Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glycerius/archive1

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 promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2023 [1].

Glycerius edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the last Western Roman emperors, who was installed at the end of a long line of Ricimer's puppets (although it was Ricimer's nephew that would appoint him, given the death of Ricimer just prior). He ruled very briefly before being deposed by the Eastern Roman Empire, and subsequently was sent into the priesthood. He holds the dubious distinction of being the last Western Roman emperor to issue a law, although said law appears to have been so popular it was upheld even in areas he had no authority to issue them to. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size
File:Gold_Solidus_of_Glycerius.jpg: coins are not generally considered 2D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Should both be fixed; thank you for the review! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

"the historian Penny MacGeorge summates" - "summates" is a weird word with which I am not familiar. Could we use a less obscure word?
Done.
"Glycrius is known" - name spelt wrong
Done.
"the 6th-century Jordanes and Ennodius" - might be better as "the 6th-century wrtiers [or whatever word is appropriate] Jordanes and Ennodius"
The main concern here is that Jordanes was a writer and Ennodius was a bishop whos notes have been very important; I've added their titles separately, I think it still makes sense.
"The 9th-century Theophanes" - as above
done
"The 7th-century John of Antioch" - as above
Done.
"Glycerius seems to have never to have attracted" - repeated words
Done.
"the Eastern Roman Empire, who he served" => "the Eastern Roman Empire, which he served"
Done.
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: All should be done, thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead edit

I'll save my spot here. Comments to follow over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...and power behind the throne Gundobad" I think this would sound smoother as "Gundobad, the power behind the throne"
Done.
Maybe the Italy link would work better as Roman Italy or Odoacer#King of Italy.
Done.
Provide an appropriate link for Eastern Roman?
Done.
Link Julius Nepos. Also consider breifly introducing Nepos (i.e. "his successor Julius Nepos")
Where do you see Julius Nepos not linked and introduced? He is linked in body, lede, and infobox, that I can see. I've added a little more detail in the lede and body, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Glycerius was born in Dalmatia,[1][2] his family is unknown..." This comma should be a period, or you need to add a conjunction.
Done.
"may not have been an aristocratic family, but rather one of low birth" You can just say he was of low birth.
Done.
Ditto with the second Italy link (see above).
Done.
Delink Vincentius. It leads to a generic page about the name, not the person.
Changed to redlink, he may have an article someday.
Link Rome (if referring to the city).
Done.
"It is believed that Glycerius primarily reigned from northern Italy, as all but one coin found from his reign were minted in either Ravenna or Milan." Do we know why this is believed? Also, this paragraph is lacking in terms of sources. I would advise periodically spreading them out.
It's believed because of the coin thing, basically; that the administrative center shifted away from Rome as coins were now being made mostly in northern Italy. I would hardly call it lacking; it's just cited to an entire academic review of Glycerius, that has no page numbers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Introduce Malchus before mentioning him (i.e. "the Byzantine historian Malchus")
Done.

That's all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead: Done or responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I'll support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Further reading should be a separate section from References
Are the primary sources listed actually used as sources? If no, they can go with Further reading
Page ranges should be written in full
Why are the two Mathisen refs formatted differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Should all be fixed now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

I can't say that I am a fan of writing parts of the article in Latin and then translating these bits in parentheses. This is the English language Wikipedia, why is the article not written in English throughout?
And, if some is to be in Latin, how do you decide which bits?
I have done this where the title itself is in Latin, rather than English, and avoided it where there is no strict Latin title to be used. For instance "magister militum" carries a meaning deeper than just "general"; if a person is a magister militum, they should be referred to as such, as far as I am concerned. Where they are just called a general, I call them a general. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, in part, most HQRS follow this same formula; some don't even feel the need to give a gloss for that title. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving that aside for now, all foreign language words need to be in lang templates.

@Gog the Mild: Added language templates for the works. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"events of his reign are known other than that during his reign an attempted". Could we avoid "of his reign" twice in one sentence.
Done.
"Glycerius also prevented an invasion by the Ostrogoths through gifts." How does one do that? Pile them up and use them as defensive works?
Done.
"nominated Julius Nepos (r. 474–475/480) as Emperor". Perhaps '... as Western Emperor'?
Done.
"He died sometime after 474". Well, yes. Perhaps delete "sometime after 474"?
Done.
Infobox: "Roman emperor of the West". Is that the usual way of saying that? 'Emperor of the Western Roman Empire' sounds more like how I have seen it in the sources.
It is not (technically) incorrect, but ascribes it to a unified-but-divided model that didn't really exist by this time; changed as you suggested.
"the assassination of Julius Nepos in 480." Why not just 'Nepos'?
Done.
The bibliography is not in alphabetical order.
Fixed.
Is there a date for either Mathisen?
Added; the new version of the DIR website is super annoying in that it removes the original publication date of the source, have to go digging through archive.org to find it now.

@Gog the Mild: Should all be done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"His family is unknown, and may not have been an aristocratic family". You don't need "family" twice in one sentence.
Done.
"Western Roman emperor Olybrius ... Western Roman emperor Majorian". Upper case E?
Done.
Any link for "consular year"? Perhaps Roman consul#Consular dating?
Done (also made a redirect for it)

"Glycerius is known from a few fragmented references from chronicles". Perhaps 'Glycerius is known from a few fragmented references in chronicles,', to avoid "from ... from"?
Done.
"provided by the 6th-century writer". Should that be 'writers'?
Not sure honestly; Ennodius is primarily a bishop that happened to write useful stuff. Currently Jordanes is glossed as a writer and Ennodius as only a bishop. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In which case insert 'the' before "bishop".

Done.

" Under Glycerius, the invasions of both the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths were repelled". Delete the first "the". Optional: "of" → 'by'.
Done both.
"diplomatic and military acts." Suggest "acts" → 'activity'.
Did "activities" as I feel it fits slightly better.
"the armies of the comites Alla and Sindila." And what's a comites? And should it be Comites?
Added gloss; no, it seems the plural is not capitalized, for what I'm sure amounts to... reasons.

The MoS equires it to be capitalised, regardless of how it is treated in a foreign language.

Done; I meant in English, but this seems to not be universal. Some sources capitalize and others don't. Who can tell why. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"his commander, Vincentius, was killed by the armies". ANy more detals? Eg was there a battle?
Not that I can find, the actual translation is literally "But Vincentius, sent by King Euric as a military commander, was killed by Alla and Sindila, comes of Italy". Possibly they took him by surprise and killed him the old-fashioned way, or sent assassins, but it doesn't seem that any sources can be bothered to say such.

Shame.

Could we have an in line explanation of "solidi". And idea of what 2,000 of them represented. The latter might be a footnote indicating that it's 9 kg of gold.
Done.
"dissuade him through the gift of 2,000 solidi, and diverted them from". "him ... them" ?:
Done.
"where surrounding groups later attacked them". Groups surrounding who or what? Gaul?
The Ostrogoths. Not sure how to better phrase this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 'where resident groups of Ostrogoths later attacked them'?

Sorry to be confusing, it was the Ostrogoths that got attacked, rather than the aggressor, by... just about everyone in Europe. Gaul was a free-for-all at this point, with numerous nominally Roman subjects roaming it and settling at different points. I've added "described by Jordanes as "various peoples"," to hopefully clarify the situation somewhat. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"These actions to defend Rome". Was he defending "Rome", or Italy more generally?
Fixed to "the empire"
If you have "Mathisen, Ralph W. (1998)" twice, one should be 'Mathisen, Ralph W. (1998a)'.

Done.

"This law was also the last one issued by a Western Roman emperor." And we know this how?
Hard to say, but the source says "Glycerius passed a law against simony that has the dubious distinction of being the last law issued by a Western emperor", and I have no reason to doubt them. Highly possible that a primary source they don't feel inclined to mention made some ironic comment about it; There's possibly something in the mix later that got lost, but I'm inclined to believe it is true, given the high quality of the source, as well as the fact that the two emperors after him were a man who would let Leo do all the law-issuing, and a child. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" as all but one coin found from his reign were minted". 'was'. Or ' as all the coins but one found from his reign were minted' or ' as all the coins found from his reign but one were minted'.
Done.
"the Praetorian Prefect of Italy ... to the Praetorian Prefects of Illyricum". lang templates? And why the upper case Ps?
per Merriam Webster, praetorian has found its way into English, and is usually capitalized. I've de-capitalized the prefects.
An in line explanation for simony please.
Done.
"also by the Prefects of Illyricum and the East". 1. Is Prefects an English word? 2. Why the upper case P?
Yes; de-capitalized.
"that he did not actually have the authority". Suggest deleting "actually".
Done.
"The law was designed to gain the support of the clergy". For what or whom?
Done.
"concerned with increasingly violent elections". I suspect you mean "with" → 'about'.
Done.
"the usage of church funds". "usage"! Why not plain 'use'?
Usage is more formal and, theoretically more precise (given usage is a noun only, whereas use is noun and verb). Open to changing it if you really think it's necessary.

It's necessary.

Done.

"the forces of Nepos were likely small in number". Consider deleting "in number".
Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Have addressed or responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Should now all be fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka edit

~~...", and may not have been aristocratic, and instead, he may have been of low birth" Is this necessary? We are informed that his family is unknown. Furthermore, the last part is closely paraphrased.~~
Whoops; I've removed the last bit, but retained "may not have been aristocratic", as I consider it important, but will remove if you view it necessary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He rose to the rank of comes domesticorum (commander of the palace guard) during the reign of Western Roman Emperor Olybrius (r. 472). The cited pages do not verify the text. That Glycerius was appointed as comes domesticorum is not a fact, according to the cited source that says on page 513 that Glycerius "presumably held" the post of comes domesticorum. Is "comes domesticorum" a rank or an office?
Changes made with slight edits: (assuming you meant PLRE, as page 514 refers to Glycerius (may be a difference in versions that I have 514 and you 513, or just typo?) as definitively comes domesticorum: "COMES DOMESTICORVM (West) a. 472-473: he was comes domesticorum at his accession in March 473... He presumably held this post under the emperor Olybrius (died Nov. 472) and retained it during the interregnum which preceded his own accession." so I've edited text to reflect that he was definitely comes domesticorum at the time, and likely so at the time of Olybrius' reign; I've not included the bit about being so during the interregnum as I think this would be more confusing than helpful. Also corrected to office; must have just assumed it was technically a rank like many other comes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Germanic magister militum (master of soldiers) Ricimer had deposed the Western Roman Emperor Majorian (r. 457–461) in 461, and thereafter installed a series of Western Roman emperors as puppets: Libius Severus (r. 461–465), installed after the deposition of Majorian; Anthemius (r. 467–472), after the death of Libius Severus, possibly poisoned by Ricimer himself; and Olybrius, enthroned in July 472, after Ricimer overthrew Anthemius. Consider consolidating the text. Do we have to know all the emperors placed on the throne by Ricimer in an article about Glycerius? Does the cited source verify that the emperors appointed by Ricimer were his puppets? Do we have to know that Libius Severus was possibly poisoned by Ricimer in an article about Glycerius?
Significantly trimmed to a short list of succession, which I think is helpful for establishing the power of Ricimer and Gundobad. Added source for puppet statement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...was succeeded as magister militum and kingmaker by his nephew Gundobad (r. 473–516). The cited source does not verify that Gudobad was magister militum. If Gundobad's reign in Burgundy is not mentioned, why do we have to know that he ruled from 473 to 516? Furthermore, Gudobad ruled Burgundy from 473 or 474, according to the cited source.
Added source for his position as magister militum; reign templates are generally all-or-nothing for those mentioned; but I moved it to the mention of him as king. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider introducing Gundobad as Ricimer's Burgundian nephew.
~~...proclaimed him as Western Roman emperor I am sure he was not proclaimed Western Roman emperor.~~
Done.
...on either 3 or 5 March 473; the Fasti vindobonenses, a record of consular years, states that it was on the 5th, however, the Paschale campanum, also a consular record, asserts it was on the 3rd Consider consolidating the text. Perhaps, "The date of his ascension is uncertain: the Fasti vindobonenses..."?
Done (trimmed slightly further by committing "The date of his ascension is uncertain").
~~Many events of Glycerius' reign are unknown;... For me, this is an awkward statement: do we know that there were many events although we do not have knowledge of them?~~
Changed to "Few events of Glycerius' reign are known", which should carry a similar but more conservative meaning, and is less awkward. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the historian Penny MacGeorge gives the summary that "almost nothing is known of Glycerius". Perhaps this statement could be a good introduction of Glycerius's life in the Background section because we know almost nothing about his whole life.
Done.
Glycerius is known from a few fragmented references in chronicles, as well as some small references provided by the 6th-century writer Jordanes and the bishop Ennodius. Perhaps this sentence could be a good introduction in Background section. Could you specify which chronicles contain references to Glycerius? Are they reliable/contemporaneus/Late Roman chronicles
I'm not sure about them being good in the background, as this is largely pre-reign, and I don't think there's nearly enough to justify a historiography section of its own, I've added a qualification of the sources and attributed it to Mathisen. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under Glycerius, invasions by both the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths were repelled,... The Visigoths and the Ostrogoths came out of the blue. Could you shortly mention them and their role in Late Roman history in the Background section?
Reluctant to put it in a background section, but have added information on their history with Rome. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Sorry, now I think the introduction is too long. :) I think they could mentioned as Germanic peoples who settled in Gallia and Pannonia.~~ Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I've trimmed it further; Do you think it should literally be trimmed down to "were Germanic peoples that settled in Gallia and Pannonia"? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Yes, I think it should be trimmed further.~~ Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~...Visigoth King... Why Visigoth instead of Visigothic, and why King instead of king?~~
Visigoth and Visiogothic are both used, but Visigothic seems more modern, so changed, and King corrected to king. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~...his commander, Vincentius, was killed by the armies of the Comites (regional commanders) Alla and Sindila... I assume the Visigothic army was defeated.~~
One would assume, but the sourcing is extremely lacking here, the source itself says just "But Vincentius, sent by King Euric as a military commander, was killed by Alla and Sindila, comes of Italy"; I've removed "the armies of" since I can't actually state with certainty that this is true. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Ostrogoth King Videmir (r. 469–474) proposed to invade Italy, but Glycerius was able to dissuade them... Why Ostrogoth instead of Ostrogothic, and why King instead of king? To whom did he make a proposal?
Done as with earlier comments.
~~..., where surrounding groups, described by Jordanes as "various peoples", later attacked them Do we have to know this in the article's context? If yes, why?~~
I think it should be retained; it's a small section that gives a good view of the situation in the empire, especially given the impact that various groups are having; I am not opposed to removing it if you view it truly necessary though. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~These actions to defend the empire may be the reason ... According to whom?~~
Done.
~~It is believed that Glycerius primarily reigned from northern Italy... Could the text be rephrased? If not, could it be revealed by who it is believed?~~
Changed to "Glycerius seems to have primarily reigned in northern Italy"
This law was also the last one issued by a Western Roman emperor. Is this for sure? For instance, Hugh Elton writes that "This is the last known imperial edict to be issued in the western Empire." (Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. p. 217. ISBN 978-1-108-45631-9.)
The source cited (Harris & Chen 2021) seem rather certain it was the last one, commenting that it is a dubious honor; this is certainly more limiting than "last known edict", but given his successors, I have no reason to disbelieve it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I still think that facts and assumptions are to be differentiated. We could say that this was "the last extant/known edict", or "probably the last edict".~~ Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~...instead accepted the eastern consul. Whom? One of the cited sources says that the "infant Leo" was accepted by Glycerius as consul ([2]).~~
Done.
...Eastern Roman Emperor, Leo I (r. 457–474), refused to recognize Glycerius as Western Emperor because he was merely a puppet of Gundobad.. Perhaps "recognize Glycerius as emperor"? If not, why is "Emperor" capitalized? Who was merely a puppet of Gundobad?
Done.
Glycerius was without allies, as Gundobad left to become king of Burgundy, leaving him with no option but to surrender. A. D. Lee writes that Gundobad "perhaps returned to Burgundian territories". Lee, A. D. (2013). From Rome to Byzantium, AD 363 to 565: The Transformation of Ancient Rome. The Edinburgh History of Ancient Rome. Vol. 8. Edinburgh University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7486-2791-2. The statement also contradicts the following sentences in the article.
Edited to "as Gundobad seemingly abandoned him"; I think this covers the situation very well. Most sources (Lee, O'Flynn, etc.) seem to indicate this is the most likely option, but I have edited it to allow the more thorough explanations of O'Flynn to better explain the situation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~What is a "personal bishop"?~~
Not quite certain, it is not fully defined; but I assume he put him in charge of religious affairs as a representative, while still serving as bishop, but it's not fully clear. Would you suggest removal?
- ~~In this case, we should delete the term. Perhaps it could be mentioned that Salona was Nepos's seat at that time.~~
~~Some historians suggest... Examples?~~
I'll have to search for them, as the source does not provide them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sources are forthcoming in agreeing with it, that I can find, so I've changed it to "He has sometimes been identified with a Glycerius who was Archbishop of Milan by King Odoacer (r. 476–493), but this is likely incorrect". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why did you ignore that Glycerius's mother was beaten by some men under Gylcerius's authority [3]?~~ Borsoka (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not view it as full relevant to the article; it's the only real mention of his family members, and doesn't really tie to anything. I'm not opposed to adding it per se, but I saw no reason to at the time. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the incident is more relevant than the list of puppet emperors. :) His mother could be attacked and those who attacked her remained unpunished. This suggests something about Glycerius' actual authority. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Done or responded to all. Thank you for your thorough review! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~...was proclaimed Western Emperor (from the Lead) He was not proclaimed Western Emperor.~~
Done.
...an attempted invasion of Italy by the Visigoths was repelled, diverting them to Gaul. I think we should mention that local commanders reppelled the Visigoths. Now, the text may be read that Glycerius repelled the invaders, especially because the following sentence begins with the following text "Glycerius also prevented an invasion..."
Done.
~~...Gundobad had left to rule the Burgundians... Perhaps, "Gundobad had abandoned him" (in accordance with the main text).~~ Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
...may have had a role in the assassination of Nepos in 480. Could you rephrase it? For instance, referring to the source of this accusation ("and a nearly contemporaneous source blames him for the assassination of Nepos")
Done.
~~Is his regnal name in the infobox verified?~~
It was added recently by a new user; I must have missed it. Even if it was verified, it's completely usesless as pretty much every emperor had the rigamarole of appended titles.

@Borsoka: Done or responded to all. (Had an EC when responding to body comments with "done", but all uncommented open ones are also done or responded to.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is only one pending issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all potential (or actual) issues that I had detected were addressed. Thank you for this interesting article about an obscure emperor. Now I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 28 February 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.