Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Caligula/1
=[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Caligula/1|Caligula]]=
{{atopr}}
: {{al|Caligula|noname=yes}} • • GAN review not found
: {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Good article reassessment/Caligula/1|Category:GAR/71}} Result: Strong consensus to delist; a thorough rewrite is required. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This 2007 listing is disproportionately sourced to two millennia-old primary sources such as Suetonius, Philo, and Cassius Dio; this is not GA standard, especially considering the hostility of ancient sources to the emperor. Much of the article thus falls under 2b) of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
:Agreed. This article should be delisted as it does not fulfil the GA standards. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
:Agreed. Two full length modern biographies of Caligula are referenced a single time each; two more are listed in further reading. More recent still is Barrett & Yardley's [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Emperor_Caligula_in_the_Ancient_Sour/mSG3EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 The Emperor Caligula in the Ancient Sources]. The fact that e.g. the section on historiography does not cite a single modern source analysing the historiography is a major concern; other sections could also do with much more secondary source support. There are also a couple of uncited claims which I would ask to be cited were this up for GA today. I'd also expect that the section on cultural depictions should be written in prose: WP:GACR#1b requires compliance with MOS:EMBED, which among other things suggests that {{tq|Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose}}. A prose discussion of how Caligula has been portrayed in art and literature would be much better than the current list. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
:Concur. Delist. A rewrite would be necessary based on high quality modern sources rather than the current paraphrase of the primary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
: Yes. The current material is good as far as it goes (and on what it covers, does not need rewriting), but the gaps are far too broad to ignore. Still, it's a good place to begin a rebuild. Delist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:: When I was editing this article some time ago, it seemed there were a number of cases where the timeline was broken, material was placed in the wrong place, and some elements duplicated. I wouldn't call the existing content good either. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}