Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gordian dynasty

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gordian dynasty

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Gordian dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my ongoing project to improve articles about Roman emperors, and has recently passed at GAN. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Hawkeye7

edit
  • I like the concept of a "short-lived dynasty".
  • "an uprising in the province of Africa in 238, where the people rose up" This often happens in uprisings.
  •  Fixed
  • "A delegation of centurions was sent to Rome" From where?
  •  Fixed
  • Link Sarmatians
  •  Done
  • "Invaded Africa Proconsularis" Which is "Roman Africa" referred to earlier, right?
  •  Fixed
  • A map of the empire at this point might come in handy here
  •  Done
  • "news of the rebellion reached Maximinus" What rebellion? The one in Africa?
  •  Fixed
  • And this is Maximinus Thrax right?
    Yes. Maximinus Thrax is commonly also called simply Maximinus, since Thrax basically means "of Thrace". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was he - in Parthia or Pannonia?
  •  Fixed
  • "Pupienus and Balbinus were also killed by soldiers" Which soldiers? Where was this?
  • By the Praetorian Guard (which I've added to article). They were presumably in Rome, but the sources don't actually say this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially after the marriage of Gordian and Tranquillina, Timesitheus' daughter" Whose idea was this?
    Presumably Timesitheus', but again, sources don't say that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the Sassanids invaded Rome in 241" I think you mean the Empire here
  •  Fixed
  • "after Gordian III won a great victory in Persia" What victory? You haven't said Gordian III was in the east
  • Sources don't really give a transition, likely because the primary sources don't either. Sources of the time were very sparse, confused, or contradictory, in the Crisis of the Third Century, because pretty much the entire empire was in chaos for a good half century, with emperors lasting an average of 2 years, and with the empire even splitting into three different states at one point. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several reforms were made, mostly in provincial administration, fiscal policy, and the army." Any idea what they were?
    None, per above comment on primary sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the Infobox at the top and the Year of the Six Emperors navbox below it.
  •  Fixed
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Monstrelet

edit
  • Responding to invitation to review so coming at article cold. I found the lead para confusing and was only able to make sense of it by reading the article. I recognise this is partly inevitable because it was a confusing situation but I think the use of the term "co-emperor", used in the main text, would help. So Gordian I and II are co-emperors, then Pupienus and Balbinus,then Gordian III becomes third co-emperor. This is a shorthand for the concept that the Romans by this point could have joint legal emperors, which is essential to understanding this para.
     Done
  • A specific point is that Maximinus's soldiers killed him because they were frustrated. Why were they frustrated? Lack of progress, lack of rations, pay, that they wanted to be elsewhere? I don't find this clear in the main text, so I can't suggest how you might change it but I think it might be clearer. Monstrelet (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Done
Yes, thanks. Looking good Monstrelet (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Monstrelet: Do you have any further concerns or suggestions? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at present Monstrelet (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Monstrelet: Would you presently feel comfortable supporting the article being promoted to A-class, or do you feel that it does not meet the standards in some way? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems good to me. Support. Monstrelet (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Factotem

edit

Initial comments on prose:

  • Infobox
  • History
  • The Gordian dynasty arose in opposition to Emperor Maximinus Thrax, who had been proclaimed by the army... I'm fairly sure that should be "rose", and your use of proclaimed begs the question, "proclaimed what?" Maybe "The Gordian dynasty rose in opposition to Maximinus Thrax, who had been proclaimed Emperor by the army..."?
  •  Done
  • Numismatics
  • During the reign of Gordian III, there was significant activity among the Greek coin mints, although activity in the Aegean Sea fell sharply... I'm not sure what activity in the Aegean you're referring to here. I'm fairly sure they weren't minting coins in the sea, which is what you appear to be saying. Maybe "...there was significant activity among the Greek coin mints, although activity by those around the Aegean Sea..."?
  •  Done
  • The Tetradrachm, a coin equivalent to four drachma, was produced again, having not been minted since the reign of Elagabalus, between 218–222, where only two mints produced it, and not having been widely minted since the reign of Macrinus, between 217–218. Too complex, and doesn't make sense. First it says the coin had not been minted since Elagabalus, then says two mints produced it.
  •  Done
  • While Antioch had in past been a major minting centre only sporadically, minting more Tetradrachms than Roman denarii or antoninianus until the reign of Gordian. Something is missing here. Beginning the sentence with "While" makes me expect that the second clause is parenthetical, and there should be a third clause, but the sentence just ends with no clear meaning.
    I've removed the sentence entirely, as it is pretty much meaningless in terms of the Gordian dynasty. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gordian dynasty also reversed the brief persecution of Christians by Maximinus, which was largely focused on the prosecution of bishops and popes. Gordian III ended all persecution of Christians.... Someone can reverse a policy, but I'm not sure they can reverse a persecution. Also, "brief persecution" makes it sound like they crucified people for just a couple minutes before letting them climb down from the cross. Finally, the second sentence sort of repeats the first.
  •  Done

More to come, hopefully tomorrow. Factotem (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay

  • The article on Gordian I gives the length of his reign as 21 days, whereas here it states 36 (the former appears to be correct, according to the dates given in the Adkins' source). It also gives us Gordian's age, stating that advancing years was the reason why he associated his son with him as co-emperor, and indicates that he was somewhat reluctant to become emperor. I wonder if this info is worth bringing out in this article?
    I've said it's either 21 or 36, since sources seem to dispute, likely due to a difference in when they declared and when they were recognized. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a full source review, but what I have managed to complete is a little worrying:

  • His troops became disaffected during the unexpected siege, at which time they suffered from famine and disease. Neither of the two sources for this statement mention "unexpected" or "famine and disease". The closest is Bunson, who states only that the army was hungry; not really famine, I think.
  • The rest of the third para of the "History" section after the first sentence is sourced to Laale p. 274, but as far as I can see from the Gbooks preview, none of the assertions made there are supported by that source.
    @Factotem: I've gone through the article history, and it appears that all/most of the issues with citing are due to the fact that I had Sellars 2013 (now re-added) as a source, but removed it without checking if remaining cites did in fact cover the same material. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As displayed in the GBooks preview, the correct ISBN for Metcalf's The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage is 9780195305746, but the Worldcat listing also shows 9780199372188 as a second, valid ISBN. Not sure what's going on there. From my reading of the GBooks preview of this source, the only statement in the first sentence of the Numismatics section actually supported on p.117 of the source is that the last known coin minted in the Cyclades was dated to the reign of Gordian III. The statements about Greek and Aegean minting activity are dated to the Severan emperors, not the Gordians. GBooks preview does not show me any of the other page refs used in the article, so I can't check them.
    Believe that Sellars covers most of the material, have removed the Greek and Aegean sentence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Hebblewhite's work, following the ISBN link through to Gbooks gives me ISBNs of 9781472457592 and 9781315616018 for hardback and ebook editions respectively, not 9781317034308 that is given in the article's bibliography, so again, not sure what is going on there. More importantly, the GBook preview shows a first-published year of 2017, not 2016.
    Using "9781317034308" takes me directly to the Gbook, which shows 2016. This Worldcat ref gives the 9781317034308 ISBN and 2016 publishing date. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the publisher info printed in the GBook preview, it states 2017, but this is not a huge issue. Given that the ISBN links take us to the correct books, I'm not going to quibble about the different numbers either. Factotem (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hebblewhite specifically states on p. 35 that Gordian III switched to displaying victoria on his coinage later in his reign, so the statement immediately after ref #18 which states that he did so throughout his reign is false.
  •  Fixed
  • The rest of that paragraph is sourced to Hebblewhite p. 42, but I can see no reference in the GBook preview for that source to support any statements about invictissimus.
    Sellars covers material. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the state affairs during the late years of Gordian III were controlled by his wife, Tranquillina. The source, according to the Gbook preview, actually states "In 241, Gaius Furius Timesitheus was appointed prefect of the Praetorian Guard and assumed effective control over the young emperor. Gordian III married Timesitheus's daughter, Furia Sabina Tranquillina in the same year." No mention of Tranquillina being in control.
    Sellars covers material. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Sellars is a lulu.com self-published work, and as I understand it, its use would fail this assessment on criteria A1 (use of reputable sources). Factotem (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: I've purged all the Sellars referenced material from the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You just need to change the statement in the lead about time period in which Gordian I killed himself; it still states 36 days. Factotem (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Kees08

edit

One minor change in the caption and it should be good to go. Kees08 (Talk) 07:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kees, FYI, even though those sculptures are ancient in origin, because neither Italy nor France has freedom of panorama they should include an explicit licensing tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and Kees08: I have added the appropriate ({{PD-old-100-1923}}) license. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I do not work with old articles often. Thanks I will keep that in mind for next time. Kees08 (Talk) 15:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Can you confirm that images are ready to go? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Gordian_dynasty&oldid=952886439"