# Talk:Flavian dynasty

As of today, I've started significantly expanding this article. However, most of the text will be cobbled together from the articles on Domitian, Titus and Vespasian, as I see no point writing everything all over again. --Steerpike (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The point to writing it over again, would be to change the main focus of the article from the individual to the family. It would probably just help the way the article reads.--OneRyt (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Somehow writers of history seem to get People Magazine and The National Enquirer mixed up with the process and methods of historical events and how people fit into them.  I see that Roman history is certainly no exception.  Apparently, the last 50 years of innovations in science and its application to the social sciences totally skipped those who write history... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flavian dynasty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I've now reviewed this article as per Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I thought it was basically an excellent article, fluently written and highly readable. The images and references are all up to scratch, and the level of coverage is spot on.
However, I'm not going to pass it just yet, as there are some minor issues I think should be fixed. I will leave the article on hold for 7 days for these changes to be made, and assuming they are made, it can then pass. 
I don't think it would take a huge amount of work to get this article up to featured article status, and I'd suggest getting someone else to take a look at it with a view to this.

Add 'AD' to all dates which need it. There is inconsistency in the article in the use of 'AD'; I think it should be used throughout, since the historical period is close enough to 'BC' for the dates to be confusing.
done
Consider whether footnotes should be added to the lead section
wp:MOS does not require it. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Make clearer the reference used for the family tree in the caption of the family tree OR insert references for the statements: Around 38, Vespasian married Domitilla the Elder, the daughter of an equestrian from Ferentium. They had two sons, Titus Flavius Vespasianus (born in 41 AD) and Titus Flavius Domitianus (b. 51), and a daughter, Domitilla (born in 39 AD). Domitilla the Elder died before Vespasian became emperor. Thereafter his mistress, Caenis, was his wife in all but name until she died in 74.
done
Vespasian: The sentence "Later, he started a campaign in Britain also." is tautological, and also apparently meaningless. What sort of campaign? When? With what aim? Consider ammending or deleting
done
Domitian: Why was Domitian assassinated? In the text a revisionist view of Domitian is presented (which I am happy with); but if he wasn't so bad after all, then we need to know specifically why he was assassinated.
not sure what exactly you want me to add. antiques say it was a conspiracy and stuff like that, but modern authors say it wasn't the case. I am not sure anybody is suggesting though what else it was. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well there was a conspiracy, but ancient and (most) modern authors agree it was strictly confined to court officials. In the current text (although this is also the case on Domitian's article), the motives are slightly underdeveloped, but allegedly, Domitian's servants feared for their lives because he had recently executed his secretary Epaphroditos. Stephanus may have been personally motivated by the execution of his master Titus Flavius Clemens (consul). No senators or generals took part in the plot, though the involvement of the Praetorian Guard is somewhat more controversial. --Steerpike (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
do you have a reference for that? Nergaal (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Legacy: This should be extended (it doesn't need a lot) so that it describes the legacy of the whole dynasty, rather than just Domitian.
doneNergaal (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Not sure who nominated this, but as the original "creator" of the article in its current form, I would oppose granting GA status because it's incomplete. For a long time this page was tagged with an "under construction" label but then I stopped working on it, and an automated bot removed the tag. Anyway, the point is, there are still sections which need to be written, such as on Flavian art, literature, society, religious life,... The "legacy" section should be expanded and include historical and academic views on the period. The original sections also need revision. Some of the text was lifted from the article on Domitian, which itself has gone through several revisions since its FA nomination. References and prose need to be updated accordingly. --Steerpike (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
this is not a FAC, but a GAN. If you actually care, then don't refrain from helping. Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well don't get me wrong. I appreciate the work you've put into this article since I stopped editing it. But I think granting "Good Article" status is slightly premature because the text is not complete (although the most important sections are there). I'm more than willing to write new sections and expand the older ones btw, but right now I haven't got the time to make any improvements. I'll try and have a look at it during the weekend. --Steerpike (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
sounds perfect! Nergaal (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. On the basis of the text which is there, I think this article is nearly GA (as I stated). However, if you feel that the article is incomplete because of some missing sections, I can understand that. Does that stop it becoming a good article though? I'm not sure! I will leave this article of hold for the time being, and await any developments. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There are three or four sections which still need to be written. Some refs have to be fixed and the legacy section could be further expanded. I'm also working to include a graphical timeline of the most important events of this era. I'll try to work this out in the course of the following days, but I'm sort of busy with university-related stuff. If you really want to pass this as GA than that's okay with me. It's not quite complete but the most important parts are there. --Steerpike (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I'm desperate to pass it; more that having started the review and found it to be up-to-standard, I'm now loathe to fail it. There's no need to rush your additions, I'll leave it on hold for the time being. And if it does eventually fail (I'm not sure if there's a time-limit on being 'On-hold'), just renominate it, and let me know, and I'll re-review it. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing happens with the on-hold except that you might get notices on your page. Nergaal (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Still not ready? This article can easily go for a FAC... Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Not quite yet. I have some clean-up to do but unfortunately university has been very busy. Hopefully I'll get it done before the end of the week. --Steerpike (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've finished some clean-up now, and while I would still like to see more sections added I think the current text is worthy of GA status. As for being FAC Nergaal: I appreciate your enthusiasm but I have to urge some caution. The current article is fairly solid but in FA terms, it doesn't even begin to measure up to truly outstanding articles such as Song Dynasty. For the Flavian Dynasty to reach FA I think it would need a lot more improvements and additions. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the Good Article criteria require an article to address the main aspects of the topic, not the entirity of it - weebiloobil (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it. It apparently uses a non-existent template.--Agamemnus (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. Someone accidentally "corrected" the template name to upper case on the word "dynasty". --Steerpike (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flavian dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708190434/http://www.enginova.com/engineering_of_pompeii.htm to http://enginova.com/engineering_of_pompeii.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and saw numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also an orange "no citations" banner at the top of the "Flavian family tree" section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)


### Flavian dynasty