Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Marcus Aurelius

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk)

Marcus Aurelius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Marcus Aurelius is an important military figure in Roman history. He was Roman emperor from 161 to 180, the last of the Five Good Emperors. The Roman–Parthian War of 161–166 and the Marcomannic Wars occurred during his reign. Векочел (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

Awesome work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Векочел (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, Векочел, epic work. Thanks for your efforts so far. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the topic, so can't really help much. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612

edit
  • I find it a bit weird that modern sources do not have the "p." for page, as they could therefore be confused with ancient sources. Is it possible to fix that? The other possibility would be to switch volumes of ancient works in latin numbers (for example: "Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae ix.2.1–7; Birley, Marcus Aurelius, pp. 64–65.").
Simply by adding the "p." and Roman numerals. I can do it if you don't have objection.T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much appreciate thst. Векочел (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is necessary to add the translation of ancient works (unless it's a literary work like the multiple translations of the Iliad). You could lighten the article by removing these.
You misunderstood me. I ment it's not necessary to add references to translations of ancient works because there often have been several of them, and they all basically say the same thing. You can add links to Wikisource or Perseus, etc. but it is superfluous to add the reference to a particular translation, unless the translation itself is a work of art (as with the Iliad and Odyssey). See for example with Severus Alexander, it takes much less space. T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could move these translations to external links. Векочел (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I've added the link to the ref.T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

What I think Nikkimaria means is that CNG didn't make the coins, for example, just the photograph of the coins, so each one needs an additional tag for the actual item depicted, which is a work of art in its own right. In the example of File:AELIUS CAESAR RIC II 987-671493.jpg, and the others, this would probably be PD-old-100, wouldn't it, Nikkimaria? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a source review as yet. Have asked someone about doing it, as I just don't know this time period or the primary and secondary sources well enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - fail

edit

While this is a little outside the periods of Rome I usually cover, it seems to me that all of the works which one might reasonably expect to have been consulted have been. Indeed, the list seems to me to be impressively comprehensive. Differing viewpoints seem to be reasonably covered and attributed. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

I have issues with the reliability of some sources. Machiavelli! Seriously? Quoted at length and referenced to an undated, un-OCLCed source. Gibbon taken seriously regarding his views on the imperial treatment of Christians. Again referenced to an undated, un-OCLCed source. I won't go into less obviously unreliable sources, but the inclusion of these two raises serious doubts regarding all of the sourcing.

I would recommend that all sources prior to (the arbitrarily chosen date of) 1945 supporting statements of fact be replaced or discarded unless the author is quite sure that they can be relied upon. I have nothing against older sources per se and have used 19th-century sources myself and defended them at ACR. But the use of centuries old, clearly non-RSs suggests a lack of understanding of how to appropriately source for an ACR. I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability.

In addition there are some formatting issues:

There are other points I could make, but I have been at this for several hours and am getting stale. Broadly this is a fine piece of work, but the 'picky' points on formatting the sources need to be addressed and there needs to be reassurance that the sources are reliable. I shall leave the nominator to comment on and/or address the points above, but note that this is not an exhaustive list.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Векочел, that's looking better.
  • There are still "sources" which you do not use as sources. Working from the top, I hit one on my third try: "Codex Justinianus. Scott, Samuel P., trans. The Code of Justinian, in The Civil Law." (The only cite I could find to the Codex Justinianus was to a translation by Birley.) At the bottom, you have neither removed nor cited Yü, who I flagged up above. There are others. You will need to check every one.
  • There are a number of works which do not have OCLCs nor ISBNs. Could you check each work which does not have one and add it if one is available. (Mostly they are.)
  • Could you put the titles of all articles in inverted commasquotation marks. Eg Thinkers at War, Portrait of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.; there are others.
  • Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Thinkers at War and not to the actual work.
  • Could you put the titles of all works in title case. Eg ref 285. There are others.
  • Several entries under "Citations" are really notes. Eg refs 276, 279. There are others. Could you move all non-citing 'citations' to "Notes".
  • Publication dates. Just the year is required, could you remove the day and month where they are present.
  • Numerous links are broken. See here.
  • Works not in English need an indication of the language they are written in.
  • There remain a number of issues with the sourcing. I flagged up issues with Gibbon above. He is quoted at length towards the start of "Death and succession" without any warning to the reader that he died over 200 years ago. The quote is cited three times, twice tothe the same work but giving different titles, neither of them correct; both within inverted commas, not in italics; neither in title case; both linked, but with no author, publisher, publication date, etc given; no page numbers are given (the work is 628 pages long). The third link is to a random looking web page ("naturalthinker.net") of unknown provenance, which happens to include the same quotation. Gibbon is over 230 years old and is thoroughly unreliable. This is from a hard look at just one citation. I would repeat my comment of yesterday: "I would recommend that all sources prior to (the arbitrarily chosen date of) 1945 supporting statements of fact be replaced or discarded unless the author is quite sure that they can be relied upon. I have nothing against older sources per se and have used 19th-century sources myself and defended them at ACR. But the use of centuries old, clearly non-RSs suggests a lack of understanding of how to appropriately source for an ACR. I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability."
  • It is best, I agree, that Gibbon not be used in the article. Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "External links" seem close to random. What value does Find a Grave add to the article?
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've edited the page to comply with your suggestions. Векочел (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was impressively swift, given the amount of work involved. However, it is getting a little frustrating as you have not "edited the page to comply with your[my] suggestions". To state that you haven't and give a reason why you haven't and/or shouldn't is one thing, to state that you have when you haven't is another. Can we give this one last try. I will break down my comments as much as possible. Could you please indicate under each one separately what you have done. Thanks.

  1. There are still "sources" which you do not use as sources, including at least one which I mention above by name. Could you delete them or move them to a Further reading section.
    1.  Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Could you put the titles of all works in title case.
    1.  Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Publication dates. Just the year is required, could you remove the day and month where they are present.
    1. Removed Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Numerous links are broken. Could you repair or delete them.
    1.  Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. From Wikipedia:External links: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Could you check each of the ten external links and delete those which do not meet these criteria.
    1.  Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Thinkers at War and not to the actual work?
    1. The actual work is now linked. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Edward Champlin's Fronto and Antonine Rome and not to the actual work?
    1. The actual work for this is also linked. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have serious doubts regarding the quality of the sourcing. To give two examples more or less at random.

  • The cite to McLynn (2009) actually includes a link to a very negative review which indicates that it not suitable for scholarly use.
  • Picking the first paragraph to meet my eye, the one under plague. It has five citations and a note:
  • "The pandemic is believed to have been either smallpox or measles" is referenced to an 1875 work, and is immediately contradicted by a note ("There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases".) referencing a 1961 work. I rather doubt that either of them represent the current state of knowledge on this point.
  • Cassius Dio, who died in 235, is baldly used as a source; it is pointed out in the cite that "his book that would cover the plague under Marcus is missing".
  • A BBC news item on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe"

This is the totality of the referencing for this paragraph. I note that the two paragraphs which I queried in my last two sets of comments have now been removed. Why should I assume that any other paragraph I examine will be better sourced?

Apologies if I come across as slightly tetchy, but I have now spent slightly over seven hours going through this article. I want it to be promoted. I have worked with the nominator previously and they are a fine editor. Clearly an enormous amount of work has gone into this article. Nevertheless, it is not, IMO, a reviewer's role to point out each and every fault. Can the nominator take this away and give it a long hard scrutiny. I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this. Time, within reason, is not, so far as I am concerned, a major issue. This is an important article, let us get it right.

However, if I am looking at it for a forth time without noting significant improvements I shall be recommending that it not be promoted.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, I have just realised that this article received a quick fail at FAC five months ago, largely on inadequate referencing. There was a recommendation that "I'd suggest the article be taken through peer review or good article nomination". This would still seem to be where the article is at. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I asked "I will break down my comments as much as possible. Could you please indicate under each one separately what you have done. Thanks." You didn't. I am going to assume that you believe that points 1 to 5 have been satisfactorily addressed, unless you indicate otherwise. (They have not. A glance shows that you have changed several titles out of correct title case. Can I repeat "I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this". Cite 280 links to " 'The Plague under Marcus Aurelius'"; it should link to an author's name and a date. I could go on, but if I did, considering that this is my forth look at the sourcing, I think that I would oppose. Can I repeat "I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this".)
  • This leaves several specific queries. Could you please respond to them individually:
  • Frank McLynn is an experienced historian and biographer who has published many books on subjects ranging from wars to Napoleon Bonaparte to Richard Lionheart. If he were to lie in his books, I think this would be largely noted. Векочел (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you believe that a BBC News article on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe" is an appropriate source for the Antonine Plague: symtoms, modern scholastic consensus regarding the nature of, dates of reoccurance and daily death tolls? (I note that the article Antonine Plague has a number of quality, and more recent, sources.)
  • "scholars have concluded the pandemic to have been smallpox.19th century medical author Heinrich Häser believes that it may have been either smallpox or measles" Why should we care what a scholar writing 150 years ago, prior to modern medicine, much less DNA testing, concluded differently to modern scholars?
  • Cite 277. Is a museum caption of a portrait the best available source of the origin and duration of the Antonine Plague?
Векочел, you seem to be out of your depth here. This is not your fault, but it is about to prevent this otherwise fine article from becoming A class. Please seek assistance from someone with more experience of sourcing and referencing before you ping me again.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will look for someone else to give me feedback. Give me a few days to choose who this might be. Векочел (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Векочел. That would be a sound plan. You have done sterling work on this and I really want you to get it through. You could do with some specialist help on a specialist aspect of the article. Consider posting a request on the MilHist discussion page - just a suggestion. From my point of view, there is no rush at all. Take your time, get it right. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Векочел. How is this progressing? As you know, a positive source review is necessary for a promotion to A-Class, and this seems to still have some issues outstanding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, my request for assistance in the section of the article about the Antonine Plague seems to have been archived. I will add this on the project talk page again. Векочел (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I see no problem with having a relatively brief section on the Antonine Plague. This is really more of a Marcus Aurelius article than an Antonine Plague article. Векочел (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Векочел. You are missing the point. Still. I do not have any issues with the length of this nor any other sections. I am doing a source review. Each time I have come to this article I have pointed out major failings in the sourcing and asked you to review all of the sourcing. Each time you have removed all or part of the specific case I have flagged up and left other fairly obvious inadequacies. It is not my job to check each and every source. That should have been done before the article was nominated. The section on the plague was simply a random paragraph I chose to focus on. It, and all other paragraphs, need to be adequately sourced to pass ACR. It isn't:

  1. When I asked "Why do you believe that a BBC News article on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe" is an appropriate source for the Antonine Plague: symtoms, modern scholastic consensus regarding the nature of, dates of reoccurance and daily death tolls? (I note that the article Antonine Plague has a number of quality, and more recent, sources.)" you responded "I see no reason to disbelieve the source." This does not address my concerns, and on its own, IMO, leaves me no choice to oppose. You are using a topical news item to support "scholars have concluded"!
    1. @Gog the Mild: I've removed the 'scholars have concluded' so it reads 'the pandemic may have been smallpox' Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I asked "Is a museum caption of a portrait the best available source of the origin and duration of the Antonine Plague?" You have not responded.
    1. I personally think it would not be good as the only source for the plague section. But I see no problem in using it for a few sentences in the section. Векочел (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The third source you use is from 1961 and supports "There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases." I neither know nor care whether this is still the case, but suggest that medical and archeological advances over the past 58 years render it a thoroughly unsatisfactory source for this statement.
    1. I've removed this as well, and added some more information (with sources) to the plague section. Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The article states "scholars have concluded the pandemic to have been smallpox. However, historian J. F. Gilliam concluded in his summary of the written sources, with inconclusive Greek and Latin inscriptions, two groups of papyri and coinage: 'There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases' " Leaving aside the issue of the last sentence mot being grammatical, you have stated that the modern consensus is that the plague was smallpox, and contradicted this in the next sentence.
    1. Some scholars does not mean all scholars. Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is the third time I am flagging up these same issues.

As I note above, I have no particular reason to believe that any other random paragraph I choose to examine will prove to be more adequately sourced.

In addition, there are many inconsistencies, MoS breaches and other issues I have pointed out above, some over three weeks ago. Despite my asking you to respond to them point by point you have not, which makes it difficult for me to tell what you have done about them. A check of several suggests that in some cases the answer is "nothing".

In the light of this and with great regret I have to oppose the nomination with respect to sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on source review
edit

Hi Векочел. I have now spend a total of over 12 hours on this source review and it is possible that I am becoming a little tetchy. I would therefore be happy for another editor to take it over. If this happens I would recommend that they read through my review from the top, as a large number of the issues have not been addressed, or not fully addressed. It is difficult to tell which as the nominator, despite my requests, has not responded inline, and with regard to most points has not responded specifically at all. For my part, my fail on sourcing stands. I have flagged up my main issues three separate times, and still do not feel that the sourcing is up to A class standard (or, to be frank, GA standard), or even that my qualms have been understood. To close I will summarise, again, my main issues; but would also draw attention to the penultimate paragraph of the section above.

  1. A general BBC article from 14 years ago is not, IMO, a reliable source. I note that I have pointed out where more scholarly and recent sources can be found. The nominator disagrees.
    1. Now it is only used for a quote by the physician Galen, who lived in Rome during the time of the plague. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A museum caption of a portrait is not, IMO, a reliable source. The nominator disagrees.
    1. Removed altogether Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The article states "scholars have concluded"; I would expect a reader to understand this to mean the consensus of scholarly opinion. The nominator contends "Some scholars does not mean all scholars.
    1. Now it just reads "it is believed that the plague was smallpox" Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. These issues are being mentioned here for the fourth time in this review.
    1. I'm sorry, Gog, if I had some trouble understanding your comments. Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The fact that the sourcing is so weak on one randomly chosen paragraph, after I have flagged up numerous sourcing weaknesses and requested "I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability" casts serious doubt on the reliability of the rest of the sourcing.
    1. Most of the sourcing comes from a mix of Birley, Grant, and McLynn. So I think that it is reliable. Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The nominator's responses to my comments causes me to believe that either I or they do not have a complete grasp of Wikipedia sourcing requirements at this level.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Gog the Mild, I would be glad to remove the sources and insert new ones. Векочел (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I've done some editing to the paragraph on the plague (which is now under legal and administrative work because it has to do with Rome trading with China). Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: You may be missing the point. I really am jaded with this review. I could literally have written an FA quality article of my own in the time I have spent on this review. IMO you need to find a third opinion or accept that you need to take the article away and work on the sources before resubmitting it. However, I really would like to see this article pass, so, if you address every one of the points I raise in the section above and respond satisfactorily in line to each one, then I will consider relooking at it. Every point, responded to in line. If you do this, and I wouldn't blame you if you decided not to, then I will consider re-reviewing from scratch. I warn, however, that the first time I find even a small discrepancy between what you write and the article I will stop, and stand by the existing oppose. If I were you I would take the opportunity to lose me as a source reviewer, but another option is there if you wish it.
Gog the Mild, It's perfectly fine if you don't wish to continue with the review. There are other editors who have done a source review. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the ACR coordinators may rule this out of order. From my personal point of view there is no timescale for getting this done. But it may be considered that the article as a whole has timed out.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info. If this remains opposed on sourcing, it will not get promoted by me, and I doubt any coord would promote it. I also doubt anyone is going to re-review the sources given the time Gog has dedicated to it and the concerns that have been raised. This sort of situation is precisely why we introduced a source review at ACR last year. All of Gog's concerns need to be properly and comprehensively addressed, line by line, or this just will not pass. And it has no chance of passing FAC if it can't pass a source review at ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, let's let Gog have another look at this. I appreciate all the effort Gog has put into this review. Векочел (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: I possibly wasn't clear enough. By "the section above", I meant the one titled "Source review - fail". So the first issue to respond to in line would be Machiavelli, the second Gibbon, etc. If you are happy that everything has been dealt with on these and all of the subsequent issues I raise (it hasn't) then it should not take you long to paste Done in thirty or forty times, especially as many of these thirty or forty are repeats of the same issues. If you aren't, then it will take longer, but that is the point. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I am sustained by your tireless effort. You must remember that this article on Marcus Aurelius is a relatively long one. Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have come back to this more in hope than expectation.

There are issues which I flagged up on my first or second runs through, to which you have responded "Done" which have not been addressed. To take just two examples: an available OCLC not used; the sources include a work which is not referenced to. You insist on using a BBC report as a source, despite my repeatedly stating that it is not acceptable.

This is most frustrating, as it is possible that the article is not too far from passing a source review. However, I have feel that I can no longer take your responses on trust, I have spent an inordinate amount of time on this, and have not even started a spot check of cites.

So I am leaving my source review outcome as Fail, Objecting to the promotion of this article to A class, and taking it off my watch list. Good luck with it in the future.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I see, this article has some issues, but I think if you can address them then it is an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He ruled the Roman Empire with his adoptive brother Lucius Verus (who took Verus as a regnal name) until Lucius' death in 169. I think you should add his son too because he co-ruled with him between 177–180. What do you think?
  • What of kinda English do you use? American? British? Or something else? Because I can see some American and British English differences. But I think you use British right?
  • Marcus' family originated in Ucubi, a small town southeast of Córdoba in Iberian Baetica. "American southeast"
  • Ref 3, p. 229–30 --> pp. 229–230
  • Ref 7, pp. 228–29, 253 --> pp. 228–229, 253
  • Ref 8, pp. 227–28 --> pp. 227–228
  • Ref 50, pp. 319–30 --> pp. 319–330
  • Ref 123, pp. 206–07 --> pp. 206–207
  • Ref 127, pp. 107–08 --> pp. 107–108
  • Ref 155, pp. 117–18 --> pp. 117–118
  • Ref 156, pp. 117–18 --> pp. 117–118
  • Ref 161, pp. 118–19 --> pp. 118–119
  • Ref 171, pp. 122–23 --> pp. 122–123
  • Ref 193, pp. 121–22 --> pp. 121–122
  • Ref 195, pp. 121–22 --> pp. 121–122
  • Ref 197, pp. 103–04 --> pp. 103–104
  • Ref 210, pp. 126–27 --> pp. 126–127
  • Ref 227, pp. 130–31 --> pp. 130–131
  • Ref 260, pp. 323–24 --> pp. 323–324
  • Ref 272, pp. 460–61 --> pp. 460–461
  • Ref 282, pp. 186–91 --> pp. 186–191

Lingzhi

edit
  • Only nitpicks about formatting of notes/references:
  • Three instances of "CS1 maint: Archived copy as title": Articles are listed in this category when Module:Citation/CS1 identifies template |title= parameters that use these place-holder titles. 'Archived copy' and 'Archive copy' are commonly provided by bots that are unable to identify the source's correct title. Articles in this category should be corrected by replacing the place-holder titles with actual titles.
  • Furtak in wrong alpha order but is never cited anyow. Does "McLynn" come after "Millar" in order?
  • As nearly as I can tell, and I searched fairly well, everything else seems OK. That's fairly impressive. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Marcus_Aurelius&oldid=889535805"