# Talk:Tetricus I

The antoninianii of Tetricus were the most frequently imitated prototypes for barbarous radiates This entry is otherwise so good, that these terms (though they are explained if you click on the Wikilinks) need brief expository appositives, like mini-definitions, to explain the sentence to numismatic dunces, like me. Wetman 19:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tetricus I. 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/20080521191250/http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1049415 to http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1049415
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) 23:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tetricus I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
You can start addressing any points I raise immediately, but I will be offline until Monday. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Lead
"the murder of Victorinus" - suggest "the murder of Emperor Victorinus" for clarity.
 Done
"by the influence of Victoria, the mother of Victorinus" - I think "by the influence of Victorinus' mother, Victoria." reads more smoothly
 Done
History
"before Emperor Victorinus was murdered" - I think "when Emperor" sounds better.
 Done
"After Victorinus was murdered, his mother, Victoria" - "Victroninus' mother, Victoria," avoids repeating "Victorinus was murdered"
 Done
"elevated to co-emperor during the last days of Tetricus I's reign, but this is disputed" - by whom and why?
Source didn't give me that unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
"one reaching so far into Gallic territory as to reach the Loire." - repetition of "reach". Maybe change the first instance to "stretching"?
 Done
"There are two accounts of the occurences there." - the second one is attributed to "modern scholars", but the first is left vague. Is that the contemporary account?
 Done
"modern scholars believe this to be imperial propaganda" from which empire?
 Done
"coins of Tetricus I and II, to " - comma not needed
 Done
Numanistics
Most of these sentences contain the phrase "his bust on the obverse". I think it would be more engaging to remove this repetition with something like, "seven featured his bust on the obverse, with the reverse showing a __, __, ... or a ___." Same with the coins with his face.
 Done
" depicted Tetricus I and Tetricus II, his son, together" - "his son" isn't needed. Lineage was established in the previous section.
 Done
"Jugate busts of both on the obverse" is repeated twice. I suggest combining these sentences.
 Done
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
no concern
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
assuming good faith for the print sources. I re-ordered some to put them in numeric order.
C. It contains no original research: 
AGF that the "debated" is supported by the offline sources.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
ear wig returned a 1% hit on a brief latin phrase
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
no concern
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
The "debated" aspects are being presented with equal weight. AGF the offline sources support this weighting.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
other than recent improvement, there have been few changes in years.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
no concern
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Short but sweet. Pass pending response to the notes above. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Nice work - easy pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Did a cheeky little ce, auto ed, checked for dupe wikilinks and changed date to year in the biblio; all edits suggestive, rv as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)