The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 11:38, 17 September 2007.

---

Elagabalus[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Paul August, Neddyseagoon, WP Syria, WP Biography, WP LGBT, and WP Classics notified. The main two editors have not been notified because one has left and the other has been banned for sockpuppetry. DrKiernan 07:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article is up to current FA standards, it was promoted two years ago and would be unlikely to be promoted to FA if submitted in its current form today:

1. It lacks citations, and has several "citation needed" flags to boot (not added by me).
2. References listed are few and poor.
3. Article is very short.
4. The "cultural influence" section is non-prose
5. There is no exmination of the later impact of his promotion of the sun-god Elagabalus (who later became the official chief deity of the ROman Empire).

Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the problems can be fixed within the two week period. First the article is not short by any standard. Although there are only two "citation needed" tags, yes the article is poorly sourced (it is mainly sourced back to other wiki articles) but many, if not all of the external links are improperly added to that section and could be sources for the article. It is not really incorrect and I know at least a few other references that confirm much of the article just off the top of my head (actually I believe I may have listed some on an Ancient Rome Forum I started) Any editor can change the "Cultural influence" section if needed. As for the other statement above, I am not sure it is entirely valid but will look into it.--Amadscientist 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I look at this article and it would be hard-pushed under the current criteria to scrape GA status, let alone FA. THis is a problem with many older FA articles, since the FA standard was far lower back in 2005 when this article made FA. The sourcing is the biggest problem but there are several others, the main ones outlined above. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelian worshipped Sol Invictus. Was this Elagabalus' rock? Who says so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements over the past three days. While not quite passing FA criteria yet, I think we're at least headed back to Good Article status quality. Where possible, I've provided citations and references, made some rewrites/deletions/expansions and improved images. The cultural references and external links sections were properly sorted. There are still several claims in the text which need sources attributed to them, and I think the cultural references could still benefit from further clean-up. Regards. --Steerpike 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), length and comprehensiveness (2b and 4), and prose (11a). Marskell 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see this has had some work but I don't know that we're there yet. People can update with their opinions on it. Marskell 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still one or two sore points, especially citation flags which badly need some sourcing. I would've just removed the statements altogether but I think they're important to the article, and would prefer if someone made the effort to properly source it instead. Everything else is up to standard I think, but then again I'm the one who improved the page, so I'm not entirely neutral. As it stands, it could certainly pass GA criteria. FA criteria I'm not so sure... --Steerpike 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove unless lotsa work done pronto. For example, at random:
  • MOS breach at the opening: read up on en dashes for ranges.
  • Tense tension: past then present then past in the lead.
  • MOS breach WRT to period in captions.
  • Disjointed paragraphing: e.g., "son. // The Senators"
  • Ref. 28: do we get a page number for this direct quote? Ditto other quotes; our readers deserve to be able to locate these sources.
  • "El-Gabal" four times in quick succession. Tony 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little less random in your suggestions? What does WRT mean btw? I've already fixed the lead section and reduced the number of "El-Gabal"s. What do you mean by disjointed paragraphs, especially the one you mention? Should I stick them together? As for the references, are you talking about paragraph numbers? --Steerpike 14:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Those unsourced statements must go (what does rebuilding a city have to do with cruelty?). I don't like the listy sections either. DrKiernan 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly there - I can see alot of references have been placed and some sprucing up of prose, with a big flurry a few weeks ago and a trickle since. I've gone through and put things in past tense (the commentators are all long dead too), combined a few paras where the seam in the story was pretty minor, and tweaked some grammar. I'd just like to see the lead a little chunkier and is there anything else from early life, if not then something along the lines of "Little is known of his early life...". Also the two cite needed tags need reffing. Id put the stubby modern history bit into the hstoriaography...and then I think we're there....Steerpike still out there? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Honestly I feel I've been completely alone in reworking this article so far. I was still planning to give the lead an overhaul together with a few other sections (mainly prose). References should be more specific here and there. As far as his early life is concerned, bear in mind that Elagabalus became emperor when he was 14, and died at age 19. His early life is pretty much his entire life :) so I don't think it makes sense to write there isn't much known. --Steerpike 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)..yeah, I figured that'd be the case. Keep -good work. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.