# Talk:Diaspora Revolt

@Mariamnei and Jens Lallensack: Well done on the article -- it's a lovely piece of work. It might be a good idea to do some sort of pre-FAC polishing session, whether that's at PR or less formally on the Talk page. In general, first-time nominators tend to find a lot of "small stuff" that they didn't know about (such as matters of formatting, Manual of Style compliance, image copyright and so on), and it can be helpful to get those sorted before putting the article in front of people who have to vote on whether to support its promotion to FA status. I would strongly advise approaching a mentor or two for the process.
With the caveat that this isn't specifically my area, it looks to be generally in good shape. I won't give it a full-on nit-pick at this stage, but if considering an FAC run, I would be looking at the following:

Make sure the article is comprehensible to non-expert readers. There are a lot of technical terms that are important to the sense and not fully explained: see for instance the sentence Similar information is corroborated by CPJ II 441 and a later source, the Ethiopic chronicle by John of Nikiû, which discusses the Babylon Fortress. We also have a lot of discussion of Messianism, but never really discuss in detail what that means. Under MOS:NOFORCELINK, there should be enough information in the article itself for readers to get the point, even if they need to use the link for the finer details.
In ancient history, it's important that we're clear about our sources: (e.g.) Eusebius, Dio, Orosius and the papyrus record are not simply neutral, interchangeable sources of evidence. Readers need to know what these sources are, roughly when they're from, and have enough context to properly interpret what they are telling us. Eusebius, for instance, wrote almost two centuries later from a strongly Christian perspective, while Orosius's comments about the Jews laying places to waste have some very important religious/ideological context to them. Given that we so frequently refer to the limitations of the sources in the article, I think a section about those sources early on would be helpful.
Check the small stuff: spelling, grammar, formatting and so on. A couple of recurring examples:
Latin needs to be in language templates: {{lang|la|TEXT}}. Transliterated Ancient Greek goes into transl templates: {{transl|grc|TEXT}}. Neither should have quotation marks around it.
Roman office titles are generally not used in apposition with names: so "the emperor Trajan" (and simply "Trajan" after first use) is preferred to "Emperor Trajan".
"Further reading" sections are for works that are not cited. Works that are cited should be in a "Bibliography" section.
BCE and CE are always capitalised (no dots), even in titles.
Make sure the formatting of citations is correct and consistent: one, for example, has the volume given (correctly) as "4"; two others have it (incorrectly) as "4th".
There needs to be a logical principle as to which sources are included in the bibliography and which are only cited in the notes.
Just going by eye, as someone who doesn't know the field, the bibliography looks a bit short and the citations are dominated by a single short chapter (Pucci Ben Zeev 2006). The sources also seem to skew a little older: only one is later than the 2000s. Are there other important works that discuss the topic, particularly from the last 20 years or so? An FA needs to be a full representation of the scholarship on a topic: you might want to look at the bibliographies of some of the works you have cited to track down more.
I hope this is helpful. Give me a ping if any of this is unclear. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @UndercoverClassicist, I think I'm pretty much done! I also added some content from other sources covering the topic over the last 20 years. Do you have any other suggestions or things I should tweak? Mariamnei (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
The sourcing in the new section on sources worries me a little bit: we have a lot of weight on just a couple of sources, particularly Horbury 2021, which don't seem to be specialist treatments of the historians themselves. There's potential for issues or oversimplification when someone is characterising e.g. Eusebius as a specialist in something other than Eusebius, particularly when the source itself is a comparatively small part of a comparatively small work (a book chapter) that is, again, about something else.
Perhaps as a consequence of this, some of the handling of those sources is not as deft or nuanced as it could be. See for example Orosius ... provides information on the revolt but is not an independent source: what is an independent source, in this context, given that all of these sources draw upon sources and a historiographical tradition that is mostly lost to us? We also focus a lot on the style and language of the writers in question, which perhaps crowds out or replaces a real discussion of how historians actually handle or use these works. I'd suggest starting with some reading of specialist historiographical works about each of these sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are the numbers for the civilian slaughter/ethnic cleansing of roman subjects residing in the region not reflected in the article after being removed from the Kitos War article? Ssss.katya (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)