# Talk:Gaius Sosius

There's at least four factual claims there:
Sosius became consul in 32 BC.
In 32 BC, the Second Triumvirate had ruled Rome for the last decade.
In 32 BC, the Second Triumvirate was about to legally expire.
In 32 BC, relations between Antony and Octavian collapsed.
The current citation style (citing Syme and Broughton for the whole thing) makes it impossible to tell which are actually supported by Syme and which are supported by Broughton. This is part of WP:TSI. I don't have the sources in front of me, so this is only an example, but it's possible that the real picture of what the sources actually say is closer to:
Gaius Sosius assumed the consulship in 32 BC, just as the Second Triumvirate, which had ruled Rome for the last decade, was about to legally expire and relations between the triumvirs Antony and Octavian collapsed.

Assuming that all of those assertions are indeed backed up in the sources, splitting the citation so that the individual facts are cited would prove the case and remove the ambiguity. The other way to do it is through WP:BUNDLING, where the footnote actually explains what each source says: so something like:
Gaius Sosius assumed the consulship in 32 BC just as the Second Triumvirate, which had ruled Rome for the last decade, was about to legally expire and relations between the triumvirs Antony and Octavian collapsed.[1]
 ^ For Sosius' consulship, Broughton, p.147; for the breakdown of the Triumvirate in 32 BC, see Syme, pp.276-277.
In terms of the sources cited: there's nothing wrong with picking up valuable information passing mentions. You aren't going to find a whole book on a relatively peripheral figure like Sosius: what we do when we work with these kind of characters (and even the major ones) is pick up small bits of material from multiple sources, often where few see our subject as their main topic. Syme was the great master of this approach - have a look at his footnotes and see how he pieced together the raw material for his narrative. Both of the sources I linked for you contain useful information, on topics pertinent to the article, which is not currently reflected in the article.
On the older sources: Syme certainly has a lot of value, but definitely isn't the standard text on the 'Revolution' any more, and hasn't been since at least the 1970s. If you've got JSTOR access, these reviews will give you a sense of how his work is currently used and (rightly) viewed more through a history-of-scholarship lens than as a first resort for matters of fact and interpretation:
[1] Christopher Smith, 2012 (esp. p.308)
[2] Osborne and Vout, 2010 (of Wallace-Hadrill's Rome's Cultural Revolution, which is very important in the current conversation on the period)
[3] Christopher Stray, 2010 (esp. pp. 9-10)
As the article stands, I'm not happy to pass it under c1 or c2. I recognise, however, that some of these are subjective matters, particularly when it comes to assessing what level of prose or citation is 'good enough' for GA status, versus the expectations of an FA. I'm happy, therefore, to wait until the end of the hold period to see where the article is at that point, and to pass it on for second opinion if the concerns above still stand. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
So you haven't a clue what the sources say, and are drawing conclusions on how they should be cited? WP:TSI says nothing about pedantically assigning each individual citation to each fragment of a sentence, nor about readers being able to personally verify what is in them, and and bundling sources "that each support a different portion of the preceding text" is explicitly allowed by WP:CITEBUNDLE. Do elaborate more on C1 and C2, because all the concerns on your box for C1 have been addressed, and there are absolutely no verifiability concerns. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I can explain this any further: I find your tone in the last response aggressive, and don't have confidence that we can have a reasonable or productive discussion about this. I have explained the steps I am happy to take with the review: I will leave it at that, for you or other editors to take forward as you wish. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion

The lead could be expanded a bit.
one of his most loyal and important lieutenants WP:PUFFERY
Sosius rebuilt the temple of Apollo Sosianus clarify. Did he rebuild it himself? I assume he oversaw it. The sentence as a whole is a bit awkward to read.
was appointed governor clarify who was appointed governer.
Sosius and his colleague in office... sentence is run-on, or bordering on it
This missive was never read... reword, language is a tad confusing
may also have been Sosius' daughter. looks like a citation got dropped
@Avilich: I ran this through Earwig and made random spotchecks, I am not finding anything in the realm of copyvios and everything seems reasonably cited. I did a fair amount of copy editing, just to save on time, please double check my work. These issues are relatively minor so this aught to be done in no time. Etrius  ( Us) 04:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Done mostly. I disagree about the lead, however, as MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends no more than two paragraphs for < 15,000 characters, and this article has just over 6000. Avilich (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Avilich That's fine, the lead expansion is a rather weak suggestion anyway since the page is so short. I think that it would help the page but I agree it is out of scope, such is GAR. I've reviewed the page again, cleaned up a few more bits of prose. Page meets GA criteria and passes. Congrats on your first GA!!! Etrius  ( Us) 01:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Etrius  ( Us) 01:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)