Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this, finally! First comments below. Since the article is waiting for a long time, could you, maybe, briefly confirm that you are still on it?

Thank you for taking on the review! Yes, I'm still on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering; I have the impression that the "background" section is disproportionately long. It could almost be an article on its own. Wouldn't it make sense to reduce it, keeping only the more general information that relate directly to the topic, leaving detail for the respective articles where the stuff belongs? I mean, it does a very good job in explaining that the political and cultural subdivision into east and west was there from the beginning on, and how the empire got increasingly difficult to govern. But do we need to retell the complete history of the empire?

It is a bit long, yes. Originally the article used 286-480 as the time range of the "Western Roman Empire" but as pointed out in an discussion on the talk page, consensus is that 395 is the start date, the last two subsections of the "background" section were originally the first two of the "history" section. We could do a separate "Division of the Roman Empire" article as proposed in a recent discussion and cut this one down but to me at least, a lot of the background history is relevant to understanding the Western Roman Empire and I'm not really sure what could be cut. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would avoid oversplitting. But moving the last two subsections back to the history section might be an idea, it would make sense to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, moved them back into History. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph in "collapse" is without a reference.

Added reference. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Economic decline" also has an unreferenced paragraph.

Added reference. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

all in all, it reads very well, but I need much more time to read through. More soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of proposals. (I don't know if I have to put this here since I proposed this in the section above in the talk page):

It could be more historically accurate to use the older date there was (286) as starting point (perhaps put both: 286/395, unless it causes too much confusion).
Also, I think it would make more sense to redirect Division of the Roman Empire to Dominate#Multiple Emperors (or make it a new specific article) rather than redirecting it here which is just about the Western half.

Barjimoa (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to both of these points on the above talk page, it might be best to continue discussion of them there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the information in "Economic decline" should be incorporated into the "history" section, and the section dissolved. This section does not feel as part of this article. It contains a lot of redundancy, just retelling the same stories, just from an economical perspective. It is written as it would be an article for itself. The whole article would more concise without this.

Done, I removed some repeated content and moved the retained stuff to appropriate places in "history" and "political aftermath". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same with "Barbarian Kingdoms". The early history of these kingdoms was already provided in the "History" section, and is repeated here. It also feels like an "article within an article". Why not having the "Political aftermath" as a single, continuous chronology? I really would encourage you to consider this option, but this is optional if you just want to reach GA status.

Yes, I agree. "Germanic Italy" and "Imperial reconquest" are already in a single continuous chronology, "Imperial reconquest" picking up right were "Germanic Italy" ends. And yes, there is a bit of repeated stuff in "Barbarian kingdoms" but there are also relevant bits of information (such as the bit on the Franks) that can't be moved to "History" due to chronology and doesn't fit with either "Germanic Italy" or "Imperial reconquest", I'll see what I can do. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done now, you might want to take a new look at the affected sections just in case. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 286 he elevated Maximian to the rank of augustus (emperor) and gave him control of the Western Empire. – I would add "while himself ruling the east" for clarity – it got me confused.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constantius was born in 317 at Sirmium, Pannonia. He was the third son of Constantine the Great, the second by his second wife Fausta, the daughter of Maximian. Constantius was made Caesar by his father on 13 November 324.[36] – This is an example of what I would consider "too much detail". It appears in the "background" section only, and is much more detail than given for any other ruler in the main part of the article.

Yes, it's a bit odd considering that his brothers are not detailed at the same level. I've cut this down a bit and changed the placement around a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was as a result of the campaigns of the generals Belisarius and Narses on behalf of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I from 533 to 554 that long-lasting reconquests of Roman lands were witnessed.[111]
During the 6th century, the Eastern Roman Empire under Justinian reconquered large areas of the former Western Roman Empire. – this is mutually redundant, and repetitive, in parts.

Removed the second one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justinian prepared an expedition led by prominent general Belisarius. – No need to introduce him as "prominent general", he was just introduced in the preceding sentences.

Removed "prominent general". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hyper-rich – just "rich" would be enough I think, this does not seem like an encyclopedic choice of words. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, removed "hyper". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Had the chance to read the rest now, no problems apparent. Very well done article, and the new structure now feels much better. I would encourage to take this to FAC. Passing GA now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's been a long road to get here! I've personally got some paleontology articles I'm hoping to work to FA at the moment (both smaller than this article) so I'm hoping to test out the system with those first. Maybe Iazyges would be open to co-nominating this for FAC (as we did for GA)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paleontology articles are a worthy thing also, of course! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]