Talk:Eunus

Discussion of fire-blowing Eunus

Our major source, Diodorus Siculus, describes Eunus as having performed a trick whereby he appeared to be blowing fire from his mouth. There is essentially no way to prove or disprove this claim, which is also true of much of what Diodorus gives us about the man.

Refs

There is only one source for the entire article and it is only used twice. In additional references that other editors can add will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 19:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eunus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Harren the Red (talk · contribs) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this shortly. :) SirMemeGod  12:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The Lede looks good as of now, the only concern I have is changing the "is" that comes right before the "First Servile War" to "during".

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No issues found, the "only" (also in the lede) may have been an issue but it technically is true. (It's also not part of the GA Criteria)  :)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   See below for the issue. Citerefs are hard, so I understand.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   It's mainly books that are used as sources, but in this case it's okay. Citations are also cited inline, although the 2a issue somewhat affects that.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Although I do not have access to these books, I am assuming good faith that what is cited is in the publications. I may do a double-check shortly, but for now, this passes.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I did find a ~24% similarity to Cambridge.org, but that seems too low to be considered flat-out plagarism.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No issues that I could find, seems to touch on everything documented about them.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   As above, no issues found.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Everything seems to be NPOV, which is good and meets the criteria.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Edit War Checker found no issues, a look through page history shows no recent disputes.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Four images are present, which I think is adequate enough to meet the criteria. All images are properly sourced as well.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images do have captions, although the fourth one (The statue image) could have a longer caption by mentioning who made the work (e.g. "Eunus, as depicted in a statue by Leonardo DaVinci, located in Enna, Sicily.").

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A few issues need fixed.

Pinging nominator Harren the Red (talk · contribs), placing on hold till issues are addressed. :) SirMemeGod  13:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I've fixed the "during" (that sentence always bothered me, but I could not think of a fix that made it less awkward!) and added inline citations for the citeref sources so they actually belong in the bibliography. Please let me know if anything else comes up, and thank you once again! Harren the Red (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good now. Congrats! SirMemeGod  14:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

2a issue

So there is a CITEREF issue that showed up with 3 of the sources linked (2 in the "Ancient Sources" section, and 1 in the "Modern Sources" section. Basically, a long book citation like the one in the "Bibliography" section should link to an inline citation. If you need any help feel free to ask, harvrefs are the bane of my existence. Other than that, the article looks good, besides the few issues I mentioned above! :) SirMemeGod  13:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The broken references are:

Should be fixed now^^ Harren the Red (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Livy (2003). Periochae. Translated by Lendering, Jona – via Livius.org.
• Orosius, Paulus (1936) [5th century AD]. Histories against the Pagans [Seven books of history against the pagans: the apology of Paulus Orosius]. Translated by Raymond, I. W. – via Attalus.org.
• Donaldson, Adam E. (2012). Peasant and Slave Rebellion in the Roman Republic (PDF) (Doctor of Philosophy thesis). The University of Arizona.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron talk 07:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

[[File:|140px|Bronze alloy coin minted by Eunus under the name of King Antiochus. On the obverse is the head of Demeter, while the reverse shows a grain ear. ]]

Bronze alloy coin minted by Eunus under the name of King Antiochus. On the obverse is the head of Demeter, while the reverse shows a grain ear.

• ... that Eunus, a Syrian slave and reputed prophet, became king and led a slave revolt in Sicily against the Roman Republic?

• Source: Urbainczyk, Theresa (2014). Slave Revolts in Antiquity, pp. 52, 56. Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84465-101-6.

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Harren the Red (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Harren the Red (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - ?
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, well sourced, hook is interesting and QPQ is completed. I don't see anything that would hold this back from DYK, so I approve. Only thing I will say is that I don't think this image should be used, as I don't find it particularly informative, and the caption is also quite long. However, if anyone disagrees, feel free. TheBritinator (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

On a second look, it would appear that the website the image is sourced from declares that the image is published under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, which would make it incompatible with commons. If I am missing something, please feel free to correct me. TheBritinator (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly edit the caption to be shorter (more concise), but from what I gather the image is a no go? I am not the original uploader of it to Commons, nor am I super familiar with copyright, so I will defer that judgement to you, though the image on commons itself says CC 4.0 international license. Also, would I edit the caption here, submit a new entry, or something else? How does the process work exactly? Thank you! Harren the Red (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Harren the Red:, no need for a new nomination, we'd just not use the image. Is that good for you? TheBritinator (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheBritinator:, yes, certainly! Thank you for the help :) Harren the Red (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, then I approve of the hook. TheBritinator (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The proposed hook has two non-bolded links next to each other, which is discouraged by WP:DYKMOS. Since "slave" is linked to the more specific page Slavery in ancient Rome, I think it's better to unlink "Syrian". jlwoodwa (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa: I'm perfectly fine with unlinking Syrian. Harren the Red (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheBritinator and Harren the Red:, you cannot be "king of a war", right? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: hi, the verbage is a bit of an oversimplification. Eunus became king of the revolting slaves; so I guess it could be that he "rose to become leader and king of the First Servile Revolt", but the name of the article on the war is First Servile War, so it reads a bit strangely. It can certainly be edited toward that end. Harren the Red (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Does the above satisfy your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)