Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA2

Assessment has been closed as not promoted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should take a day or two to start this assessment. In the meantime, could you indicate what drew you to doing this article and of this article's relation to its sibling articles on Byzantium and the older Roman Empire. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I wanted to work on this article specifically because it felt very underdeveloped in comparison to the articles on the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. As for its relation to these sibling articles, this one is essentially a more in-depth look at the western provinces of the Roman Empire, primarily about when they were ruled by an independent imperial court and the aftermath of its fall. The aftermath part is closely related to the Byzantine Empire as the fall of the west is hugely influential in Byzantine history. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment outline (preliminary set-up for assessment; do not alter until notification)[edit]

0 Lead section

1 Background

1.1 Rebellions and political developments

1.2 Crisis of the Third Century

1.3 Tetrarchy

1.4 Further divisions

2 History

2.1 Reign of Honorius

.2 Escalating barbarian conflicts

2.3 Internal unrest and Majorian

2.4 Collapse

2.5 Fall of the Empire

3 Political aftermath

3.1 Germanic Italy

3.2 Barbarian Kingdoms

3.3 Imperial reconquest

4 Economic decline

5 Legacy

5.1 Nomenclature

5.2 Attempted restorations of a Western court

5.3 Later claims to the Imperial title in the West

6 List of Western Roman Emperors

6.1 Tetrarchy (286–313)

6.2 Constantinian dynasty (309–363)

6.3 Non-dynastic (363–364)

6.4 Valentinian dynasty (364–392)

6.5 Theodosian dynasty (392–455)

6.6 Non-dynastic (455–480)

Preliminary outline for assessment; do not alter the outline portion until notification. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary discussion with both co-nominators[edit]

My initial assessment for the past day or two has been based on the 2 of you as co-nominators who believe that this article is at a peer review level comparable to the GA article for Roman Empire and the FA article for Byzantine Empire. A closer look at your article compared to these 2 sibling articles seems to point out some very direct contrasts which appear to be unfavorable to a side-by-side comparison and I am hoping that I am just over-looking something which the 2 of you will clarify quickly for me. First is that the Infobox for this article for the Western Roman Empire appears to be poorly developed compared to the two sibling articles I just mentioned; "Notable" emperors appear to replace a full list of emperors as they appear in the Roman Empire article; the years of the empire do appear to be consistent and I am not even sure your Infobox clearly stated the dates for the Western Roman Empire; and just what is the relation of the ambiguous and overlapping dates between these 2 articles for the Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire, are you planning a redundant coverage of the overlapping historical periods or do you plan some larger re-organization. Moving to a second point here. The lede section appears to have a poor sense of time frame and its own historical placement; in fact the first date you list in your lede appears only in the second paragraph which is the exact opposite of what is done in the 2 sibling articles I have mentioned here for comparison which have clear dating explicitly stated from the first lede paragraph onwards throughout their own lede sections. On to the 3rd point which is the structural outline which you are using for your article which does not appear to have the same degree of organization which I see in both of the 2 other peer review articles I have singled out here for direct comparison, since you are asking to place this current article next to them at peer review status upon the completion of this assessment as comparable to them in quality. @Iazyges and Ichthyovenator: Please respond to all three issues I have raised here since I appear to be missing something when faced the discrepancy between the quality in the 2 peer review articles I mentioned on the one hand, and this article you have nominated here for full assessment. I request to hear from both co-nominating editors on these three points in case I am missing something in this article as presented here for assessment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referring to with your criticism of the "notable emperors" part. This is directly based on what was done with the Byzantine Empire article where 8 of the more notable of the 80+ emperors of that empire are listed ("Notable emperors" is the phrasing used there). There is not full list of emperors in the Roman Empire article and in fact that seems to include only "notable" emperors as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume what you are referring to with the inconsitency in the years of the empire is the 476/480 part? I am sure you are aware that there is no universally accepted historiography for the fall of the Roman Empire and the fall of the West (if such a fall is even recognized) has most commonly been described as occuring in 476 (loss of Italy) or 480 (abolition). The article explores this in quite a lot of detail. If one date is required in the infobox, 476 is the most common one but both dates need to be discussed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe years and dates are fairly well stated at every point, the "background" section could potentially be reduced but I feel like it is necessary in order to understand the previous history of the Western provinces and the origin of their problems. Perhaps the lead could be expanded as to reflect the timeframe of the background section as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly significant that both co-nominating editors acknowledge the start of a peer review assessment and Iazyges appears to be on Wikibreak since last Monday. His acknowledgment of being ready to start is essential to starting the full assessment of this article. This article is currently at "C"-level and in its present form appears to not be comparable in quality to either the GA for Roman Empire and certainly not at the level of the FA for Byzantine Empire. The dates of this article are very poorly established in the text here and the dates appear inconsistent with the disambiguation page organization of these 3 sibling articles which needs repair. The 1st paragraph of the lede section remains undated; in comparison to the 2 sibling articles nearly every single paragraph includes at least one historical date explicitly stated, which you consistently do not do throughout your article. The issue of "Notable Emperors" needs to correspond to the dates for the Empire which you are using which is the very narrow 395-480, compared to the disambiguation page which states the dates as 286-476, following the first division of empire. These are only preliminary comments before this assessment starts since I need to hear from the co-nominator prior to initiating this as a full assessment. At present the article is listed at "C"-level and appears to be below the quality of the 2 sibling articles being discussed as significant comparisons. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges and Ichthyovenator: It is normally the expectation that when an article has co-nominators that they would both be available for doing the assessment together. In this case, Iazyges is not available and there has been no editing on the article to improve it from a "C"-level article. If both editors are not editing the article to improve it then this assessment would normally be subject to quick close until the article is first improved to "B"-level prior to being considered for renomination. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator and JohnWickTwo: Apologies, I was away for a few days on a fishing trip but forgot to leave notice. I will look into editing the article as soon as is possible. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you are ready after your unpacking from your trip. Possibly, give your replies to the above points and ping me when you're ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I would first like to point out the only reason the article is assessed as C currently is for lack of assesment. Of the three projects tagged here, only one contains a B-class checklist, which is not even slightly filled out. The raw assessment of the article is immaterial to the review; I've had many articles I've reviewed be at Stub class and easily make the jump to Good Article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(2) For the first point, I am rather confused. While the Roman Empire page [perhaps erroneously] simply calls them Emperors, it is so expansive as to contain the last Byzantine emperor, and skips a great many (According to my count there were something like 190). The Byzantine Empire page contains Notable Emperors, which again hit the high notes. I personally don't think all emperor should be mentioned in the Infobox, as many of them were not exceptionally important to the country as a whole, especially when one considers the age of puppet emperors. For your comment on dating, The infobox quite clearly states the dates: "395–476/480". The overlap of the Roman Empire and here is necessary; we cannot ignore the overlap here while having an article and giving background, and the overlap is needed there to provide context. The history is hardly redundant because it is far more in-depth here; indeed the term "Western Roman" appears only 7 times in the Roman Empire article, two in the Infobox and one in the "see-also" section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(3) For the second point, I think the differentiation in dating is actually neccesary, given that the WRE is unique in a sense; The Roman Empire has a hard date of start, and the Byzantine Empire's given date amounts to "when the WRE fell" in the lede. The WRE, on the other hand, is explained as a concept first because it only existed conceptually, in a sense, despite the fact it was arguably an independant country. Because of its unique position, I think it is appropriate to explain how it was a conceptual country to begin with, then get into the history of the concept. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(4) For the third point, I fail to see a significant difference in organization; except for a smaller amount of sections, which should be expected given the Roman Empire article can span out 15 centuries in some places, and the Byzantine Empire lasted 10 centuries, whereas the WRE lasted a century, which is expanded out to two with background, but which is still much smaller than either other article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator and JohnWickTwo: I have responded to the points as best I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(5) Somewhat beside the point, but I would question the usage of using other article as a comparative for a criteria; an article only need to pass the six criteria to pass as Good Article; and using comparative articles as a criteria are something I haven't ever seen before in my time reviewing good articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six criteria to pass as Good Article[edit]

Your five items from the last section I have now numbered for convenience with my responses below which answer your inquiries in reverse order, most recent first:

(a) "Using other articles as a comparative for criteria" is not really questionable. There are any number of Wikiprojects which apply shared criteria for the development of sibling articles, for example in Economics, in Law, in "Frankfurt School", etc. These study groups often further establish their shared criteria in a dedicated Subject Infobox which is posted under the regular Infobox for any particular sibling article. It may be useful to create such a generally applied Subject Infobox for these Roman history sibling articles. The articles are interrelated. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is for development of articles; not for Good Article review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(b) Differences in organization are significant when they affect the quality of an article being reviewed. Because these are 3 sibling articles which are interrelated then the quality of each does bear upon the others. At present, this article or its outline organization is not nearly close to the quality for the FA for Byzantine Empire, and its not very close to the quality of the outline for the GA for Roman Empire. If the structural outline can be made more like the one for Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, then it might help. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(c) The dating being applied is of primary importance to this article. The dating here also contradicts the DAB page which gives a start date for both WRE and Byzantine Empire as in the 200s. The 3 articles and the DAB page should be in agreement. Also, Byzantine Empire ought to be used throughout and not Eastern Roman Empire according to the title currently in use for it. Your current article does not seem to do this consistently. The first paragraph of the lede section needs to give the dates fully, consistently and without any unexplained ambiguity. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The DAB page is immaterial for this. I can correct it later. Byzantine Empire should not be used; it would be like calling the 13 Colonies the United States because they later became the United States. And there is no need for the lede paragraph to give dates, simply because others do. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(d) The difficulty of not having a Wikiprojects subject Infobox is an issue for these 3 sibling articles (and there are other sibling article but I am confining attention to these 3 articles here). This extends to the issue of naming Emperors selectively and all the other topics in the Infobox as well. They 3 Infoboxes should be structurally consistent and not be re-invented for each and every sibling article as a grassroots development issue. Consistency in outline would be useful here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(e) The quality of writing I do not find to be quite as good as that found in either the GA for WRE or the FA for Byzantine Empire. If you believe that it is at B-level or better, then I may need to make a number of challenges. For example, the second sentence of the first paragraph in the lede section appears long-winded and over-worked, and it should be shortened or broken up into 2 sentences after the dating issues are addressed: "The terms "Western Roman Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are modern inventions that describe political entities that were de facto independent; however, at no point did the Romans themselves consider the Empire to have been split into two separate Empires, but rather continued to consider it a single state but governed by two separate Imperial courts of administrative expediency." There are many such instances of sentences throughout the article which do not appear to be at peer review level of writing. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are the responses to your five points. Ping my account when you add your edits or have further questions and clarifications. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: I don't think the six criteria you've listed here are related even slightly to the good article criteria. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnWickTwo: Listing here the criteria, please base your arguments upon this rather than any comparative articles argument. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Well written:

1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

Verifiable with no original research:[3]

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4]
all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5]
it contains no original research; and
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[8]

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Close of review as article[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I have also re-read the article again and it is my assessment that this article should be submitted for GOCE editing for improvements and enhancements to the prose and narrative which I find to be significantly lower at present than peer review standards for GA-articles. I have mentioned this per (e) above for excessive length and wordiness in many sentences like the example I have given, which you have chosen not to edit further. Since this article is being recommended for much needed GOCE editing, it is also recommended that an editor there be requested who has experience with preparing articles for the peer review level. Because the current wait time at GOCE is 3-4 weeks, this puts it outside the scope of this peer review assessment and this article is subject to a quick close at this time. It is further recommended that this article not be accepted for re-nomination until GOCE editing is completed and until another impartial editor first promotes it to a B-Class article, since it is currently rated at C-Class. By an impartial editor I mean someone other than the nominating editors here, and only someone who has not been part of the direct editing of this article itself in order to be impartial. If any attempt is made to re-nominate this article serially without first submitting it for GOCE editing, then I recommend that any editor quick close it accordingly as a failed review. This article is currently not promoted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:59, 30 July 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.