, Aelia Nepos, another Julius Nepos and Nepotes, having been identified from Dalmatia. Consider placing the two sentences before the sentence introducing his father. Consider rephrasing the two sentences: "Memorial inscriptions .... implies/suggests that Nepos was part of a porminent ..."
• Nepos' uncle Marcellinus was a prominent late Roman general, having fought the Vandals in several campaigns and playing a notable role in momentarily fending off Vandal attempts at controlling Sardinia. A previous sentence clarifies that Marcellinus was Nepos's uncle and we also know that he was a prominent late Roman general. Consider shortening the sentence. For instance: "Marcellinus fought the Vandals in several campaings and plaed a notable role..."
• ...Marcellinus appears to have planned to invade Italy.. From where? I understand he indeed planned to invade Italy.
• Nepos married a Roman noblewoman... When?
• ...possibly a niece of Leo I According to whom?
• After the death of the western emperor Anthemius (r. 467–472) as well as his successor Olybrius (r. 472), who had not been recognised in the east, Leo I, the sole remaining Roman emperor, maintained that he had the right to select the new western emperor. Consider rephrasing. I assume that Leo maintained the claim to select the new western emperor after Anthemius's death, but his claim was ignored and Olybrius was proclaimed emperor in the west, but this is unclear.
• By appointing Nepos to lead the invasion, Leo not only sought to assert his authority in the west but perhaps also hoped to rid himself of a possible rival in the east. According to whom? Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by TompaDompa

This historical marker/mural in Split, Croatia might be worth mentioning in the "Legacy" section. If nothing else, a photograph of it would make for a rather nice image in that section, methinks. TompaDompa (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)