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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2018 [1].

---

Cleopatra[edit]

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Epic Shakespearean announcer's voice:] BEHOLD! Cleopatra, seventh of her name! The pharaoh of Egypt; descendant of Alexander the Great's companion Ptolemy I Soter; the pious goddess who loves her father; the Living Isis (no, not that ISIS, you pleb); the Queen of Kings and mother of Julius Caesar's child Caesarion and three little rugrats belonging to Mark Antony. This article has recently succeeded in passing the Good Article nomination hurdle. Since the time that I have rewritten it and created the sub-articles "Early life of Cleopatra" and "Reign of Cleopatra" (along with a total rewrite of "Death of Cleopatra", a current GA nominee), the article has seen major improvements thanks to lively talk page discussion, debate, and consensus-building. The prose body of the article is a bit large, but I am still in the process of slightly reducing its overall size, which is roughly the same as my Featured Article on Octavian/Augustus. Given Cleopatra's enormous importance to history and impact on modern popular culture, the queen perhaps deserves a larger article than most; don't you agree? You better. Or it's off to the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus with you! Where you will have plenty of time to complain about the article's length while exiled alongside the likes of Arsinoe IV. I eagerly await the image review, because I think I have finally nailed the appropriate licensing thing for each image. If not I'm happy to make any quick, necessary fixes. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Factotem[edit]

First off, I like the idea of listing the online sources separately. I've not noticed this done before, but it makes reviewing the sources a whole lot easier than sifting through the list of refs for the web-based sourcing.

• behindthename.com looks like a hobbyist site. What makes it reliable?
• Page ranges in refs use hyphens. They need to be endashes per MOS:DASH
• Inconsistent use of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. I understand that it's preferred at FAC for all ISBN refs to be consistently formatted.
• Refs #4, #147, #398 p. -> pp.
• Ref #400 pp. -> p.
• The ISBN for Ashton's Cleopatra and Egypt refers to the Blackwell (Oxford) edition (219 pages), but the GBooks link you provide takes us to the John Wiley & Sons (New York) edition (240 pages).
• The ISBN for Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great: The Woman Behind the Legend refers to the 454-page US edition published by Harper (NY), but the GBooks link you provide refers to the 300-page(!?) edition published by Hodder & Staughton in 2009.
• For Grant's Cleopatra, did you actually use the 1992 B&N edition, or did you use the original, online version as linked in the list of printed resources? If the latter, the publisher and ISBN ref you provide are incorrect - the correct info can be found on the Worldcat listing here. I'm curious, though. B&N appears to be a self-publishing outfit, but I don't believe, based on the year or what little I've found out about Michael Grant, that this can possibly be self-published.
• The Gbooks link you provide for Hölbl's A History of the Ptolemaic Empire does not have the same ISBN as the one you provide.
• An OCLC ref for Lippold's Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums can be found at Worldcat.
• The Gbooks link you provide for Roller's Cleopatra: a biography has a different ISBN and publication date than those listed.
• An OCLC ref for Sartain's On the Antique Painting in Encaustic of Cleopatra: Discovered in 1818 can be found at Worldcat.
• The ISBN you provide for Schiff's Cleopatra: A Life appears to be for the 2010 edition published by Little, Brown and Co (NY). The 2011 Random House edition has the ISBN 9780753539569.
• There is a doi ref for Skeat's The Last Days of Cleopatra: A Chronological Problem, according to the link to the JSTOR record you provided, which could be added.
• In the citation for Walker's Cleopatra in Pompeii, you can add the parameter "|jstor=40311128" to add the jstor ref for this publication.

This is just a partial source review for now. I may complete a few more checks in due course. Factotem (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: thanks for the source review! I'll try my best to address these issues by the end of the day. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional

• Another inconsistency between editions linked to, this time for Royster's Becoming Cleopatra: The Shifting Image of an Icon. The Gbook you link to is for an edition published in 2016 by Springer, which has a different ISBN. This appears to be the correct GBook link for the edition cited. Factotem (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Factotem: I see what's going on here now. It's actually not my fault (or only partially my fault for trusting Google Books to do things correctly). It's the fault of Google Books. If you actually follow the "preview" link in the case of not only Royster but also Hölbl and Roller (the latter of which I own a personal, physical copy), it brings you to the correct edition that I cited. You can clearly see the correct ISBN numbers there in the previewed pages of the books. I'm not sure how to resolve this; you tell me! Because I would rather retain the GB links than get rid of them simply because the folks over at Google Books were too lazy, sleep-deprived, or drunk to care about doing things properly (lol). Should I just provide direct URLs to the previewed pages instead? Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can usually locate the relevant edition in Gbooks by googling for it. For instance, this search for Roller's Cleopatra: A Biography returns the book as the first result, with a link for More editions. It's then a case of searching through those more editions for the correct GBook listing, in this case the 4th result gets you to the Gbook entry with the correct ISBN ref you provided. I can see that Gbooks does seem to list one edition, but links its preview to a different edition. I would argue that if you are going to provide a Gbook link (and you are not obliged to for FAC), then it should correspond to the edition you actually used. Having said that, I'm not sure how much of an issue this is. I've posted a question on the FAC talk page to seek clarification. Factotem (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. In the meantime I have removed the URLs for Royster, Hölbl and Roller, because it is better to have no URL than one to a different edition of the book. I might add appropriate URLs at a later date, but I don't think it's important or necessary, as you suggest. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've been keeping up with the discussion on the FAC talk page, but the consensus seems to be that we don't need to be so strict in matching the exact GBook edition to the one used to source the article. The caveats are that the different editions must contain the same number of pages, and the GBook must have a preview. Fundamentally, if the preview can be used to verify the sourcing, it's useful if you want to link it. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I might add the URLs back to the reference section. We'll see. I don't think it's a pressing issue. I'm a bit busy reading and citing Grant (1972) at the moment. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am happy to announce that I have removed Behindthename.com entirely from the article and replaced it with scholarly sources instead. That Harvard University website for the Center for Hellenic Studies was a real lifesaver here.
  • User:Graham Beards was kind enough to remove hyphens and add dashes to the inline citations and refs! You can check and see if there are any remaining hyphens, but they seem to have all been removed.
  • User:Ssven2 recently changed the refs in the "Further reading" section from "citation" to "cite book" instead. Should I do the same for the main "References" section?

Don't know what the difference between the two is, and the results look fine to me. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have fixed the instances where "pp" needed to be "p" and vice versa.
  • I have removed the URL for Fletcher (2008), since I cannot find a suitable online alternative and I used my own physical copy of the book published by Harper. It's better to have no URL than a false one leading to a different edition of the book.
  • I have changed Grant's ref from the 1992 B&N version to the 1972 version by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, which is most certainly not a self-published source.
  • I have added OCLC numbers for Lippold and Sartain as requested.
  • I have changed the ISBN for Schiff (2011).
  • I have added a DOI number for Skeat (1953) and a JSTOR link for Walker (2008).
  • I am still in the process of converting all ISBN-10 numbers to ISBN-13 ones instead. Give me a little more time on that. I should be able to finish that very soon, most likely before the end of the day. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to announce that I have changed all ISBN-10 numbers to ISBN-13 ones instead! It didn't take nearly as long as I thought it would, thanks to the handy navigation tool Worldcat. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: as far as citations and sources are concerned, is everything in good standing now? Or do you have further concerns that need to be addressed? Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've addressed all the issues I've identified above. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Glad to hear it. Thank you. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding criteria 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"), I'm no egyptologist and know nothing of the historography, so I googled Cleopatra and found Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt by Joyce Tyldesley. To my uneducated eyes this seems to be a high quality source but does not appear to have been used. Is there any reason for this? Other than that, I did not find anything to suggest that any important source has been neglected. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good question! To be honest, I wouldn't put Tyldesley's Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt, published by "Profile Books", in the same league as the academic heavyweights cited in the article, those which were published strictly by university presses, museum presses, or scholarly journals. That includes T. C. Skeat's "The Last Days of Cleopatra: a Chronological Problem" (1953) published by The Journal of Roman Studies, Diana Kleiner's Cleopatra and Rome (2005) published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006) published by the University of Oklahoma Press, Susan Walker's "Cleopatra in Pompeii?" (2008) published by the Papers of the British School at Rome, Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a Biography (2010) published by the Oxford University Press, and Margaret M. Miles' Cleopatra: a sphinx revisited (2011) published by the University of California Press.
  • I would instead compare Tyldesley's book to those of Michael Grant's Cleopatra (1972) published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Jaynie Anderson's Tiepolo's Cleopatra (2003) published by Macmillan, Stanley M. Burstein's Reign of Cleopatra (2004) published by the Greenwood Press, Dodson and Hilton's The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (2004), published by Thames & Hudson, and Joann Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great (2008) published by Harper. These are legitimate book publishing companies that produce WP:Reliable sources, but they perhaps don't have the same amount of academic rigor as the first group that I listed.
  • Then we have book publishing companies that are recognized as purely academic ones, like Routledge, which published Whitehorne's Cleopatras (1994) and Günther Hölbl's History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001), the Cambridge "Polity Press" that published Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic (2007), Oxford's Blackwell that published Sally Ann-Ashton's Cleopatra and Egypt (2008), and Bloomsbury Academic that published Knippschild and Morcillo's Seduction and Power: Antiquity in the Visual and Performing Arts (2013). Again, these are to be trusted a bit more than the regular book publishing companies.
  • I wouldn't mind perusing a copy of Tyldesley's book if I had access to it, but I think the currently-cited 35 print sources and 9 online sources sufficiently demonstrate that academic consensus on each issue was investigated and a representative survey of relevant literature was at least attempted. It should be emphasized that having a decent amount of quality sources is better than having as many sources as possible. At this point adding Tyldesley's book to the pile almost seems like overkill, but I will entertain the idea if my university library has a physical copy of it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that answer. The Gbooks listing has a preview (at least from here) that might save you a trip to the library. I did scan a few pages and compared what they said with how you covered it in the article. It was only a very cursory review, but I didn't get any sense that you had missed anything by not using Tyldesley's work. So far so good, but I intend at some stage to check a few random refs in the article against the sources. Won't be doing that in the immediate future, though. Factotem (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do that, I would highly suggest obtaining a copy of Roller's book, which more or less serves as a backbone for much of the article, certainly the biographical part. If not that, then I would suggest looking into Fletcher or Burstein's respective works, which are also heavily cited in the article. They really helped to reinforce Roller's assertions, and I made a conscious effort, as you may see in the footnotes, to blend the ideas of various sources where they may disagree on certain points. For instance, the most glaring disagreement among these sources usually involves dates, even the months in which certain events took place. Please be wary of that, and also cognizant of the fact that the sub-articles also explain these things in greater detail (naturally). Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've recently added Michel Chauveau's Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra (2000) to the article. I'll probably cite it a few more times as well. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That checks out OK. I just noticed though that the ISBN formatting is a mix of hyphened and hyphenless. I think it's preferred to be consistent here too. I don't understand the ISBN hyphen rules myself, and tend to just remove all hyphens in articles I edit. The magic link still functions, and someone usually comes along and hyphenates them anyway. I would also ask, is this article really ready for FAC? There seems to be a significant number of edits being made every day since it was submitted. Factotem (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Actually, the prose body of the article has been basically static since the FA nomination. I've been adding lots of footnotes and citations lately, but that doesn't change the core nature of the article. It just reinforces the scholarly citations that were already in place. The only other editing I've done lately was tinkering with the lead, to make it a bit shorter and to include a salient point about Cleopatra's multilingualism that is explained more fully in the body of the article. As for ISBNs, I have removed all hyphens as you have suggested, in order to be consistent. If someone wants to add them back they are welcome to do so, so long as they change every one of them and not just a sampling. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to let you know that I've created an article for Duane W. Roller, as a supplement just in case anyone is curious about his credentials. He is perhaps cited more than any one author in this article, so it would be a crime not to make an article for him. If someone complains about not having a GB link to his book I might add it back, but I don't feel the need to do so, especially if it's a slightly different edition than the physical print copy in my possession that I used. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small side note: is Wikipedia dead? I appreciate all your commentary, Factotem, but you're the only one doing so. What happened to this website? At this point I'd be excited just to get someone opposing my article, let alone supporting it. At least having someone opposing it would be an indication that somebody has read it and gives a damn. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PericlesofAthens: I would like to think that Wikipedia is not dead. I have been paying some attention to this article as it has progressed in status. I would add feedback, but I know nothing at all about the "Featured Article" process and I am not sure if I fully understand the criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to say that you can't review simply on criteria 1a (well-written), which seems to be the basis of many reviews I've seen. Whether we who are not professional writers can validly assess whether an article is of a professional standard is perhaps a matter of debate, but every one of us can have a valid opinion on whether it is engaging, not to mention the ease with which a fresh pair of eyes can root out infelicitous prose that the main editor is too involved to spot. Factotem (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: hello again! In light of the five supporting votes given by reviewers below, especially by "A. Parrot" who provided his own source review, I would kindly ask that you please resume the source review that you started here. I could be wrong in judging the inner thoughts of the Wiki gods perched high above, but I believe this article will soon pass as a Featured Article Candidate. Since the reviewer "Septentrionalis" seems unresponsive after I furnished him with a lengthy reply, you appear to be the last piece to the puzzle here. Do you have any outstanding issues with the prose or sourcing? Have you been able to personally access any number of the scholarly sources cited in the article? Judging by the silence of reviewers here about images, I'm assuming that everything checks out and an image review will not be necessary. Is that correct? I look forward to your response. High regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to complete my source review with a few spot checks, but I see that that's been done now by another reviewer. All my issues re: sourcing have been addressed, so happy to support on 1c. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: wow! Awesome! Thank you for your review of the article. I'm very glad to have your support. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine[edit]

I am far from being an expert on the period, but I think I am well versed about the Hellenistic era, the late Roman Republic, and the people and events treated here. As such, I found the article overall well written, well researched, and quite comprehensive. There was nothing major that stood out immediately as missing, and in the sources section I see many of the same works that I know or have myself read as the chief scholarly sources about the period and subject. However, as the bibliography about the period is huge, and scholarly debate about Cleopatra's role in it is ongoing, I can only WP:AGF on the coverage. A few relatively minor observations on content and style follow:

• One thing I would like to see is whether there is any information about her domestic governance; in the article, as in the general historiography, she is mostly treated via her interactions with the Roman world, but how did she govern Egypt? I assume the ancient authors, or at least the papyri, have some indications about this. Also, what were her relations to the native Egyptians? Given that the native population was politically marginalized, and that the main domestic political audience were the Greco-Macedonian colonists, there may not be much there to set her apart from her predecessors, but it would be worth to at least state so explicitly, so far as possible.
• "Ptolemaic pharaohs spoke Greek and governed Egypt as Hellenistic-Greek monarchs from the multicultural and largely-Greek city of Alexandria established by Alexander the Great of Macedon, refusing to learn the native Egyptian language" This sentence is over-long and mixes two different things: one, the status of the Ptolemaic pharaohs, and two, that Alexandria was a largely Greek city established by Alexander the Great. I strongly recommend separating these two facts in distinct sentences, per my reverted edit.
• "with the legal status of friendly and allied monarchs to Rome" to be more techniclaly correct, I would suggest "with the legal status of a 'friend and ally of the Roman people' (Latin: socius et amicus populi Romani), in effect a client king of Rome" or something like that, as that is a specific technical term that the Romans used with a number of client rulers.
• "Domitius Ahenobarbus, wary of Octavian's propaganda, attempted to persuade Antony to have Cleopatra excluded from the campaign against Octavian." Does this mean that Ahenobarbus had been influenced by Octavian's propaganda, or that he judged Cleopatra's presence as sort of confirming Octavian's slanders? In view of his defection, his motivation is important
• "Cicero's writings provide an unflattering portrait of Cleopatra, who knew him personally." I would suggest "The writings of Cicero, who knew her personally, provide..."
• "Hellenistic-Greek", "Ptolemaic-Egyptian", "Macedonian-Greek", etc. I've come across such compounds a few times in the article and I think they are, if not incorrect, then certainly unusual. AFAIK, the common term is without the hyphens. Compounds like "largely-Greek" are definitely wrong and discouraged by MOS:HYPHEN; also "the Classical-style of the painting": either a "Classical-style painting" (like "Renaissance-period painter" that follows), or "the Classical style of the painting".
• Somewhere in the "Depictions in ancient art" section a link to damnatio memoriae would be fitting
• "Surviving coinage of Cleopatra's reign include those from every regnal year, from 51 to 30 BC" somewhat awkward, perhaps "Surviving coinage of Cleopatra's reign includes coins/specimens e from every regnal year, from 51 to 30 BC"
• In the "Depictions in ancient art" section there are, IMO, too many images, which break up the continuity of the article to the detriment of reader experience. Four views of the Vatican Cleopatra are definitely too much in any article that is not specifically about that bust. Sincere kudos for finding and uploading so many images of her, but they should accompany the article and illustrate the narrative, not dominate it. We can leave the rest to the Commons category, or articles dedicated to her artistic representations or even individual works of art.
• When linking to articles in other-language Wikipedias, I strongly suggest using the ((ill)) template rather than including them as external links. This leaves the WP:REDLINK locally for enwiki and makes clear that it is an article in a foreign language
• "dating back to [[English Renaissance theatre|the Renaissance]]" the Renaissance as a whole is a European phenomenon; if you link specifically to English theatre, make it explicit.
• "[[Macedonians (Greeks)|Macedonian-Greek]] dynasty of the Ptolemies" I recommend altering the link to Ancient Macedonians, the Macedonians (Greeks) article refers rather to the modern regional identity. Also, as a general rule, since the same term comes further along later ("the Macedonian-Greek founder") with a different link, I caution against linking the same term to two different articles. It is potentially confusing to the uninitiated reader.
• "whose relatives are described as "honey skinned"" by whom?
• " Ancient sources also describe Cleopatra as having had a stronger personality" is that only Plutarch, or also found in other authors?
• A small addition that Egypt was annexed as Augustus' personal domain rather than as a regular province might be useful, as well as Cornelius Gallus' appointment as the first praefectus augustalis, to give a connection to the new political regime of Egypt for any interested reader.

I will go over the article a couple of time over the next few days, to better digest its content and make sure I have not missed something. Otherwise, it is a splendid piece of work and PericlesofAthens deserves great praise for it. Eglerio! Constantine ✍ 11:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Cplakidas: thanks for the review! I am happy to announce that I have amended the article according to all of your suggestions barring the first, where you suggested that I add information about Cleopatra's role as a monarch and administrator (and builder, lawgiver, chief religious authority, etc.). That information can already be found in the sub/split article, Reign of Cleopatra#Egypt under the monarchy of Cleopatra. I placed this link and suggestion in the "See also" section. Is that not enough? The main article is about the person Cleopatra, not about the Ptolemaic kingdom, although the "Reign" article seemed like a good place to elucidate this and provide intricate details about her role within her kingdom. If you want me to add a new section about it in this, the main article, I'd like to see the suggestions of others first, because User:Factotem has already raised concerns about the rather large size of the prose body of this article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reverted your edit about the founding of Alexandria (and Greek as the official language of the Ptolemies) due to the fact that you split the sentence in half without connecting the previous statement to the train of inline citations and source information provided in the lengthy footnote that accompanied it. I have since resolved this problem and added yet another footnote to parse this information correctly. I hope you appreciate the enormous headache involved in this, because I had to go back and reread numerous passages throughout four different books to make sure each statement is aligned with the correct pagination of each source. This task was not as simple as just splitting a sentence and being done with it.
    • I have reworded the part about the 'friend and ally of the Roman people' (Latin: socius et amicus populi Romani); thanks for the suggestion and Latin language text for the title!
    • I have clarified the bit regarding Domitius Ahenobarbus being worried about the impact of Octavian's propaganda.
    • I reworded the sentence about the writings of Cicero.
    • I have done a thorough sweep of the article and removed all seemingly unnecessary instances where hyphens have been used. Thanks for pointing this out. This sort of habitual tick of mine is not apparent to me when I'm reading my own work, so I appreciate your efforts in pointing towards specific examples. I have fixed many others that you did not mention.
    • I have added a link to damnatio memoriae where it was most appropriate, in the "Statues" subsection.
    • I reworded the part about coinage and regnal years.
    • Per your suggestion, I have removed four images from the "Ancient depictions of Cleopatra" section. I hope it is to your liking now.
    • I have added the ((ill)) template to links leading to foreign-language Wiki articles.
    • I have placed the link "English Renaissance theatre" in a more appropriate location. It's a shame that there is no general article about Renaissance theatre. If I had all the spare time in the world I would create such an article and flesh it out, but I do not have the time to give it that sort of love and attention, the kind that it deserves.
    • I have removed the link Macedonians (Greeks) and retained the link Ancient Macedonians instead.
    • I have removed the phrase "honey-skinned" for now. This was one of the few statements added to the article by another editor, who cited the biography by Stacy Schiff, although I do not possess a copy of it. Since I cannot validate it or elaborate on which ancient source said this, I have decided to remove it for the time being, until that editor can explain his edit and reintroduce this properly.
    • I have changed "ancient sources" to "Plutarch" as you suggested, since I think he is the only one who explains this. It certainly appears that way after reading the source book from Jones.
    • In this article, I have added a footnote about Cornelius Gallus being the first governor of Egypt, ruled directly by Octavian/Augustus, while placing it prominently (outside of a footnote) in the sub-article Reign of Cleopatra.
    • Please let me know if there's anything else you think needs to be amended, removed, or added to the article! Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I've had a look at the article again, as well as the changes made in the meantime. The changes/additions satisfy most of my points. Outstanding issues and a couple of new ones follow:
      • The request about details on the governance of Egypt under Cleopatra remains. As the main article on the subject, it should at least touch upon and provide a summary of all pertinent aspects, and right now domestic governance is missing almost entirely. For instance, the debasement of the currency and the financial troubles are important, given the ambitious foreign policy she pursued, and the precedent of Auletes; I don't know or remember how far this is touched upon in the literature (of which you clearly have a better and more recent grasp), but if Egyptian finances were precarious, then her position was more unstable than usually assumed by the average reader, who probably has an image of Cleopatra and Egypt shaped more by the ostentatiousness shown in movies than by anything else. Perhaps simply mention this at some opportune point in the narrative? I leave how yo to your discretion how you best accomplish this, as the article is already very complex and information-heavy.
      • I still recommend purging more of the busts and the images of the Portland Vase. They are interesting, but not integral to the article. For example, why is a possible depiction of Mark Antony's legendary ancestor necessary at all? I think WP:SS applies here on the visual material.
      • You write that Cleopatra wanted to reclaim North Africa. Presumably you mean Cyrenaica? Then state this explicitly, because the Ptolemies never actually controlled any part of North Africa in the narrow modern sense (the Maghreb).
      • The article is very much in need of at least an overview map that shows the Eastern Mediterranean and the localities mentioned in it. Two or three maps, judiciously chosen to focus on specific areas and subjects, would be even better.
      • Other than that I could not find any further points of note for improvement content-wise. I have a concern that the article "looks" too complex and will frighten away the average reader, but I fully understand the fine line you have to tread here between providing a historical narrative and scholarly opinions. That said, for me at least the article is very readable and understandable once you get down to actually reading it. Constantine ✍ 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Pericles

• @Cplakidas: hello and thank you once again for your thoughtful and refreshingly cerebral review of the article. Your argument for a new small section on Cleopatra's role as an administrator and monarch of her kingdom has persuaded me to establish a small new section at the end of the article, "Cleopatra's kingdom and role as a monarch". It contains a main article link to Reign of Cleopatra VII#Egypt under the monarchy of Cleopatra in case our readers would like to know more about the subject in greater detail. I think it neatly and sufficiently wraps up the whole article, which is now better for it.
• As stated before, User:Factotem has raised concerns on his talk page about the overall prose size of the body of the article. In order to appease his concerns as well as yours, I have also recently moved a large chunk of text in the "paintings" sub-section into a footnote. Hopefully that removal of text will help to balance out the new material that has been added at your request. I can also make further trimmings to some of the sub-sections in the "Legacy" section if it is requested. Quite frankly I think the article is of a reasonable size given the massive scope of materials that have to be summarized. Further details are obviously provided in the sub-articles Early life of Cleopatra, Reign of Cleopatra, and Death of Cleopatra.
• As you requested, I have decided to remove three more images, all from the "Portland Vase" section, scrapping the gallery but retaining the most relevant image to illustrate the topic. I hope you find this sufficient, because I think the amount of pictures in the "Greco-Roman busts" section is of a reasonable amount after removing four of them previously. I could perhaps remove the British Museum bust image and just retain the Berlin and Vatican busts, but I would rather not do that since the British Museum bust, although disputed, is heavily described in the prose of that sub-section.
• I actually made no such claim that Cleopatra wanted to reclaim "North Africa" itself. Reflecting the almost exact language of the source material (Roller, 2010), I merely stated in one instance (while discussing learned languages) that she desired to reclaim North African AND West Asian territories (which is preferably terse statement that avoids offering a litany of previous Ptolemaic territories in those areas that she desired to control). Further down I do mention Cyrenaica ("Cyrene") on multiple occasions, including in relation to the Donations of Alexandria, so I don't think our readers are being misled on this issue. Ancient Libya was in fact part of North Africa, which technically encompasses a far greater region than just the Maghreb. Roller's chosen terminology is even backed up here by Michael Grant (classicist) (1972: pp. 7–8), if you would like me to provide a citation from him as well.
• You raise an excellent point about maps, but unfortunately, I am way ahead of you and have already scoured Wikimedia Commons for a suitable map with proper sourcing. I was unable to locate even ONE suitable map of the Ptolemaic Kingdom during the 1st century BC and particularly during the reign of Cleopatra. You can even check on this yourself: commons:Category:Maps_of_Ptolemaic_Egypt. I'm almost 100% positive I did not overlook anything there. A featured article obviously is held to higher standards than other articles. I simply cannot add a map image to the article that would raise problems in regards to sourcing and accuracy. Unfortunately I am not talented enough to create my own maps based on scholarly sources. If you can locate a Wiki map maker who is competent and capable in that regard, by all means I would gladly add his/her hypothetical map. As it stands, though, this will not be possible with the available map images.
• If there are any other issues, please feel free to raise them and I will happily tackle them for you. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted Constantine about this, but in case anyone else might be interested, I have lodged a formal request with Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for a decent, well-sourced map of the Ptolemaic Kingdom (in the 1st century BC) to be created. Hopefully one of our trusty Wiki map makers will accept the job. If not, not a huge deal, but I agree with Constantine that it would provide a very useful visual aid to the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PericlesofAthens: I have had a couple more read-throughs, including the recent changes/additions. The map notwithstanding, I am very close to supporting the article's candidacy as FA. A few comments on the busts: I would not normally ask for such trimming, except that the large number of images generates a huge whitespace that breaks the article in two. This is not only aesthetically a problem, but actually interrupts the reading experience. Again, either trim them to keep only those directly mentioned in the text, or condense the images that are now on the sides of the article into galleries below each relevant section, to avoid creating this whitespace. I think the latter solution is the better one, since it saves space and allows for a side-by-side presentation of the specimens. Also, I am not sure whether the Roman Republican portraiture is relevant when discussing her busts. Not my area of expertise, so I may be wrong, but IIRC, Roman portraiture was quite different from the somewhat idealized forms seen in Hellenistic sculpture, to which Cleopatra's busts definitely belong. Finally, the placement of "Cleopatra's kingdom and role as a monarch" is a bit odd, almost as an afterthought. I would definitely consider it as belonging right after the "Biography" super-section, or worked within it (after "Accession to the throne" perhaps?). PS, please email me about source material on the map(s). Constantine ✍ 09:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: thanks for responding! Per your suggestion, I have removed the Roman Republican portraiture link from the "further information" link in the "Greco-Roman busts" sub-section, placing it in a more relevant location within a footnote. I have also moved the new "Cleopatra's kingdom and role as a monarch" further up so that it is placed just below the main "Biography" section. In regards to images in the "Legacy" section, we are still at an impasse here, because I do not want to delete more images than I already have, and double-checking, I've noticed that the only images that aren't directly described in the text or extremely related to it are the paintings by Alexandre Cabanel, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, and William Etty. However, the latter two images are high quality, illustrative of the eras in which they belong, and since they are the only ones in those sub-sections, hardly an abuse of Wiki's image policies. As for giant gaps of white space between text and images, I have tested multiple browsers on my own computer (Firefox, Chrome, even Internet Explorer) and have even resized the windows in them, and yet I fail to see this issue that you are having (in my browsers the images align normally with the text). I think I know the source of your problem, though, and have since removed a ((clear)) template from the "Greco-Roman busts" sub-section that was placed right above the gallery. Please tell me if this has fixed your problem or not. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That has indeed fixed the whitespace situation, well done. Consequently, I am moving to support at this time. Constantine ✍ 15:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Awesome! Thank you very much for your support and detailed critique of the article. It is now a much better, well-rounded article due to your suggestions. Best wishes, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Векочел[edit]

You have worked hard on the article and provided sources. I cannot think of anything negative about the article. This reflects your commitment to Wikipedia.
Векочел (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: Well that's fantastic! Thank you for the compliment, and for both reading and editing the article. I'm glad you have enjoyed it. I'm assuming this means you "support" the nomination, then? Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do support the nomination of "Cleopatra" as a featured article. Векочел (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: Awesome! Once again, thank you for reviewing the article and providing helpful edits as well. Best wishes, Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Septentrionalis[edit]

Do the modern books you have chosen to follow discuss the primary sources?

The problem with any work on Cleopatra is that the ancient evidence conflicts; one example of this is the death of Caesarion, where Cassius Dio (51.15.5) tells a different narrative than Suetonius or Plutarch. We should follow the judgment of secondary sources on which one is right, but one test of the reliability of secondary sources is whether they express doubt. In this case, whether Caesarion succeeded to his mother (whatever that means under the circumstances) is not so certain that it belongs in the lead. More should follow, but doing this properly would take longer than FA's generally permit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Pericles

• "Do the modern books you have chosen to follow discuss the primary sources?" Yes, some of these terrible, awful, no-good, very bad and just downright evil secondary sources just so happen to thoroughly cite the primary sources at their disposal. The strongest example of that would be Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006), which, as the title implies, is a repository for numerous translated passages from various primary sources relating the events surrounding the life of Cleopatra.
• Without getting bogged down by providing the input of every ancient historian who ever wrote about the subject, I believe the footnote solution I just made (here as well) is a far more reasonable approach for the likes of Wikipedia. I think Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a biography (2010) passes your proposed "test" for reliability, as expounded in the new footnote. Roller, citing Theodore Cressy Skeat and in a footnote naming the Stromata by Clement of Alexandria as an example source, states the following (p. 149): "With the death of Cleopatra, the kingdom legally passed to Caesarion, who ruled for 18 days as Ptolemy XV. Yet this reign was essentially a fiction created by Egyptian chronographers to close the gap between her death and official Roman control of Egypt (under the new pharaoh, Octavian). Caesarion in fact had been sent away, with ample funding, to Upper Egypt, perhaps with Ethiopia or India as an ultimate destination; making these arrangements for him was one of his mother's last actions."
• I also provided a quotation from Plutarch, translated by Jones, as an example of what one major primary source has to say about the topic. Should we list every single one that might say something different or contradict the assertion of Clement of Alexandria that Caesarion had his 18 days as a monarch? I'd rather not produce that laundry list, not without a better justification than the one you have provided.
• I also amended the lead section a bit to emphasize that Caesarion's reign was "nominal", not just "brief", as it was worded before. I think that is sufficient enough for our readers. I honestly hope it is sufficient enough for you, because the sort of verbose exposition about primary source materials that you are suggesting is best left to a footnote instead of the prose body of the article, the latter of which is already too lengthy and wordy as is. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may also notice that the article is currently littered with footnotes that thoroughly explain various instances where either primary sources or even secondary sources disagree with each other. For instance, the date of Cleopatra's death occurring on either 10 August or 12 August 30 BC has a hefty footnote divulging the scholarly sources that support either date. There may come a point, however, when there are perhaps too many footnotes for the average Wikipedia reader to digest. The average reader probably doesn't make it very far past the lead section of the article. Not every contentious issue needs to have a lengthy footnote, especially since there are so many contentious issues among the ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern academic sources about Cleopatra. I'll entertain the idea of tackling important issues if you can spot them, but I believe our readers will have no interest in knowing the minutiae and various problems presented by conflicting reports in the vast corpus of primary sources discussing Cleopatra. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmanderson/Septentrionalis: do you have any more concerns with the article? It has been roughly six weeks since you left a comment here. Now that it has eight supporting votes, I'd like to wrap things up, but I think your input could still be useful. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and support by A. Parrot[edit]

I didn't get to this review as soon as I wanted to, so I'm not finished with it yet, but I can say that all of the sources look reliable. Their general quality level is very high (university presses and so forth) and most are pretty recent. However, I looked specifically for reviews of Roller, because this article leans on it so heavily, and I found one that raises questions. The reviewer says of Roller's account of the Donations of Alexandria, "A reader would not learn how vexatious modern scholars have found interpreting what Plutarch and Dio record." I dug a little deeper and started mulling how scholars evaluate the accuracy of after-the-fact ancient accounts like Plutarch's. I know Pericles has done a lot to address conflicting factual details in the accounts, but authorial biases may be trickier, particularly if all the after-the-fact authors have been influenced by Augustan propaganda. Fortunately I've located a source that discusses this very problem in some detail: the Pelling mentioned in the BMCR review wrote a chapter on it in yet another book on Cleopatra that I should be able to get in a few days. Sorry to drag this out, but the better I understand the state of the scholarship, the more I'll feel able to assess the article fairly. A. Parrot (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: better late than never! Good find! Funnily enough I already cite a British Museum web page by Susan Walker and Peter Higgs, so it would be nice to incorporate material from their Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth (2011). Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a Biography is a solid academic tome and an Oxford University Press publication to boot, but no scholar is infallible and majority consensus, if it can be discerned, is more important to Wikipedia than the input of a single work. Josiah Osgood's review of Roller's book raises interesting points and, like with any book review, the reviewer naturally has to offer some criticism. Otherwise, why write a review? Roller has a small habit of glossing over controversies and/or discrepancies in primary sources, relegating and reducing them to footnotes (for instance, the death date of Cleopatra and the numbering of Ptolemy XII's wife as either Cleopatra VII or V Tryphaena). I would like to think my Wiki article, incorporating the input of many sources (including the recent addition of Pat Southern: 2009), offers a more balanced view of things, but by all means I am all ears on how to improve various parts such as the entry on the Donations of Alexandria. The article does mention at various points the confusion about certain events thanks to Augustan-period propaganda, but this could have potentially affected other accounts of Cleopatra's reign and her relationship with Mark Antony, ones that I may not be aware of. In either case, thanks for initiating a source review. Talk to you again soon! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed another salient point made by Osgood in his review. Roller identifies the person in the tax exemption document signed by Cleopatra as Canidius Crassus, but I read recently in Stanley M. Burstein's Reign of Cleopatra (2004) that the person was named Quintus Cascellius. I didn't know if this was a typo or Burstein high on the influence of drugs (lol), because the name was so different from the one provided by Roller. Lo and behold the book review by Osgood makes it clear that Klaus Zimmerman (2002) was the first to identify the person in the document as Cascellius. Roller seems to have made no note of this contention. Perhaps he is unaware of it or even disagrees with it, but he provides no indication that it could have possibly been Cascellius. I will therefore provide a footnote from Burstein about this fact and hopefully I can access Zimmerman's work too (although I generally find it more difficult to find German language sources online). Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's interested, I added the footnote using Burstein (2004) as promised: see the edit here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've spot-checked some of the references and found problems with a few of them. They're not huge, but the text tends goes slightly beyond what the sources say. I wasn't able to check many refs, because the article leans so heavily on Roller and Burstein, and not having them, I maxed out the Google Books previews for each of them pretty quickly. I recommend looking over the article again for passages that may be overstating what's said in the sources.

• Ref 167: The article text says Caesar was silent on the subject of Caesarion, but the cited text actually says the ancient accounts of Caesar's responses are contradictory, though it considers it most likely that Caesar didn't say much about it.
• Refs 259 and 260: The cited sources express more doubt than the article text does, so I recommend changing "Antony and Cleopatra were probably wed during this ceremony" to "Antony and Cleopatra may have been wed during this ceremony."
• Ref 442: The opera doesn't follow Cleopatra's entire life (Caesar is alive throughout it) so "and outlined the lifelong career of the queen" can be deleted.

On a more general level, I'd really be more comfortable if I knew of a source whose primary focus was historiographical problems with Cleopatra. (The library book that I checked out hoping it would address that problem doesn't. Naturally.) Like I say, the article goes into plenty of depth about factual details and differences between the secondary sources, but problems with the primary narrative sources don't feel as well covered because, from what I can tell, the secondary sources on which the article most relies don't discuss these problems much. All ancient authors have agendas and, to a greater or lesser extent, shape their narratives to fit; Plutarch's biographies, for instance, are all about moralizing. I've never known where to look for modern sources that discern the truth underneath that agenda. Pelling's commentary on the Life of Antony would be one such source, but I don't know where else to look. It's not something I want to oppose over, but it makes me feel uneasy. A. Parrot (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Pericles

• @A. Parrot: hello! Thanks for the response. Now let's get down to business!
• "Ref 167: The article text says Caesar was silent on the subject of Caesarion, but the cited text actually says the ancient accounts of Caesar's responses are contradictory, though it considers it most likely that Caesar didn't say much about it."
  • Yes, there's that, but I deliberately wrote "publicly silent" here, which most sources that touch upon this matter agree upon at least. What they don't agree on is whether or not he privately accepted Caesarion as his son. If readers want to know more they can consult a new footnote that I have provided here from Roller explaining this. Just to let you know, this assertion that sources provided conflicting information was originally in the article and can still be found in the sub-article Reign of Cleopatra VII, but I deleted it, along with a ton of other information in various sections, because certain reviewers cannot accept an article that is so large and lengthy. It's a delicate balance, I suppose, but I simply cannot address every conflict that has ever existed in every primary source relating the life and times of Cleopatra. Please do point out any further specific problems that you think are very important, though. This was a strong example of that, I will admit.
• "Refs 259 and 260: The cited sources express more doubt than the article text does, so I recommend changing "Antony and Cleopatra were probably wed during this ceremony" to "Antony and Cleopatra may have been wed during this ceremony."
  • Sure, I see nothing wrong with that (although I see nothing terribly wrong with the previous text). I have edited the article per your suggestion.
• "Ref 442: The opera doesn't follow Cleopatra's entire life (Caesar is alive throughout it) so "and outlined the lifelong career of the queen" can be deleted."
  • I have edited the article according to your suggestion, but I'm not entirely happy about it. I think I could have simply changed "lifelong career" to "early career" and it would have been fine, but at least it is less wordy this way.
• Do you have access to a university library? Are you doing this entirely through Google Books and with the aid of the Walker/Higgs book you've obtained by now? Perhaps I could suggest some books, but I'm not sure if you would be able to access them. I'm not entirely sure if they'd be helpful either in elucidating the myriad of problems with primary sources used for constructing Cleopatra's reign. If you're looking for a critique of various primary sources, I'd suggest you get a copy of Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006). However, she's not very critical of the sources she cites in lengthy passages; she offers a more bare-bones explanatory role with her prefaces to each chapter and passage cited. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the suggestion, and I very well understand the tension between thoroughness and article size. I do have access to a university library, but it's not especially convenient for me to get to and I'm not sure I'm allowed to check books out. I need to visit it anyway (need to copy some pages of this) but won't be able to until next weekend. If you don't mind waiting that long, I'll see if I can copy the most important pages from it. A. Parrot (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: you're welcome! Thanks for explaining your difficulties in acquiring sources. I don't mind the wait, especially since this Featured Article candidacy probably won't get wrapped up until a few weeks from now anyway, given the current rate of commenting and supports given. I will do everything in my power to earn your support, though, so please bring up any issues you may spot in the article even before your trip to the library. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: hello again! Were you able to access that book from the library? I'm interested to see if it contradicts anything found in the article (considering the disagreements I found among Roller, Burstein, and Fletcher). Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found it, though I wasn't able to check it out and compare it to the article. The only change to the article I can suggest (actually based on a footnote on Plutarch's Life of Antony that I found at the same library) is the text shouldn't indicate that the provisions of Antony's will were genuine. That Octavian seized Antony's will is not in dispute, but no one can know whether the text that Octavian read out was genuine. Anyway, I now have a copy of Burstein and will be spot-checking today, and then I'll decide whether to support on sourcing. A. Parrot (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've spot-checked a bunch of Burstein references, and they all support or, more often, partially support the statements they follow. I originally thought that two or three citations for most sentences in the article was overkill, but apparently most sentences incorporate facts from two or three sources. I'm going to assume that the other sources are cited as accurately as Burstein is and support on sourcing. A. Parrot (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: fantastic! Thank you for your thoughtful review and support of the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

Great to see this highly important article here, which is truly a good read already. Still, some comments below, and some more to follow:

• I found the paragraph starting with Roman interventionism in Egypt predated the reign of Cleopatra VII a bit convoluted. For me, it was a bit difficult to follow, and I'm not always sure what the point is.

• The incestuous Ptolemaic practice of sibling marriage … – This information is of course very relevant for the reader to know; however, it is sandwiched between the storry of Ptelemy X1 and Berenice III, which makes the latter a bit difficult to follow. It might be better to point the two points (roman interventionism and sibling marriage) separately, point by point.
• I found all the different Ptolemy rulers very difficult to tell apart (and not only them, you mention a lot of different names in this article); I repeatedly had to re-read the paragraph to find out who it was as you cannot remember all of them. Would it be an idea to always cite them with full name (i.e., Ptolemy IX Lathyros instead of just Ptolemy IX), or to add a bit more redundancy (e.g., "father of Ptolemy XI")? Can be a great help to the reader.

so that the Romans had legal grounds to take over Egypt – I would add "after the assassination of Ptolemy XI" for clarity. I took a while to notice the link here.

• The second and third paragraphs of "Childhood, tutelage, and exile" provide background information about the Ptolemeic empire, but are not what the heading would suggest (no direct relevance for Cleopatra). As a result, there is no chronological order, and the information on Cleopatra are split by this side note. Might it be an idea to move the info to an section "Background", or add subheadings, for clarity?

• … but he sent them back to Cleopatra and chastised her for interfering in affairs that should have been handled by the Roman Senate. – I do not fully understand. How did he chatised her? And what affairs?

• After returning to Italy from the wars in Gaul and crossing the Rubicon in January of 49 BC, Caesar unleashed a civil war … – Caesar's civil war was already mentioned before this: Bibulus, siding with Pompey in Caesar's Civil War, …. This is a bit confusing, as it does not appear to be in chronological order. The civil war should be explained at first mention.

• … perhaps right around the time of Caesar's arrival – The chronology is hard to follow. According to the information provided before this sentence, Pompey is still in Greece. If Caesar arrives now, it does mean Pompey even arrived before him, but that was not mentioned. The first time I read this, I was wondering why Caesar arrived in the first place. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Pericles

• @Jens Lallensack: hello and thanks for offering to review the article!
• "I found the paragraph starting with Roman interventionism in Egypt predated the reign of Cleopatra VII a bit convoluted. For me, it was a bit difficult to follow, and I'm not always sure what the point is."
  • There are several reasons why this background information is critical. Aside from generally showing the role of the Roman Republic in Egypt before Cleopatra even took the throne, that paragraph explains the financial troubles of the Ptolemies and their loan debts owed to Rome, a recurring theme in the article that becomes relevant for Cleopatra's reign. The paragraph also introduces Ptolemy XII Auletes and his brother Ptolemy of Cyprus and how they came to rule Egypt and Cyprus, respectively. It would be odd (if not the troubling signs of a senile and/or mindlessly sloppy Wikipedia editor) to just start discussing the suicide of Ptolemy of Cyprus later on without first indicating who he even was, correct?
• "The incestuous Ptolemaic practice of sibling marriage … – This information is of course very relevant for the reader to know; however, it is sandwiched between the storry of Ptelemy X1 and Berenice III, which makes the latter a bit difficult to follow. It might be better to point the two points (roman interventionism and sibling marriage) separately, point by point."
  • Now this is a good point! Per your suggestion, I have moved these statements about sibling marriage further down into the "Accession to the throne" sub-section where they are more relevant. I think the overall narrative flow of the article has been greatly improved by this one little move, actually. Thanks for pointing this out! It's hard for me to really notice these things, even when rereading the article.
• "I found all the different Ptolemy rulers very difficult to tell apart (and not only them, you mention a lot of different names in this article); I repeatedly had to re-read the paragraph to find out who it was as you cannot remember all of them. Would it be an idea to always cite them with full name (i.e., Ptolemy IX Lathyros instead of just Ptolemy IX), or to add a bit more redundancy (e.g., "father of Ptolemy XI")? Can be a great help to the reader."
  • Hmm...I'm not sure if adding their epithets and nicknames in each instance is such a good idea (and we would have to be consistent about that throughout the entire article). I'd rather avoid verbosity and repetitiveness as much as possible, especially considering the source reviewer's concerns about the overall size of the article. You can blame it on the Ptolemies, and their insistence on naming all the pharaohs the same way!
• "so that the Romans had legal grounds to take over Egypt – I would add "after the assassination of Ptolemy XI" for clarity. I took a while to notice the link here."
  • Good suggestion! I've amended the article accordingly.
• The second and third paragraphs of "Childhood, tutelage, and exile" provide background information about the Ptolemeic empire, but are not what the heading would suggest (no direct relevance for Cleopatra). As a result, there is no chronological order, and the information on Cleopatra are split by this side note. Might it be an idea to move the info to an section "Background", or add subheadings, for clarity?
  • This is one of those things I wouldn't have really noticed, so thanks for the suggestion! I have since added new sub-section headings and rearranged material so that it fits into a more chronological order. Again, great suggestion!
• … but he sent them back to Cleopatra and chastised her for interfering in affairs that should have been handled by the Roman Senate. – I do not fully understand. How did he chatised her? And what affairs?
  • For your convenience and for others, I have slightly reworded this part (i.e. "Cleopatra sent the Gabiniani culprits to Bibulus as prisoners awaiting his judgment, but he sent them back to Cleopatra and chastised her for interfering in their adjudication, which was the prerogative of the Roman Senate."). It seems as though you had trouble here understanding that Cleopatra figured Bibulus would be interested in judging and sentencing the prisoners who had just killed two of his sons. That said, you should know that this part directly reflects the exact language of the source material at my disposal. Duane W. Roller (2010: p. 56) writes the following: "[Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus] took up his post in Syria in 51 B.C., accompanied by his two older sons. The sons were sent to Egypt probably to return the Gabinians to active duty, as Bibulus needed more troops because of problems in his province, since Crassus's disaster in 53 B.C. had not only seriously reduced Roman military strength but emboldened the Parthians. But the sons were killed, probably with the approval of the powers in Egypt, not the quarreling Ptolemaic siblings but the senior members of the administration, especially the regent Potheinos and the military commander Achillas. Cleopatra, in her first recorded diplomatic act regarding Rome, had the killers sent in chains to Bibulus in Syria, but he returned them to her, stating that punishment was the role of the Senate, a strange rebuke to the queen for having interfered in internal Roman affairs, something that must have been confusing to her given the history of entanglements between Rome and Egypt." As you can see, this was a "strange rebuke" for Cleopatra, and "chastise" is a synonym of "rebuke", simply meaning that he reprimanded her (it is unclear if this was done verbally via a diplomat or in the form of a written message, but the wording still makes perfect sense).
• After returning to Italy from the wars in Gaul and crossing the Rubicon in January of 49 BC, Caesar unleashed a civil war … – Caesar's civil war was already mentioned before this: Bibulus, siding with Pompey in Caesar's Civil War, …. This is a bit confusing, as it does not appear to be in chronological order. The civil war should be explained at first mention.
  • I completely agree and have reworded that part per your suggestion. In fact, I simply restored the original wording of that sentence that has been preserved in the sub-article Reign of Cleopatra. The GAC reviewer actually reworded this part in the main article and I did not like it very much, but I decided not to challenge him over something that seemed rather trivial at the time.
• … perhaps right around the time of Caesar's arrival – The chronology is hard to follow. According to the information provided before this sentence, Pompey is still in Greece. If Caesar arrives now, it does mean Pompey even arrived before him, but that was not mentioned. The first time I read this, I was wondering why Caesar arrived in the first place.
  • I can see how this could confuse some readers and thus I have decided, per your suggestion, to simply remove this phrase from that sentence. It's not an incredibly important detail anyway, only a suggestion by Roller (an uncertain one at that). Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:PericlesofAthens, for the improvements. I read through the remainder of the article, but could not find anything substantial. Great work. I am happy to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: thank you for your review and support! I'm glad that you enjoyed the article and that I was able to address all of your concerns. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hrodvarsson[edit]

I agree with Jens Lallensack that the somewhat tangential detail may be better suited to a "background" section. I also agree with some of the concerns about chronology, though I do not think the biography section is confusing when taken as a whole.

Additionally, I have some specific comments:

• What is the reason for "Syriac?" in parentheses beside "the Syrian language"? This stuck out as unusual, and disrupted reading.

• "her little sister Arsinoe IV". Little sister seems slightly informal to me. I prefer "younger sister", which is currently used in the lead.

• "view of Cleopatra— that became". No spaces for em dashes.

• I think there are some instances of mishyphenation, Ctrl+F "-century" to look them over. I should have been more specific. Regardless, this has been fixed.

• I am not sure if this is MOS, but I think the references should be ordered numerically, if possible. (There might be an automated way of doing this.)

On review, this article is of high quality. I have not reviewed an FA before so I am not well accustomed to the process but I believe it meets the FA criteria, provided the minor issues are fixed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Pericles

• @Hrodvarsson: thank you kindly for reviewing the article!
• What is the reason for "Syriac?" in parentheses beside "the Syrian language"? This stuck out as unusual, and disrupted reading.
  • Good point. I have decided to reword this to "(perhaps Syriac)" instead, because we are unsure what the ancient historian Plutarch meant by Cleopatra's knowledge of the "Syrian" language.
• "her little sister Arsinoe IV". Little sister seems slightly informal to me. I prefer "younger sister", which is currently used in the lead.
  • Another good point! I have amended the article per your suggestion.
• "view of Cleopatra— that became". No spaces for em dashes.
  • I have fixed this per your suggestion.
• I think there are some instances of mishyphenation, Ctrl+F "-century" to look them over. I should have been more specific. Regardless, this has been fixed.
  • Yep, I followed your suggestion and have amended the article as such.
• I am not sure if this is MOS, but I think the references should be ordered numerically, if possible. (There might be an automated way of doing this.)
  • I have looked through Help:Citation tools and there doesn't seem to be any quick way of numerically reordering all of the inline citations with the SFNP template that I have chosen for the article. It would be an enormous task (and quite a headache) to reorder them as they stand now. There's another problem with this, though, considering the gradually shifting nature of the article, even during the FAC process. Per your suggestions and those of User:Jens Lallensack, just today I rearranged a significant amount of text in the article, which in turn reordered tons of different citations and footnotes. That means I would have to numerically reorder the inline citations and footnotes, perhaps in various places throughout the article, virtually every time there is any significant shifting of material. There's also no guarantee that another reviewer won't just come along in the near future and request that further material should be shifted around, necessitating the reordering of citations once again. If someone knows an easier way to handle this, please speak up right now! Before I embark on the arduous journey of reordering all the citations in the article (ouch). Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not mandated by MOS/FA criteria/etc., do not trouble yourself with the ordering. It is just something I do, though I am usually editing articles 1/20th the size so it does not require much time or effort. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrodvarsson: I found it! Apparently this is not a rule or guideline of the MOS. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text–source_integrity: "Editors should exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained. References need not be moved solely to maintain the chronological order of footnotes as they appear in the article, and should not be moved if doing so might break the text-source relationship." Exactly! In many cases, the first citation given in my article is usually the most important or the first one that was used, with others tacked on as ancillary sources that support the first one. I'd rather keep it that way, if you don't mind, especially since Wikipedia policy and guidelines urge us to do things this way. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. As all of my suggestions have been implemented or otherwise resolved, I support the nomination of this article as an FA. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrodvarsson: You're welcome, and thank you for reviewing and supporting the article! I'm glad that you enjoyed reading it and your suggestions have led to significant improvement. Best wishes, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Johnbod[edit]

• The lead is very dense, paras 2 & 3 especially, but also 4. Pretty late to complain about that, I know, though I think I have done so before.
• She "featured heavily in ancient Latin poetry". Did she? Later "... Vergil, Horace, Propertius, and Ovid perpetuated the negative views of Cleopatra approved by the ruling Roman regime,[370][373] although Vergil established the idea of Cleopatra as a figure of romance and epic melodrama.[374] Horace also viewed Cleopatra's suicide as a positive choice," but I suspect these are pretty brief references, and all from the Augustan period? If so, should be toned down. Lucan seems to have something too.
• "ostensibly accompanied by his then 11-year-old daughter Cleopatra" - "ostensibly" seems the wrong word here, & flow is poor. Better: "ostensibly accompanied by his daughter Cleopatra, then about 11."
• "evidence that she had rejected her brother Ptolemy XIII as a co-ruler.[91][93][95] Cleopatra probably wedded her brother Ptolemy XIII,[74] but it is unknown if their marriage ever took place." - reads oddly. Rejig, say "evidence that she had rejected her brother Ptolemy XIII as a co-ruler.[91][93][95] She had probably married him, but there is no record of this."
• More later. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Pericles

@Johnbod: hi John! Nice to see you. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. These are great suggestions! Allow me to explain my recent edits per your advice given above:

• Although it pains me to remove what I consider to be important details in the lead section, I noticed a sentence that could be put on the chopping block and removed entirely without harming the overall narrative flow of the lead. The hosting of the mock Roman triumph of Antony in Alexandria celebrating his victory over Armenia (with the Armenian king as a paraded prisoner in his procession) was an important event in Cleopatra's reign and is rightly covered in the body of the article. However, when weighed against other pivotal details like the love affair with Julius Caesar, or Donations of Alexandria, or the killing of her own siblings, I think an explanation of the triumph in the lead isn't as necessary as explaining these other facts. Check the lead section now; I think this recent trimming has made it look much tidier!
• I have removed the phrase "featured heavily" before "Latin poetry" in the lead section. Although this was my assessment based on the numerous passages I read in Jones' primary source book and other publications, perhaps you're right in thinking that it was mostly Augustan-period poetry and not necessarily all subsequent Roman poetry.
• Per your suggestion, I have amended the sentence about Ptolemy XII's visit to Rome so that it now reads as thus: ""ostensibly accompanied by his daughter Cleopatra, then about 11." I think the word ostensibly is the correct adjective to use here, given the footnote that follows this sentence: Fletcher 2008, pp. 76–77 expresses little doubt about this: "deposed in late summer 58 BC and fearing for his life, Auletes had fled both his palace and his kingdom, although he was not completely alone. For one Greek source reveals he had been accompanied 'by one of his daughters', and since his eldest Berenice IV, was monarch, and the youngest, Arisone, little more than a toddler, it is generally assumed that this must have been his middle daughter and favourite child, eleven-year-old Cleopatra."
• Per your suggestion, I have reworded that sentence about Cleopatra possibly marrying her brother.
• I eagerly await the rest of your review! It has already led to some significant improvements in regards to the prose and reduction of the admittedly lengthy lead section. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: hi again, John. Any other concerns with the article? Are you busy this week? Since the article has now received its seventh supporting vote, I am eager to wrap things up here. Sorry to be pushy about it! If you have any spare time this week I'd love to see your response and further suggestions for improving the article. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll just have to be patient. Hard I know. I've only read through as far as I've commented. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has the recent reduction of the lead section been sufficient enough in your view? I think it looks much better now and is finally of a reasonable size. Also, it has been two weeks since your initial comments here. Is the article too lengthy for you to digest in that amount of time? Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Continuing: Anthony's divorce from Octavia should be worked in - currently it first appears (re 34 BC) in note 44 "while Burstein 2004, p. 29 says that the marriage publicly sealed Antony's alliance with Cleopatra, in defiance of Octavian now that he was divorced from Octavia". - but then later "During the spring of 32 BC Antony and Cleopatra traveled to Athens, where she persuaded Antony to send Octavia an official declaration of divorce."
• The account of the Battle of Actium is rather unclear. The article on the battle suggests the idea was to get their fleet to Egypt, rather than defeat Anthony's fleet, though this meant abandoning Anthony's large land army. This at least makes more sense of C's leaving the scene, but both leaders leaving seems to have left the rest of their fleet becoming disheartened. What do the sources say?
• Note 56 reads "For further information, see ." !
• The fiddly stuff about the two hands on the papyrus could be made clearer, esp. in the caption. Amazing we have this though.
• You several times call sculpted heads of C and others "busts" ("bust" gets 38 hits). A bust has to include, well, the bust area, and the shoulders, like the Bust of Cleopatra. If it stops halfway down the neck it's a "head". The Romans made busts for various purposes, but also left many heads that are usually broken off at a later point from full-length statues, and the article is full of these.
• As I've said before (article talk?), I have my doubts that all these Roman images actually do represent C, but the refs are all there.
• "Arguments in favor of it depicting Cleopatra include the strong connection of her house with that of the Numidian royal family, Masinissa and Ptolemy VIII having been associates and Cleopatra's own daughter marrying the Numidian prince Juba II" - is this because the men seem to be black Africans? If so, better say.
• A link to the steel engraving would great in the note, if we have one.
• "... negative depiction of Cleopatra in De Mulieribus Claris and De Casibus Virorum Illustrium by the 14th-century Italian poet Giovanni Boccaccio." Boccaccio is indeed a 14th-century Italian poet, but both of these very popular works are in Latin prose. Better make that clear.
• Shakespeare "provided a salacious view of Cleopatra "? Not really. I'm beginning to distrust Roller.
• " Bara's Cleopatra also incorporated elements of 19th-century Orientalism, such as despotism," a bit odd - if C wasn't a despot, who was? Don't blame the Orientalists!
• "Colbert's character of Cleopatra served as a glamour model for selling Egytpian-themed products in department stores in the 1930s, which can be linked to director Cecil B. DeMille's filming techniques and emphasis on consumer commodities targeting female moviegoers" - squeezing a bit too much in here, I think. Need to explain more expansively.
• Ok, that's it I think. Phew! Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Pericles

@Johnbod: hi John! Thanks for getting back to me.

• I fixed the Burstein 2004 p. 29 note (footnote #44), adding p. xxii for greater context, so that it clearly states that Antony did not divorce Octavia until 32 BC. You have a good eye for these things!
• Speaking of Burstein, I used his input to add the following about the Battle of Actium, in case it wasn't totally clear: "Burstein writes that partisan Roman writers would later accuse Cleopatra of cowardly deserting Antony, but their original intention of keeping their sails on board may have been to break the blockade and salvage as much of their fleet as possible." --> Essentially, Antony perhaps had every intention of staying in Greece or at least supporting and ferrying his troops where needed. I obviously don't think his intention from the start was to disastrously abandon his land armies in Greece. Do you think the article somehow gives that impression? I'd locate a source that explicitly says otherwise, but I can't seem to find any that says this exact statement as clear as day. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed note 56: apparently this was just a typo, where I wrote "sfnp" instead of "harvnb", rendering "Raia & Sebesta 2017" invisible on the page (i.e. when viewed outside of the editor).
• I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "fiddly stuff", but did you want me to clarify that the document is written in two different hands? I thought that was implied with the emphasis that it contained Cleopatra's signature "make it so", not that she wrote the entire thing. I would state this explicitly, but unfortunately I don't think my sources explain this lucidly. Perhaps you know of a source that does?
  • • I've fiddled with this; hope it's ok. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnbod: yeah, that's fine. It reflects the source material I used well enough. Your version also reads better, I suppose. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In regards to busts versus heads, I have considered it and I have to agree with you, so I changed Ptolemy XII's portrait caption along with the British Museum head one, but not the Vatican or Berlin portraits. They are unanimously described as "busts" by the sources cited there in that section, so my language reflects that of the source material. The British Museum portrait is most certainly just a head, as you suggest, since Walker and Higgs 2017 explicitly call it so and say that it was indeed removed from a full life-size statue.

I'm not happy about this, I must say. If it helps, here is a catalogue entry by a proper art historian of the Vatican head, which refrains from calling it that, unlike eg the coins in the next entry. Having just changed one, there are still 30 "busts" in the text - not all are wrong, but too many are. "Bust" includes "head" surely, so there is little harm in being cautious? Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I can't access the Google Books page that you linked to here. In either case, here is an example (James Grout, 2017, University of Chicago) where an academic source clearly labels both the Berlin and Vatican portraits as "busts", not "heads". I'm merely using the terminology accepted by the sources that I have used. Are we so sure that the Vatican and Berlin portraits are not busts that have been damaged? Investigating your own source for other pages, the previous page on the portrait of Pompey the Great calls it a "bust" even though most of the neck is gone, arguing that this is the case because it was originally a bust with the full neck (and presumably the shoulders too). You are welcome to change the wording of the article any way you like, since I don't really care either way, but just know that doing so directly contradicts the sources that I have used. Is there another source, via Google Books or better yet a more stable one like a university web page that exclusively calls these portraits heads instead? If so, I'd be more than willing to change the wording. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...on second thought, there is at least one source of mine that calls them heads, not busts. Raia and Sebesta (2017, College of New Rochelle) explicitly says this. Since there seems to be disagreement in the use of terminology among my sources, I suppose we can choose one or the other, and since you are rather adamant about it, we can use your choice of "heads" plus "portraits", which is a neutral term. I'll go ahead and edit the article now. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: although your suggested phrasing now reigns supreme throughout the article, I have nevertheless added a little footnote about the academic discrepancies among various sources in regards to the preferred terminology of either "busts" or "heads". I have also wrote more neutral labels such as "portrait" and "sculpture", which would be true of either a bust or a head broken off from a statue. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the text now, except I think the footnote is excessive. I don't believe there is disagreement as to what is a bust and what is a head, I think it's more some writers are more precise than others (some are art historians and some not). Roman statue heads were very often made seperately from the body and then attached, but with a weak join. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how to respond to the innate doubts and voices in your head, John (lol), but the sources in that section are all pretty clear about who these images depict and I have carefully worded each instance to note that many are highly likely representations of Cleopatra, not definitive ones like her coinage. We're still talking 90% certainty here for a lot of them, though. Her coins are obviously irrefutable since they were minted with her unmistakable written name in the legends.
• I previously added links to the steel engraving by John Sartain in both the image caption and main body prose, but I have also now added it to the footnote in that paragraph about the encaustic painting, as you have suggested.
• As you have suggested, I have clarified that the works by Boccaccio were indeed written in Latin (not Italian).
• You distrust Roller? Why? For starters he is not cited there for Shakespeare, that's Rowland, as in Ingrid D. Rowland. I can see where your eye got confused, since their surnames both begin with an R and they were published around the same time (Roller in 2010, Rowland in 2011), but they are completely separate sources. In either case, I softened the tone here to "somewhat salacious" since Cleopatra was being measured against the literal Virgin Queen of England, Elizabeth I. In comparison, yeah, she might have seemed a bit lusty and flirtatious. Lol. Have you seen the one with Timothy Dalton, back in the 80s? I think it's on Youtube. The woman actress playing Cleopatra in that rendition is definitely a lively, flirty gal.
• As for Bara's Cleopatra and Oriental despotism, I'm only reporting what Wyke & Montserrat (2011) had to say about it. Is there some way you would suggest rewording it? Personally I think it's a salient point, that along with the "overt female sexuality" that was embodied in Bara's character. Bara's Cleopatra was a sex-fiend who was also equally cruel and demanded abject obedience from her slaves. Heh. Outside of the scenes of the movie itself, they even did silly things in public to promote the film like having her poor "reincarnated" servant read announcements aloud for her.
• As for the whole Cecil B. DeMille thing, I decided just to remove that part, since the article is long enough and we don't need to make it longer by going off on a tangent about his film techniques. It's tangential compared to the idea (already plainly stated) that Colbert's Cleopatra was indeed used to sell products to female moviegoers, in subtle, subconsciously-planted ideas of course.
• Once again, thanks for reviewing the article! It has led to some rather noteworthy improvements (especially the clarification of the bust versus head thing). Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh! One last thing. I forgot to address your point about the painting from the House of Giuseppe II in Pompeii, the one with Cleopatra committing suicide by consuming poison. I'm not sure how to answer you here, though, since I don't see any black sub-Saharan Africans in the painting. Perhaps one of the two maidservants (Charmian?) has rather dark skin, but I'm not sure if she's supposed to be some Nubian/Kushite from Sudan, or an Ethiopian (right before the Kingdom of Aksum), or for that matter some West African tribeswoman from below the Sahara Desert (centuries before the region would become relevant or firmly connected to the Mediterranean with the Ghana Empire). The men in the painting also do not look black to me. Lol. They look like white/European/Mediterranean Romans and Greeks with bronzed skin and suntans (that was a common trope in conjunction with the light skin of Greek and Roman women and wives...in contrast to their suntanned husbands...an artistic trope going all the way back to the ancient Minoan civilization and ancient Egypt). The source cited here, Duane W. Roller (2010), doesn't say anything about black people or skin color for that matter. Also, Juba II of Mauretania was a Numidian. The Numidians were a Berber people. I think the vast majority of them at this point were brown or olive skinned Caucasians (from the same Neolithic farmer stock that populated the entire Mediterranean basin in prehistorical times). Black Africans from below the Sahara Desert did not migrate north in any significant numbers until the Early Middle Ages, thanks largely to intensified trade contacts and, unfortunately for them, the Muslim Arab slave trade. Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My query about this comes from both the possible subjects given (Sophonisba & Cleopatra) set it in Africa, and you saying "Arguments in favor of it depicting Cleopatra include the strong connection of her house with that of the Numidian royal family,...", which only makes sense taking an African setting as a given. That is not especially obvious to me from the low-res pic. There is the alleged crocodile I suppose, but the other figures do seem rather dark compared to the two in the middle, so I thought it might be that. If not, does it really need to be given a history painting subject, or could it just be genre painting? I see your website source just describes it as "Wall painting of banquet scene in a colonnaded room". I'm still left wondering why Cleopatra's connections are "Arguments in favor of it depicting Cleopatra". Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, that's it - I won't delay my support any longer, despite a couple of minor points above. A very fine piece of work - I hope it won't in fact be your swansong! Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: thank you kindly for the support, good sir! I'm glad that, in your view, the article has finally met the standards of FA quality. As for the painting from the House of Giuseppe II, the source "www.pompeiiinpictures.com" unfortunately relies on Wolfgang Helbig's 1868 Wandgemälde der vom Vesuv verschütteten Städte Campaniens, which is obviously very dated compared to the source I'm using by Roller (Oxford University Press, 2010). I know you and others have your qualms about Roller, but he's generally reliable and reasonable when it comes to explaining ancient works of art and Cleopatra's royal iconography. He rarely writes in definitive, absolute terms about these works, reserving that for obvious things like Cleopatra's coinage. As for this painting from Pompeii, it's rather ridiculous to portray it as a banquet scene. I mean, just look at it. Who else besides the woman in the center is drinking anything? Everyone has solemn looks about them, especially the two women in the center, who seem to be consoling each other or crying. Not exactly the lively scene one would expect of a banquet, especially one in an environment that curiously matches some of the descriptions of Cleopatra's tomb offered by Plutarch. Rather, this is the sort of image that springs to mind when speaking about an ancient Roman banquet as depicted in frescoes from Pompeii. The differences are about as stark as night and day. Anyways, cheers, good fellow! I'll also take into consideration your suggestion to stick around. ;) High regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Katolophyromai[edit]

My main concern initially was the length of the article since it was, if I remember correctly, over 230,000 bytes, which I thought was rather exuberant, but now it has been trimmed down to 180,089 bytes, which I think is a perfectly reasonable size for an article about a historical figure of Cleopatra's immense importance. (If we can afford a 335,573-byte article about Barack Obama and call it featured, I think 180,089 is plenty reasonable enough for Cleopatra, who I think has much greater long-term historical significance.) Another major concern I had was the length of the lead, which, before the GA review, was simply outlandish. Now, however, after much trimming, the lead seems to (finally) be a reasonable length. The article reads clearly, covers the topic very thoroughly, has plenty of insightful images, and, from what small amount of source-checking I have done, seems to be impeccably sourced, so I am going to go ahead and cast my vote in support. If this is not a Featured Article material, I honestly do not know what is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai: thank you for the kind words of support! I'm glad that the article, especially the lead section, meets your expectations for a Featured article. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP comment[edit]

Congratulations on tackling an important subject such as this, with such a wide historical and cultural legacy. May I make three small comments as a reader:

• Sorry, but the lead is still quite long and heavy. Please, consider limiting it to only what must be said. At present, it also displays a tendency towards a sea of blue links.
• This is a purgatory of footnotes. 75 notes (if it is not worth saying in the text, do we really need the footnote? there is enough material there for a second article) and then nearly 400 citations (the vast majority of which simply link to different pages in one of the three main sources: Burstein, Fletcher, Roller). Please, can something be done to bundle them up together, so fewer sentences end with three or four blue numbers? If you have three biographers saying essentially the same thing,^{[118][119][120][note 87]} do you really need a separate citation to each?^{[121][122][123][note 88]}
• There is a wealth of images to pick from over the last 2,000 years, but do we need a bust of every historical figure mentioned, and quite so many 19th century paintings? Why are there three oil paintings and a mosaic Roman wall painting of her death, for example?

That said, it is a fine article, so well done. 213.205.240.209 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, most of the things listed by the IP editor above as flaws were things that I liked about the article. I liked that it had so many citations and images. I do think that the user may have a good point about the WP:OVERLINKing, though, since there are quite a few common terms in the lead that are linked that probably do not need to be, such as "poisoning" and the names of all the specific forms of visual art in which Cleopatra has been depicted. I thinking we can safely assume most people will already known what a "painting" is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plus I'd already removed one link to History of painting, along with others that aren't really likely to help the reader. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am glad I can at least make one good point! Chacun à son goût, as they say. So you like the way each sentence ends with three footnotes, or the way that the same page might be referred to in four or five different combinations with the pages before or after? I find that awfully disruptive to the flow of the prose. (Yes, we know you have read the biographies. You don't have to cite every page.) Similarly, for me, so many images rushing in from left and right makes the article a bit of a slalom. Perhaps they could usefully be collected in a few galleries, like the busts of Cleopatra. But on that, we have List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra and Death of Cleopatra (both heavily illustrated) (and Category:Cultural depictions of Cleopatra) so perhaps we could get away with fewer of them here (Gérôme, Alma-Tadema, Renault, Arthur, Cabanel, Tiepolo, Etty, ...). 213.205.240.209 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Pericles

Hello IP! Allow me to address each of your points:

• The lead section, believe it or not, has seen significant trimming over the past two months. If you would like for something to be removed at this point, could you offer us specific examples? From what I can tell it includes vital biographical details of the main body of text and summarizes the more salient points of the article. As mentioned above in my response to Johnbod, I recently excised an entire sentence from the third paragraph, but only because I weighed it against the others and decided that Mark Antony's triumph in Alexandria was not as important to Cleopatra's life and career as other things covered in the lead section.
• I'll see what I can do about over-linking, although to be honest I don't think it's enormously unreasonable at the moment. Many links have been removed in the course of this review, perhaps rightfully so, and perhaps there are others that should probably be removed, but I'd like to hear specific suggestions, because it is hard for me to judge or edit my own work.
• The footnotes and citations are actually a carefully-constructed compromise on the talk page. The inline citations are also not excessive, since Wikipedia:Citation overkill states that three is the maximum amount that is accepted, and the article does not deviate from this rule. In another review of this article (see above), I have also explained to another reviewer that in most cases many citations are needed not just for validation and scholarly consensus, but because many statements are a blending of ideas from multiple sources (for better balance and avoiding too much of a reliance on one source). The footnotes aren't just for lengthy additional explanations of the prose and source materials. As explained on the talk page, the footnotes are also an alternative to WP:BUNDLING, since the Template:Sfnp is the citation method used in this article. I do not plan on changing that to something else, like Template:harvnb, for instance. That would be an enormous task and a significant change to the article that I do not think is warranted.
• There is no mosaic in the article that I'm aware of but there is an ancient Roman painting of Cleopatra's death from Pompeii. Its inclusion is important given how it is described at length in the "paintings" sub-section. In either case, I'd like to hear the input of others here, because personally I don't think the article has an excessive amount of images. In fact many of them were removed, as you can see from the conversation I had above with User:Cplakidas (aka Constantine). You include examples like Tiepolo and Etty, and yet those images are the only ones that illustrate entire sub-sections (the Tiepolo painting being the only image demonstrating the Medieval/Early Modern period and the painting by Etty being the only example representing Modern artworks). Notice how the sub-section "written works" doesn't have an image at all, because none are available or relevant for that sub-section. I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with User:Katolophyromai about images and citations, but I will earnestly try to remove seemingly excessive links in the article as you have suggested. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do ignore my comments if you must, but:

• The lead section is currently four dense paragraphs with a blow-by-blow account of her life, with almost a sentence on each year from 58BC to 30BC. I fear there is a "wood for the trees" issue here. Summarise, simplify: imagine your reader is 11 or 14 years old. The detail is below for the college students and the adults! If I have time, I'll have a stab at it myself.
• The same with the images: again, *why* three 17th-19th century paintings of the Death of Cleopatra? (I mistook the Pompeii wall painting for a mosaic: keep that!) What important perspectives are they adding? Surely they are not just eye-candy?
• As for the citations, Wikipedia:Citation Overkill does not require three citations for each sentence: it suggests three is the absolute maximum before bundling is better. It suggests one is usually ok, and two or three may be required for points that are controversial or likely to be challenged. You might want to think about a covering citation for whole paragraphs or sections, where they are largely reporting agreed material from the biographies, with more targeted specific citations for points of detail where there is disagreement. I find this unremitting density of citation - statement [1][2][3] statement [4][5][6] statement [7][8][9] - very off-putting.

And now I am repeating myself. Sounds like I am in a minority of one here, so I will let this go. 213.205.240.209 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, taking into consideration what you have said, I have begun the process of de-linking several things in the lead section and will do a full sweep of the article to remove links where they perhaps aren't terribly necessary. I have also decided to remove the painting by Reginald Arthur depicting Cleopatra's death, but I'm keeping the paintings by Cagnacci and Regnault, because I do not think their inclusion is excessive. I hope you find these changes to be suitable. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while it may be easy for some articles to just have less citations and that's that, for Cleopatra it is a different story. There are a lot of competing and contradictory claims by scholars, hence the hefty amount of citations and explanatory footnotes. It's not really my fault that she's a controversial figure. A lot of details about her life are still hotly contested by academics. The sheer amount of disagreements between Roller and Burstein alone warrants the inclusion of both in many instances. Just look at the amount of scholars who can't even agree on the precise date of her death, for instance. Additionally, User:Factotem expressed concerns above (that I have thankfully addressed) that the article probably didn't have enough input from a wider variety of scholars. Do you see what I have to balance here? I'd like to accommodate everyone, but that is simply impossible. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:41, 6 June 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.