Talk:Tacitean studies

Tacitean studies was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 17, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
August 21, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Social and political / Medieval / Modern Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Medieval philosophy
	Modern philosophy

Classical Greece and Rome

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Founding Fathers[edit]

A good addition to the article would be the great influence that Tacitus had on the writings of Thomas Jefferson.186.205.231.60 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incomprehensible[edit]

A remarkable feat was accomplished by Robert Graves: the major gap of text that had gone lost of the Annals regarded parts of the end of Tiberius' reign, the whole of Caligula's reign, and the major part of Claudius' reign (the remaining part of Tacitus' manuscript only took up again at this Emperor's death, for the transition to the reign of Nero).

Could someone who understands this horrible sentence please render it into something more comprehensible. Bastie 10:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

add a "filling in" after the colon, comma and a "which" after Annals. I think. Ask Francis Schonken. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A major gap exists to date in treatment between the Italian Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which is strange in view of the use of the image of Justus Lipsius' edition----Clive Sweeting 7 August 2009

NPOV[edit]

This article seems to rape the entire concept of NPOV when they use a ... let's say a less than flattering quote is used as an indirect "attack" to the US-led invasion of Iraq. I don't like it as much as you guys, but that can't be taken so openly. --Sprafa 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic much? the facts are these:

Tacitus wrote an excellent piece of rhetoric, in the voice of a Caledonian chieftain, in part (if not solely) as a condemnation of Roman imperialism.
anti-war writers in the 21st century quoted the speech in order to condemn imperialism, or at least what they perceived as such.

if you have any suggestions on how to improve the neutrality of the section without sacrificing these facts, I'm listening. maybe the section could take into account other theories of the intent behind the speech. perhaps the modern uses could be reported in a more dispassionate and less sympathetic fashion (I agree with the viewpoint, I wrote the section, and I may not be aware of a bias that is obvious to everyone else). the image probably isn't necessary. I don't know. try neutralizing it and we'll see where that goes. —Charles P._(Mirv) 07:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad image[edit]

The final image by the "21st century" section is incorrectly annotated "Baghdad in flames". The dark smoke plumes are from pits of burning oil set up ny the Iraqis in a ring around the center of the city, to obscure sight for bombing planes, not from buildings in flame. I removed the image and annotation, but that was reverted. Is there any justification for this revert? Rwendland 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tacitean studies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There is a severe deficiency in references. Combined with the fact that much of the article is written in an essay-like style, this gives the distinct impression of WP:OR. Language like "it is interesting to note that", "A remarkable feat was accomplished by Robert Graves" and "...no doubt, Tacitus remains the first author mentioned in this list." does not belong in an encyclopaedic article. The section titled "20th century" is the worst offender, where practically the whole thing reads like an essay. When parts like "Enlightenment and Revolutions" and "21st century" have hardly any references, it comes off as WP:OR, whether it is or not.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Hard to tell with so few references.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Lampman (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]