Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diadumenian/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2023 [1].

Diadumenian

edit
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC), User:Iazyges[reply]

Howdy, everyone. Apologies for my long absence from Wikipedia and FA: I had been hiking through the mountains of Canada (highly suggest Lake Louise, by the way) for a little over a month, in addition to going through some personal matters that have dwindled my motivation for editing. However, I plan to slowly but surely start being involved in the community again, so I hope y'all will receive this FA nom with open minds! Another collaboration between myself and the sage Iazyges, Diadumenian was declared augustus, ruler of Rome, at the tender age of eight/nine. Sadly but unsurprisingly, he was shortly thereafter executed. Have fun reviewing, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

edit
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it typical to follow the years with AD? I ask this as I'm not familiar with articles about such old subjects
I think it is okay, but if not, I will be happy to ammend. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • first proposed by ancient numismatist Curtis Clay, - false title
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead and Iazyges, I have no other comments, very good work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thank you kindly for the review! Please let us know if anything else can be done to better the article. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - impressed by the speed! Excellent work to the both of you. By the way, if you get some extra time, I'd appreciate any comments here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I would be glad to take a look at the article and give some feedback. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

edit

Review to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Roman Emperor Macrinus, and served" → remove comma
  • "brought to Elagabalus, and reportedly" → remove comma
  • "They were subject to damnatio" → although the emperors are the last potential "they"s mentioned in that sentence, the subject of the sentence (the Senate) still produces some potential ambiguity (though if I'm the only person bringing this up, I won't throw a fit about it one way or the other)
  • "Notably, some eastern provincial coins from the period" → "Notably" is a editorial word; recommend replacing it.
  • "on the obverse, and displaying Spes standing" → remove comma
  • "on the obverse, and displaying himself" → remove comma

That's all I've got, nice work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thank you. I believe everything has been taken care of. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - because there was such a massive block of comments right below mine, I was waiting to see what happened with that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Chris. Just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist

edit
  • the son of the Roman Emperor Macrinus: with the the, emperor should be decapitalised per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we say a bit about how Macrinus went from declaring himself emperor to being one, and what Diadumenian was doing in Antioch at the time?
More has been added regarding Macrinus' accession, but I could not locate anything specific regarding Diadumenian's presence in Antioch. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a process called damnatio memoriae: pedantry, but this term is not Roman: called invites the misconception that it was called that at the time. Suggest known in modern scholarship as or simply now known as.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • His mother was Nonia Celsa: suggest leading with what we know more securely, that she was Macrinus' wife: something like "his mother, Macrinus's wife, is named as "Nonia Celsa" in the Historia Augusta, though this name may be fictional". I'm sure it hasn't escaped scholarly notice that the description is pretty much a collage of descriptions of "good emperors" plus pretty (and usually doomed) boys from classical literature.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem as such, but why omit that she was Macrinus' wife? Seems odd to exclude something we are fairly sure to be true in favour of something we suspect to be false. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unreliable Historia Augusta: we can be more nuanced than this. Suggest giving the idea a bit more space to breathe. The key ideas, in my view, are that the HA is much later than most of its subjects and is largely fictionalised: it's not even trying to be a wie es eigentlich gewesen reconstruction of the life and times of the people in its pages.
  • The Historia Augusta, a collection of biographies of Roman emperors: a bit of a nit-pick, perhaps, but not all of the HA's biographies were emperors: by its own standards, it was Vitae Diversorum Principum et Tyrannorum, with the tyranni being illegitimate usurpers. Some of those usurpers didn't actually exist.
I take your point but I do not know how I can adjust the statement without it becoming convoluted and unreadable. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I left this one to think on it, and never got back to it. It does need to change, as it currently isn't true. The Oxford bibliography calls it a collection of biographies of Roman emperors, co-emperors and usurpers: there's a case to be made that "co-emperors" are covered under "emperors", and so that "of Roman emperors and usurpers" would be fine. I don't think those two extra words cause too much difficulty. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the details of his physical appearance can be deduced from coinage and a description from the Historia Augusta: I'm not sure I'm happy with us being so credulous of either of these; Roman imperial coins (and portraits more generally) have a highly stylised visual idiom, and the Historia Augusta is never far from the line of fiction, and often veers pretty hard over it. Given that this is such a short article, I think we've got the space for a brief explanation to the effect that we have descriptions of his appearance in both of these, but that for various reasons, neither really means all that much.
Agreed; do you know where I can find reputable sources to back up these claims? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that any introductory work on either imperial image via coinage or on the HA will make those points. I'm not in a position to find sources immediately, but happy to come back at this in a couple of days when I am, if you haven't managed to do so by then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of "Emperor Caracalla" vel sim as a title: it's a bit anachronistic (the Romans used the title from which we get the word, but not as such a strong adjunct to someone's name). Would prefer something like "the emperor Caracalla".
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of potential confusion over the word caesar: under the Tetrarchy, it means a junior emperor, but I don't think it was anything more than an honorific generally given to presumptive heirs at this point. Perhaps worth an EFN, so that those who already know a bit about Late Antiquity don't get the wrong end of the stick?
The text says "...caesar – formalising his position as heir to the throne...", which I believe is clear enough. If you still feel strongly, I can perhaps find a way to work it in. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't avoid the possible confusion - compare, for example, "Smith appointed Jones as vice-president for acquisitions, formalising her position as his successor": the job entailed recognition as a successor, but no reader would conclude that it only represented recognition in this capacity. In the same way, I think most readers who know what caesar meant will conclude that he was made junior emperor, and that being named junior emperor made him the heir of the senior one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macrinus participated in a plot to have the Emperor: decap for consistency, and per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • Suggest clarifying that "the Antonine dynasty" specifically meant "Caracalla", who was still wildly popular with the soldiers - indeed, that popularity was what did for Macrinus.
  • Before fleeing, he entrusted Diadumenian to loyal servants, instructing them to take him into the Parthian Empire, to the court of Artabanus IV, to ensure his safety: weren't Rome and Persia historic and rather implacable enemies? Do we know why Macrinus would trust Artabanus with his son?
  • Suggest briefly saying where Zeugma is, to give us an idea of how far he got.
  • They were subject to damnatio memoriae, with their images and mentions in inscriptions and papyri being destroyed during the reign of Elagabalus.: I think the picture here of damnatio as a complete erasure from the record is no longer in step with the scholarship. The general paradigm nowadays is to see it more as an act of conspicuous rejection: after all, the whole power of seeing a monument with a name scratched off is that you know whose name it is that's been so deleted.
  • Elagabalus ... dated his reign to the end of that of Caracalla: I think this would be a bit clearer if expanded and spelled out a little more.
  • Surviving busts of Diadumenian are mangled, with the facial features barely being discernible: do we know how many we're actually talking about here? If it's just one or two, it would be good to say so. Do we know how they're identified as him?
  • augustus are extremely limited, and the only known coins from this time are denarii: I think we really need to italicise both denarii and augustus; denarii is not really a naturalised English term.
  • first proposed by the ancient numismatist Curtis Clay: this is cited to Vagi; could we include in the footnote where Vagi thinks Clay said it? (e.g. Vagi 2000, p. 1, citing Clay 1970). More generally, I don't really 'get' the link between the titles on the coins, the denominations of the coins, and this hypothesis of a large minting-in-progress: perhaps a slightly slower explanation would be clearer.
  • We should briefly explain who Spes was.
  • We never actually explain what Augustus is or means: we use it to mean co-emperor, but that hinges on the audience's understanding of its "real" meaning. That makes the explanation of sebastos a little tricky.
  • Standard is linked as aquila. These things weren't quite the same thing (a legion had many standards but only one aquila): if it's a legionary aquila (eagle-standard), suggest clarifying as such.
  • Bibliography: a few thoughts.
    • Sources generally look fine, though Matthew Bunson's encyclopaedia seems a bit non-specialist.
    • I'm surprised not to see standard works like the Cambridge Ancient History mentioned at all. Of course, they might just have nothing of interest, but have they been consulted?
    • A few extras: There's a nice quote/factoid in this article which might be added: "The aureus of Diadumenian is one of the greatest rarities in the Roman coinage".
    • More substantially, there's quite a bit in this paper, particularly around his early life and a prophecy made about his future rule.
    • this Scott article also has, inter alia, his title as princeps iuventutis.
    • There seem to be two useful articles cited elsewhere, though I don't have access to them:- C. Clay, "The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian," NZ 93 (1979) 21-40, and P. Cavuoto, "Nome e titoli di Macrino e Diadumeniano," Ottava miscellanea greca e romana 33 (1982) 33.
    • Harry Sidebottom has a new-ish book out on Elegabalus: have you been able to get hold of that?

Hope this is helpful. As it's a (very) short article, most of my points are about making sure that it's truly comprehensive: to me, an FA of this length really needs to leave no stone unturned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T8612

edit
  • The article is missing several sources. I concur with UndercoverClassicist on the lack of a reference to the Cambridge Ancient History for the context (even though there is only one mention of Diadumenian), instead of Bunson, which is a tertiary source. Curtis Clay's "Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian" should be used as well. Ask for a pdf in the Wikipedia resource request.
  • Friedberg is not a reliable source to me on Roman numismatics. I expect to find references to the Roman Imperial Coinage (volume 4b), which is the standard work on the subject.
  • I have added thee pictures of coins in the British Museum. The one of Diadumenian is described here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4422568 and for this reason I would use it in the infobox. The denarius is one of the very few of Diadumenian as Augustus. I added the refs from the RIC, format them as you wish. You can amend the captions, but I think it's more informative to tell about the coin, than transcribing the legend.
  • You cite the Historia Augusta, but you must tell that it's an unreliable work. T8612 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

Unlimitedlead, Iazyges, this has had minimal attention over the past month. At the moment it is failing "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly" badly. Help me out here, give me some reasons not to archive it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I reached out to Unlimitedlead about asking for an archive, so that we have an easier time introducing the sources that have been recommended, but I have yet to receive a response. I have no opposition to it being archived, as I agree that the new sources are necessary for FA quality. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@Gog the Mild Hey Gog, I have corresponded privately with Iazyges and we have decided to request that this nomination be archived. Iazyges is presently occupied with outside work, and I have been navigating some serious personal issues, so I believe I will be stepping back from Wikipedia for around a year. I hate to leave so abruptly with so much work I had planned, but I do not believe I can juggle Wikipedia with everything else on my plate. Apologies, everyone, and I will see y'all on the flip side. I am always available by email if anything should come up. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Diadumenian/archive1&oldid=1179870587"