Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Pro Plancio

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

DYK toolbox

Pro Plancio

(
)
  • ... 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).
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
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - 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: No - The first two hooks seem interesting but ALT2 not so much.
  • Other problems: No - 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)

  • 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pro_Plancio&oldid=1295253448"