Talk:Pro Plancio

Suggestions

I recently read through the article. It was an enjoyable read. Below are a few suggestions for its prose:

General

• Could the relevant language template be added to the article?

Lead

• "sometimes referred to as" (instead of "named as")

→ "Named as" is uncommon in formal British English. "Referred to as" is standard.

• "asserts the legitimacy" (instead of "alleges the legitimacy")

→ "Alleges" implies doubt or accusation, which doesn’t fit Cicero’s defence.

• "favoured the prosecution" (instead of "advantaged the prosecution")

→ "Advantaged" is rarely used as a verb; "favoured" is natural and idiomatic in British English.

• "during his period of exile" (instead of "during a period of exile")

→ "His" clarifies that it's Cicero’s exile, avoiding ambiguity.

Background

• ...language intended to highlight his own straighforwardness and honesty... straighforwardness→straightforwardness A minor typo.

Synopsis

• The article Andrew Lintott could be linked here.

MSincccc (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these, MSincccc. I've changed where appropriate. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pro Plancio/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Patrick Welsh (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I can review this one. It appears to be in excellent shape already, but I will do my best to make suggestions for improvement even if in excess of the GA criteria. I'll aim for tomorrow, but it might be Friday before I have comments. Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

General comments

• In the first sentence of the lead, could the redirects be put into parentheses with maybe a word or two less? I know they need to be up here, but they are not informative. I would format to encourage readers to just gloss over.
  • I think we need something to the effect of "sometimes named as" -- "also known as" would be inaccurate, as it would imply that all three names are equally used, whereas the article title is by far the most common. We could stick the whole thing in brackets, but I don't think that would be an improvement, given how chunky it necessarily needs to be. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Okay. Maybe at least get rid of the second comma? If the reason for it is the footnote, I'd consider dropping that too. Although I see how this might be an exception, as a general rule, anything that requires an explanatory note probably does not belong in the lead.

  • I'm fine passing as is on criterion 1. Just something to consider. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

    Agreed that this is a good general rule, but alternative names are a notable exception. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Aedile" needs to be defined in the lead, even if only imperfectly, for a general audience. I think it also needs italics as a foreign term.
  • It's a naturalised English term (see Oxford here), so no italics. I've added a brief explanatory note on first mention in lead and body.

    Definition looks good. M-W confirms it as a naturalized term (even if, confusingly, their usage examples both use place it in italics). --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Could the last sentence of the first paragraph be rewritten in the the active voice?
  • Not really: I can't see that any of e.g. "we do not know..." "scholars do not know...", "nobody knows..." would be advisable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Is there some descriptor that could establish the importance of the assessment of James Smith Reid? If not, I would remove this. I cannot be the only reader who leaves the article just to see who this person is that I am assumed to know and respect.
• Even beyond the lead, where accessibility standards are lower, I would have appreciated some kind of descriptors for authorities quoted (e.g., Lily Ross Taylor, Michael Alexander, Andrew Riggsby, James M. May).
  • There are good reasons not to introduce people like this in classical articles -- I follow the advice from an experienced FA and GA writer at User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful. In brief, because most people have many overlapping job descriptions ("classicist"/"ancient historian"/"Cicero scholar"/"philologist" etc), it's at best editorial and at worst misleading to write e.g. "the classicist Lily Ross Taylor thinks X, while the ancient historian Michael Alexander believes Y" -- there's no real disciplinary difference between them, and writing endlessly "the classicist X" gets a bit repetitive. I don't think there's a real comprehension problem here -- as you note, readers will naturally assume this is someone we're meant to take as an authority on the subject. The same style is used widely in GAs and FAs: see for instance Brothers Poem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

    This is just a stylistic disagreement then. Not an issue for GA.

    I would still consider avoiding referring to James Smith Reid by name in the lead unless singling him out can be justified in the prose (without introducing peacock terms, obviously). I can't be the only person to immediately leave the article in order to see who he is, which is probably not great. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

    I do see that concern, but it's also important to give some summary of the scholarly views expounded at more length further down (per MOS:LEAD, which is a GA requirement), we need the name per MOS:QUOTE, and we can't apply one stylistic rule to the lead and another to the body. Even if readers understand it as "The speech has been described as...", I don't think that's a real problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's good to remind readers that we are before the Common Era, but many of the dates could lose the "BCE" as already well-established.
  • The MoS advises omitting CE where possible, but not BCE, which I take as a statement that it should generally be included. However, where there are multiple BCE dates in quick succession and there's no real risk of confusion, I've omitted the second: see for instance He then successfully ran for curule aedile in 55BCE, with Crassus's support, in an election that Lily Ross Taylor has described as "a travesty of Roman free institutions". The election results were declared void, following corruption and violence during the campaign, and the election repeated in 54: Plancius was again elected, alongside Aulus Plautius. His election as aedile made Plancius the first in his family to enter the senate. It is debated whether Plancius served as aedile in 55, or was due to begin his year of office when prosecuted in 54.

    Thanks for informing me of the MOS guidelines. The changes you made look good. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closer inspection confirmed what I was already sure of at the beginning. This is a clear pass. I'm only sorry I didn't have more suggestions for further improvements. If you'd like me to read it again with an eye towards anything specific, I'd be happy to do so—just tag me. Otherwise, excellent work! Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Formal assessment

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Some of the sentences with semi-colons and colons might read better just divided into separate sentences. But I was still able to follow the prose in the grammar of which I found just one error. (Should there have been a comma in that last sentence? 🧐)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: The nom and I have a few minor differences with respect to style, but nothing that I would expect to be an issue even at FAC.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

Spot-check:

• Kelly, Gordon P. (2009) [2006]. A History of Exile in the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. pp. 110–11 supports citation 11.
• Lintott, Andrew (2008). Cicero as Evidence: A Historian's Companion. Oxford University Press. II The Texts of the Speeches (which I assume is p.25) supports citation 54 and footnote.
• Grillo, Luca (2014). "A Double Sermocinatio and a Resolved Dilemma in Cicero's Pro Plancio". The Classical Quarterly. 64 (1): 214–225. supports citation 75

1. A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: The bibliography is impressive and impressively formatted. Above and beyond.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): The article is supported by high-quality sources throughout.

   C. It contains no original research: Article is thoroughly sourced, and nothing I read set off alarm bells about SNYTH or other forms of sneaky OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Earwig had a few hits in the 20% range, but all were obviously non-issues.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Yes. I was not aware of this speech before reading the article, it does, to all appearances hit on the major aspects of the speech, its context, and its significance.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): In some contexts, 3003 words would be too long. But for anyone who finds themselves here and reads past the lead, the level of detail seems great to me.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Scholarly disagreements are presented in a neutral voice. No concerns here.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: The short edit history speaks for itself, and I do not imagine any new information coming to light that would disrupt the stability of the article.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: Images are relevant, in the Creative Commons, and appropriately captioned.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Yes, per the above.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for these, Patrick Welsh: replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by History6042 talk 22:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Roman lawyer Cicero defended Gnaeus Plancius in 54 BCE, but we know neither the verdict nor exactly what Plancius was accused of?

• Source: Alexander, Michael C. (2010) [2002]. The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. pp. 133–135. ISBN 978-0-472-11261-6. (charges unknown); Craig, Christopher P. (1993). Form as Argument in Cicero's Speeches: A Study of Dilemma. Atlanta: Scholars Press. p. 124. ISBN 1-55540-879-6. (verdict unknown).

• • ALT1: ... that the Roman lawyer Cicero spent most of the Pro Plancio, a defence speech for Gnaeus Plancius, talking about himself? Source: Taylor, Lily Ross (1968) [1964]. "Magistrates of 55 BC in Cicero's Pro Plancio and Catullus 52". Athenaeum. 42: 26. ISSN 0004-6574.
  • ALT2: ... that in the Pro Plancio, the Roman lawyer Cicero unfavourably compares his opposing counsel with the Greek philosopher Socrates? Source: Grillo, Luca (2014). "A Double Sermocinatio and a Resolved Dilemma in Cicero's Pro Plancio". The Classical Quarterly. 64 (1): 223–224. doi:10.1017/S0009838813000669. eISSN 1471-6844. JSTOR 26546296.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wish World; Template:Did you know nominations/Hanahaki disease

Improved to Good Article status by UndercoverClassicist (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 36 past nominations.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC). Review

Starting review. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - The ALT1 hook does not seem to be clearly stated in the article. The lead says "The bulk of the speech deals not with the charges against Plancius, but with asserting his personal merits and those of Cicero himself" which is somewhat different.
• Interesting: - The first two hooks seem interesting but ALT2 not so much.
• Other problems: - There are issues with ALT1 and ALT2 above. The primary hook is cited but the wording may need work. We seem to know the precise law which the defendant was accused of breaking but we don't know exactly how he was supposed to have broken it.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: We're nearly there but I'd like to hear whether we need to sharpen up the primary hook. I'll start a discussion below. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Andrew. On the ALT1 hook, see later: The speech largely focuses on Cicero, rather than Plancius or the charges against him. On ALT0, I think "we [do not] know ... precisely what Plancius was accused of" is a reasonable equivalent to, as you say, "we don't know exactly how he was supposed to have broken [the law]". Happy to take suggestions on additional ALTs if you have them? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

While ALT1 is quite amusing it doesn't seem consistent with what the article says. And ALT2 lacks interest to me. So, I think we should focus on the primary hook. I'm not entirely comfortable with this as the law that was broken seems well identified. As the uncertainty seems to be the accused's alleged deeds, I suggest adding one word to the hook to make:

• ALT3 ... that the Roman lawyer Cicero defended Gnaeus Plancius in 54 BCE, but we know neither the verdict nor exactly what Plancius was accused of doing?

Is that acceptable?

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict)

• That works for me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Ok, let's go with ALT3 then. If further issues arise we can revisit ALT1 but it seems best to stick to one selection. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

For the record, ALT3 was promoted but then unilaterally changed without discussion or consensus. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)