Talk:Lucius Valerius Potitus (consul 392 BC)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 23:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this nomination. I should have some thoughts for you shortly. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

Regrettably, I'm obligated to fail this GAN. There are just too many issues with the sourcing for me to be able to sign off on it. Nonetheless, I hope my comments are of use to you if you continue to develop this article. They are, of course, based off of the GA criteria, which may be consulted at WP:GACR.

• 1a - The prose is more-or-less fine. There are a number of places where apostrophes have been omitted, so, e.g., Valerius should be Valerius' when used in the possessive. A copy-edit from WP:GOCE/REQ may be of use in ironing out the wrinkles.
• 1b - fail, although this could be easily resolved. The lead does not fully summarize the article, and it introduces information not found in the body. See MOS:LEAD.
• 2a - pass, although it would be infinitely preferable if one of the citation styles found here was used. Using the sfn template would make the references much easier to access. Providing URLs, even just to the Google Books page, would also be of use.
• 2b - fail. There are several discrete issues that need to be addressed before this article can be promoted. The most glaring one is the use of Greco-Roman sources, many of which are of questionable reliability and which we generally categorize as primary. See, for instance, this RSN discussion, which concluded that ancient historians, being primary, were not adequate for FA (and, by extension, GA) purposes. While the article does cite a number of modern sources, the reliance on the ancients appears to be substantial. This leads into the next issue, which is that the citations do not show what part of the paragraph they back up. Generally speaking, each sentence that is likely to be challenged should be cited to its source, and that's not happening here. Some paragraphs have seven citations, but it's impossible for me to tell which ones are backing up each fact. In general, only one citation should be presented at a time, immediately after the fact it defends. Otherwise, substantial verifiability problems arise. My general rule (which is somewhat extreme) is to always cite after every sentence. But at the very least, making clear which source supports which opinion statement is a must.
• 2c - original research is also a major concern here, although it's honestly difficult to tell in light of the verifiability issues addressed above. The problem is basically that, in light of the inherent inconsistency among ancient writers, divining the truth involves synthesis and OR. For instance, just looking at the "Sack of Rome..." section, we see 1. Camillus and Valerius succeeded with pushing back the Gauls - Broughton says this only of Camillus, and inferring that Valerius did the same would seem to be OR, 2. Valerius final appearance in our sources is in 387 - I don't see anyone saying that, so it appears to be little more than an inference, and 3. one of the early Republics most distinguished, and to some degree mysteriously unknown, figures disappear from our records - This is uncited altogether, and it seems to be the author's opinion more than the opinion of any scholar.
• 2d - pass
• 3a - pass
• 3b - The "The literary tradition..." section can be axed, in my opinion. Most of it isn't about Valerius at all, and the part that is seems to be OR.
• 4 - no serious issues beyond what I've noted above.
• 5 - pass
• 6 (a and b) - there are no images. This may be inevitable in light of the topic.

This is a pretty long list, and I imagine it would take a good deal of work to resolve all these issues. This is a difficult topic, and bringing it to GA status is no easy task. Working on an easier topic – that is, one about which there is more certainty in the scholarly community – might be more prudent. I hope these comments are helpful and not discouraging, and I wish you the best of luck in your future editing endeavors. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)