Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diocletian

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

The article was promoted 15:31, 31 March 2008.

---

Diocletian

Self-nominator I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think that it's now more or less up to Featured Article standard. Comments welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support While not being an expert in the Roman history I nevertheless have always been interested in this subject. So from my point of view the article appears to be comprehensive, well sourced and well written. I have only one concern with it. The lead contains the following words: "ending forty years of peaceful coexistence between Christian and Pagan, and resulting in a revanchist Christian Church.". The facts stated in this phrase are not mentioned in the main text of the article. I think you should drop it from the lead or explain in more detail what you mean by "peaceful coexistence" and by "revanchist church". Ruslik (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've dropped the sentence, and added a little paragraph on the aftermath of the persecution. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "...known in English as Diocletian", may be simply "known as" because not only in English? And no mention of dominate in the lead. --Brand спойт 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've dropped the "in English". I'm not so sure the dominate needs to be mentioned: few of the works I've read give it much press, at least, not by that name. I'll look over my materials again tonight (I don't have them with me), and see if I can justify the change. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well written and comprehensive! You did an excellent job! I had read it a few weeks ago and was thinking that it's probably the best article I have seen on one of the Roman emporers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment

• Hyphens aren't needed after -ly words, eg. "personally-led campaigns"

• Done.

• Some dates need linking, including in the footnotes.

• Done(?)

• "newly-built Christian church" - all churches are Christian

• Done.

• Some compound adjectives need hyphens, eg. "second and third century emperors", "five year census"

• Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.

• "one-thousand years" - hyphen not needed

• Done.

• Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "27 BC", "5 km"

• Done.

• "a looser administrative structure than that which was imposed on ..." - "which was" is redundant

• Done.

• "Prior to" is overly formal. "Before" is better.

• Done.

• Ref page numbers are inconsistently formatted, eg. "pp. 8–9." vs "p. 22–23.", "pp. 280–81" vs "pp. 134–5"

• Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.

• Sentences shouldn't begin with "but"

• Done.

• Some measurements are missing conversions

• Done(?) I think the km's the only one.

• An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.

• Done.

• Some duplicate refs can be combined, eg. refs 23 and 27

• Done(?) Tell me if there are any I've missed.

• Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done(?)

I think I've fixed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Current ref 49 (Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 281) is inconsistent with the rest of the footnotes, lacking the pages abbreviation (Yeah, it's REALLY picky, but...)
    • Done.
  • Same for current ref 69 (Codex Justinarius ...) the Barnes New Empire ref lacks a page number abbreviation.
    • Done.
  • Page abbr missing from current ref 88 (Barnes New Empire 255)
    • Done.
  • Current ref 152 is lacking a page number (Bleckmann)
    • Done.

• • Probably don't need to list Hardcover in the references.
    • I do that so I can list both the ISBNs that the books are issued under. Should I drop one of them?
      • Don't have to, it was just something I noticed while i was reading through the refs. It's not usually done, but it works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • For those cases where a library might have one, but not the other, I thought it might be helpful to list both. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 80 which has a discussion of Maximian's appointment as Augustus has a number of refs lacking page number abbreviations and which are inconsistent with the formatting of the rest of the refs (Using the Harvard system)
    • Done(?) What should they look like?
      • You refer to the books as Corcoran 2006 instead of the usage in the rest of the article (which would be Corcoran "Before Constantine" to be consistent with the rest of the article). Likewise it's Southern 2001 instead of the usage elsewhere which is Southern Severus to Constantine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed it now.
  • Current ref 135 (Lactantius (DMP)...) uses Harvard referencing in it, which is inconsistent with the system used elsewhere in the article.
    • Done(?) Are page number abbreviations all that is lacking?
      • See above, you're using (Southern 1999 (which isn't even listed in the bibliography, oops! What article/book is that?)) instead of the Author, Title short form you're using elsewhere in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ack! That was supposed to be Southern 2001. Fixed it now.

All other links checked out fine with the tool. I'll try to get back later and do a review of the article itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Prose needs some tweaking though not looking too bad. There is some redundant wording and some words used where a slightly more appropriate one would improve flow. I will post any that aren't straightforward here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a bad smell emanating from the coach. It would have been the kind of smell corpses are known to emanate in the later stages of decay, especially in hot climates - seems a bit wordy - why not "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a odour reminiscent of a decomposing body (or corpse) emanating from the coach." - or something like it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to: "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers smelled an odor reminiscent of a decaying corpse emanating from the coach." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Support everything has been addressed. Oppose for now, pending resolution of the following concerns/questions/quibbles.

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Lede, third paragraph, second sentence is awkward and wordy. Perhaps "Although effective while Diocletian ruled, the Tetrarchy collapsed after his abdication with the dynastic claims of Maxentius and Contantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively."
  • Changed to: "Although effective while he ruled, Diocletian's tetrarchic system collapsed after his abdication under the competing dynastic claims of Maxentius and Constantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively."
• Rise to power section, Death of Numberian subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence. Is the he referred to Bahram or Numerian? It's unclear from the context.
  • Clarified.
• Same section and subsection, last sentence of the subsection. Why did the act of changing his name place Diocletian in the line of legitimate emperors?
  • I don't really know. "He would then change his name to Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, as a way of placing himself in the succession of legitimate emperors after Gallienus." Potter doesn't make it especially clear, so I've dropped it.
• Same section, Conflict with Carinus subsection, third paragraph, second sentence. Do you mean that Constantius had been an associate of Diocletian in the household guard? Consider rewording to make the context a bit clearer.
  • Better? "Carinus' rule was unpopular, and it is possible that Flavius Constantius, the governor of Dalmatia and Diocletian's associate in the household guard, had already defected to Diocletian in the early spring."
    • Better. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Same section, subsection and paragraph. Artistobulus was whose prefect, Carinus or Contantius?
  • Carinus'. Clarified.
• Same section, subsection, and paragraph. Where did Diocletian move on to?
  • Italy. Clarified.
• Same section, Maximian made co-emperor subsetcion, first paragraph. The last sentence is very convoluted and hard to follow. Consider rewording.
  • (No longer same section) I've dropped the arguments over the date into a footnote and abandoned Maximian's age. Is it better?
    • Much! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Same section and subsection, second paragraph, third pagaraph. Any reason to italicize Ca. and use the abreviation instead of circa?
  • No real reason, just thought it would keep consistency with the parenthesized dates. I've replaced it with "circa".
• Same section, Conflict with Sarmatia and Persia subsection, first paragraph, third sentence. "took them to battle" is awkward. Consider rewording, perhaps to "Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, which, however, failed to eliminate them."
  • Tweaked to: "Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, but was unable to secure a complete victory."
• Same section and subsection, second paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences. I don't see the "denying them their rest" in the sentence (plus it's very odd phrasing) and the mention of Maximian's build-up is without context, you've not mentioned it before this, I assume it's for fighting against Carausius? Next paragraph you mention a fleet that Maximian lost, is this the build-up?
  • (No longer same subsection) I've had to gut a few sections that were more appropriate for daughter articles: Maximian's one of them. I've made a few tweaks for clarification. They apparently moved forward so quickly that the Germans were unable to rest. I've dropped the sentence.
• Same section and subsection, the third paragraph, fourth sentence is awkward
  • I've moved some material around and chopped that sentence into smaller pieces.
• Tetrarchy section, Foundation of the tetrarchy subsection. Should Tetrarchy in the subheading be capitalized?
  • Yes.
• Same section and subsection, first paragraph, second sentence is very long and convoluted. Consider breaking it up into smaller chunks.
  • Done."Constantius was a former governor of Dalmatia and a man of military experience stretching back to Aurelian's campaigns against Zenobia (272–73). He was Maximian's praetorian prefect in Gaul, and the husband to Maximian's daughter, Theodora."
• Same section, Conflict in the Balkans and Egypt subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence is oddly phrased. Perhaps "The defeat kept the Sarmatians from the Danube provinces for a long time."
  • Took your phrasing.
• Same section, subsection, and paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences are also awkward. Consider "In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, which resulted in a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296. This victory consolidated the Danube frontier."
  • Tweaked to: "In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, and won a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296."
• Okay, if Dioceltian's corrector Aurelius Achilleus held out in Alexandria until 298, who was he holding out against? Context seems to imply Diocletian, but that makes no sense if he was Dioceltian's corrector, unless he revolted with Domitianus.
  • Former corrector.
• Same section and subsection, last paragraph and last sentence, Diocletian left Africa quickly after which event? Directly before this is a discussion about the reforms bringing Egyptian administration into line with Roman practice, which isn't an event per se.
  • Moving phrasing around: he left Africa quickly after the peace treaty.
• Later life section, Illness and abdication subsection, first paragraph, second sentence is very wordy and awkward. Consider rewording.
  • Rephrased.
• Same section, Retirement and death subsection, last paragraph, fifth sentence. Does this imply that he may have comitted suicide? Would be clearer if the article just says that, not "perhaps even personally accelerated the advent of his death".
  • Alright.
• Reforms section, Tetrarchic and idealogical subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence is awkward. I believe "and it is implied that the tetrachs engineered the deeat over the Plamyreneses" is supposed to mean "it is implied that the tetrarchs engineered the defeat of the Palmyrenes."? Consider rewording if that is the case, and if it isn't, the meaning needs to be made clearer.
  • Clarified.
• Same section, Military subsection, second paragraph, first sentence is awkward, consider rewording to "Lactantius criticized Diocletian for an excessive increase..."
  • Took your phrasing.
• Same section, Taxation subsection, second paragraph, sixth sentence seems to be lacking something in the part "operated at different speed throughout the empire, and The kept up with changes in the ..."
  • Fixed.
• Same section, currency and inflation subsection. You mention in the third sentence "Aurelian's measures" but this is the first mention of such measures. The previous discussion says that market forces stabliized the exchange rates, so what were Aurelian's measures?
  • Aurelian reminted some old, highly overvalued currencies, giving them a higher silver content and issued two new currencies. They still had a lower bullion content than their face value, however, and the government basically expected everyone to trade them at that face value (Williams, Diocletian, pp. 116–17). I've dropped the reference: now it's just market forces.
• Diocletian and Maximian were the only Roman emperors to abdicate, surely that would merit a mention in the lede?
  • Not true: Justin II and Majorian also abdicated. I could put "one of the few".
    • Were he and Maximian the first? I seem to recall Justin and Marjorian came after Diocletian. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Aye, I've put it in: "becoming the first Roman emperor to voluntarily abdicate the position."
• Why is December 22 thought to be his birth date?
  • It's his official birthday, and Barnes considers it to have probably been his actual birthday. The primary source cited is the papyri at the P. Beatty Panopolis 2.164, 173, 181/2, 193/4, 262. Barnes states the fact pretty unambiguously: "Born on 22 December." (New Empire, p. 30) Do you want any of this in the article?
    • If the source you are using says December 22 unabiguously, it should be stated something like "The modern historian Barnes gives his birthdate as December 22, but other historians are not so sure." or something like that. You'll need a source or two for the second phrase of the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem is that no other historian disputes the date. Williams, who has written the only biography of the bunch, just relegates it to a footnote and states the fact impartially: "Beatty in Skeat, op. cit., concludes that Diocletian's official birthday as emperor was 22 December, and Barnes considers this was probably his actual birthday." No The other works trust in Barnes' chronological work pretty firmly. Barnes, New Empire, is one of the more common titles cited by Potter and Southern's general histories. They have not mentioned the birthdate because they are not interested in the issue: they are historians, not biographers. Many of the other statements in the article could have longer and more detailed histories of disputation; this one seems quite tame by comparison. Any reason why it leaped out at you?
        • I've changed the passage, as per your suggestion.
          • It was the qualifier that jumped out at me. When I see "probably" I wonder if there is some juicy historian's spat behind the phrase, that's all. This solution works. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Another one, the first pargraph of the Death of Numerian section says that Carinus hurried to Rome, and the context seems to imply that he was in the East, but the section before states Carinus was left in the West. Where did Carinus hurry to Rome from? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How does the context imply that? He was in Gaul (a fact not mentioned in the article), and had been in the West for the duration of the Persian War. It's now: "Carinus quickly made his way to Rome from Gaul, and arrived by January 284; Numerian lingered in the East." Better? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It was the next sentence that said that Numerian lingered that implied that perhaps Carinus was with Numerian when he left for Rome. It was more an implication than a outright statement. The new wording works.Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a good copyedit to cut down on wordiness. Lots and lots of places have "filler" words such as "while" Since I suffer from this fault myself... I'm very familiar with the problem! I've pointed out some of the ones that leapt out at me, but I'm sure there are others.

• Casliber has given some places a going over, and I've removed some whiles. Are there any other words I should be on the hunt for?

All in all a very nice article. I'll be happy to support when some of the prose issues are taken care of, and when some of the clarifications are made. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've resolved any continuing concerns you've had, save for that copyedit. Any suggestions on how to cut down on verbiage? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What I do if I can't find someone to go through for me, is to sit back from the text for a day or two, then just go line by line through it, trying to change all the passives to actives and reading it aloud to myself. If I get lost reading it, its a sure bet the reader is lost too. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I did some copyediting also, hopefully I didn't break anything. I'm sure others will find other things to tweak also. May I compliment you on the excellent job on a very difficult subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, and thank you for providing a very intensive review and copyedit. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well done - prose nicely massaged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - a real imitable article. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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