Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Caligula/1

Caligula[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Strong consensus to delist; a thorough rewrite is required. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing is disproportionately sourced to two millennia-old primary sources such as Suetonius, Philo, and Cassius Dio; this is not GA standard, especially considering the hostility of ancient sources to the emperor. Much of the article thus falls under 2b) of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article should be delisted as it does not fulfil the GA standards. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Two full length modern biographies of Caligula are referenced a single time each; two more are listed in further reading. More recent still is Barrett & Yardley's The Emperor Caligula in the Ancient Sources. The fact that e.g. the section on historiography does not cite a single modern source analysing the historiography is a major concern; other sections could also do with much more secondary source support. There are also a couple of uncited claims which I would ask to be cited were this up for GA today. I'd also expect that the section on cultural depictions should be written in prose: WP:GACR#1b requires compliance with MOS:EMBED, which among other things suggests that Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose. A prose discussion of how Caligula has been portrayed in art and literature would be much better than the current list. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Delist. A rewrite would be necessary based on high quality modern sources rather than the current paraphrase of the primary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The current material is good as far as it goes (and on what it covers, does not need rewriting), but the gaps are far too broad to ignore. Still, it's a good place to begin a rebuild. Delist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I was editing this article some time ago, it seemed there were a number of cases where the timeline was broken, material was placed in the wrong place, and some elements duplicated. I wouldn't call the existing content good either. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.