Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Western Roman Empire

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 - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Western Roman Empire edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk)

I was recommended to nominate this for A-class review as a part in the process of eventually getting it to FAC. The article has been worked on by me and Iazyges for more than a year and passed GA review today. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7 edit

Suggest splitting the list of emperors off into a separate article.

I don't think there is a need for a separate article listing Western Roman Emperors, there are already two separate lists of Roman Emperors (Roman and Byzantine respectively). Iazyges did most of the expansion of this section, so he should probably be the one to weigh in here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN 51 dioesn't go anywhere, and Merills, Andy; Miles, Richard (2007). The Vandals is not used. Suggest moving to Further Reading.

Fixed FN 51 and moved The Vandals to Further Reading. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Political aftermath section is far too long, given that none of it is about the subject of the article. Suggest cutting it back.

I disagree that none of it is about the subject of the article, it discusses the continued presence of Romans in the West and is fairly important information in regards to the later Middle Ages (which the Fall of the Western Roman Empire is generally considered to have started), but it might be a bit long, yes. Is there anything in particular you believe can be cut or is unnecessary? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need all the footnoting in the infobox?

This was based on the infobox in Byzantine Empire, where footnoting is used in the infobox with comments on the name and dates. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nomenclature section is interesting, but I think it belongs in the History section. It also begs the question: did contempories refer to an Eastern and a Western Empire? And who are the main historians of the period?

I'll have to look into this more, of course the information in the nomenclature section mainly follows a sixth century historian so it's not entirely contemporary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for the See Also section, as all are mentioned in the article, most in "main article" tags.

Removed the "See Also" section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Oppose by Nick-D edit

Oppose This article only scratches the surface of the topic I'm afraid. For instance, the 'history' section appears to be almost entirely focused on high politics and military conflicts, and the article covers little else. There's almost no coverage of key topics such as culture, demography, the economy, technology, or religion (the transition to Christianity is only mentioned in the context of high politics, for instance), and how these changed over time. It also seems to be very male-centric: searching for 'women' and 'female' returns zero hits. Likewise, there's no mention of the Western Roman Empire being a slave state despite the vast numbers of slaves resident in it for most of its history. I'd suggest restructuring the article along the lines of articles on countries. Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the Western Roman Empire only lasted for 81 years, leaving very little room for discussion of culture, demography, economy, technology and religion. I do believe all of these subjects are discussed in regards to the politics, with culture and economy being significant contributing features to the collapse of the Empire. These things are better discussed in something like Roman Empire, there is next to no research available specifically on these subjects in the west of the Roman Empire in the time frame 395-480. If anything could be added here it would be about the christianization of the Empire but since that is before 395 it would end up in the "Background" section.

Your way of showing the article to be male-centric is a bit disingenuous, the word "men" and "male" are rarely used, "men" only appear three times and "male" only once. Since the article is primarily focused on politics, it is to be expected that it would be male-centric since leading politicians and generals were all male. We can't change history. At most, some information might be added about the few known empresses. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the Empire, not its politics. As a comparative example, the article on Nazi Germany covers only 15 years of German history, but discusses German society, culture, the economy, etc. The article should stand on its own feet, and discuss the Empire as a whole. There's no likelihood of the article passing a FAC in its current state, and the A-class criteria are not met either I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany has also received far more research in those areas but I can see where you're coming from. My point still stands with very little research pertaining to these areas in Western Roman history specifically. There used to be a section on economic decline (Economy) but its content was merged into the relevant parts in "History" during the GA review. There just isn't enough research to create a "culture" section pertaining to cuisine, art, language etc. and in any case, the "Western Roman Empire" wasn't a separate country from the Roman Empire before it. I can probably write a section on religion though.

I haven't been through the process before, but looking at the A-class criteria, I think it pretty much meets all of them? The only one out of the five that you're questioning is A2, right (obviously all need to be met but still)? I would argue that "it neglects no major facts or details" does apply here; the political disintegration and crisis is what has been primarily researched in regards to the Western Roman Empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, A2 is not met. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi edit

You seem to have two references in the sources section for Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?. the first one, w. two authors drinkwater&hugh, seems correct. I don't know about the second one. i think it is in error and might need to be deleted. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 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.