No article found for “Ou Jing?action=edit&redlink=1”.

Talk:Ptolemy of Mauretania/GA1

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

GA review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Edward056686 (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 20:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)


I'll have a look at this -- looking forward to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Generally in good shape. There are a few minor nitpicks above GA level, but I'll try to keep this by the criteria as far as possible:

  • There are quite a few technical terms -- triumvir, Gaetulian, duovir (not duumvir?), toga picta -- that could do with explanation.
    • Added a description for duovir (not duumvir! although I don't think it matters here). I changed Antony's title from triumvir to general, although politician can also work as an alternative to explaining the triumvirate.
      • As far as I've seen, it was pretty generally rendered as "duumvir" in the period (duovir is rarer, older and eventually less standard). But if it's a conscious decision, it's a reasonable one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
        • I can't even say if it's the correct decision. The secondary sources pretty unanimously describe the Mauretanians as being duovirs of Carthago Nova (and in Juba's case Gades as well), but I have no idea if this reflects the terminology found in numismatic evidence. I changed it to duumvir for now and I'll see if I can track down Mazard or another source for more clarity. Edward056686 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    • The toga picta is described in the second paragraph of "Sole reign" and Gaetulians are defined in the first paragraph of "Background and co-regency". Edward056686 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Is it "40 AD" or "AD 40"? The infobox disagrees with the rest of the article.
    • Fixed.
  • It would be useful to put a rough date on the busts (see here, p. 107, for the Caligula, and Varner, p. 103, for the Ptolemy, with bibliography) and and their restorations. The Caligula in particular has definitely been reworked since his lifetime.
    • I changed the Caligula bust and added an approximate date. I don't see where Varner dates the bust of Ptolemy, and I don't have access to Smith to see if he did :( Edit: I found a source for a date on the Ptolemy bust.
  • All images need a PD tag for the original object, not just the photograph.
  • File:Monnaie - Denier, Argent, Incertain, Maurétanie, Cléopâtre Séléné II - btv1b8484164s (1 of 2).jpg: needs a US PD tag.
  • File:Monnaie - Denier, Argent, Incertain, Maurétanie, Juba II - btv1b84840579 (1 of 2).jpg: ditto.
    • Done for all of these images.
  • Per MOS:POPCULT, we don't include "in popular culture" mentions unless they are discussed in detail in secondary sources -- if the only thing we can say is "Ptolemy appears in this work", cited to the work itself or a trivial discussion in a review etc, we should remove.
    • Removed the whole section.
  • The two footnotes need to be cited.
    • Done.
  • JSTOR shouldn't be used for the |url= parameter, which assumes a free-to-read URL: use |jstor= instead.
    • Fixed.

Spot checks to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll work on these suggestions right away. I don't mind if you have any nitpicks that go beyond GA, I might try to make this a featured article eventually. Edward056686 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Finished fixing those problems. Edward056686 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • his father's position as duumvir quinquennales,: quinquennales is plural: the singular is "quinquennalis". I would explain what it means (holding office for five years, rather than one). It wasn't usually an honorary position, but I suppose in this case we know or think that it was?
    • Fixed that typo. It's usually considered an honorary office for them because there's doubt as to whether Juba and Ptolemy ever visited Carthago Nova (plus Juba was also duumvir in Gades), and they definitely can't have been abroad long enough to actually carry out their duties. I added more explanation of the office, plus a source and explanation of honorary magistracies in the Julio-Claudian empire.

Spot checks

  • Could you provide the quote from the source that supports Ptolemy was the last reigning member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, although his grandmother Cleopatra is popularly described as the last Ptolemaic ruler?
    • The sobriquet is usually attached to his grandmother, but Ptolemaios of Mauretania was truly the last of the Ptolemies, although many others were to claim descent from the Hellenistic kings of Egypt.
    • I removed the word "reigning".
      • Do we need to mention Gaius Julius Alexion here? There's a lot of maybes -- Drusilla may have been Ptolemy's daughter; Alexion may have been her son. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
        • We could, but the relationship between Gaius Julius Alexion and Drusilla is more speculative than the other connections because no ancient source mentions it. It's arguable whether Ptolemy was the last Ptolemy, even if I think Roller makes a good case for it, so I changed it to call him "a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty". Edward056686 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Sculptures of Ptolemy portray him with a youthful appearance and comma-shaped locks around his forehead, which iconographically connected him with his relatives in the Julio-Claudian dynasty: checks out.
  • He was apparently related to the princess Drusilla, who is described by the Roman historian Tacitus as the granddaughter of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony (Bennet 2003) - no page number cited? P. 318 discusses it, but I'm not sure we have enough for "apparently": it's phrased as a "proposal" (in other words, a guess).
    • Bennett and the other sources don't challenge Tacitus' claim that Drusilla was somehow descended from Antony and Cleopatra, in fact Bennett suggests that Tacitus was probably giving a fairly accurate account. So the question isn't whether Ptolemy was her relative, and is more about what their precise relationship was (father, brother, cousin, etc). I added page ranges and removed the word "apparently".
  • Could you provide the quote to support but Caligula instead imprisoned him for an unknown period of time before having him executed?
    • Braund writes Ptolemy of Mauretania was not so fortunate: Gaius executed him. Before his execution, Ptolemy was held in detention, apparently at Rome, for an unspecified period. Some of the sources do their best to estimate the length of his imprisonment, but I felt it's best to mention that there isn't any specific source that mentions how much time passed.
  • In early AD 40, the emperor Caligula summoned Ptolemy to Rome: I couldn't get Barrett on this, but Shaw and Fishwick give it as the winter of AD 39/40 (p. 391).
    • Barrett spends some time on the timing of the execution, "Immediately before a major gap in his text Dio briefly informs us that he was put to death by Caligula. This is included under the events of AD 40. That is consistent with the numismatic and epigraphic evidence. [...] All of this seems to suggest that Ptolemy was summoned to Italy, imprisoned, and executed after Caligula's return from the north, sometime after the spring of 40. [...] The most plausible scenario is probably that Ptolemy was summoned in early 40 and journeyed to Italy to meet the emperor on the latter's return from the north.
    • The full section for Barrett is here[]. I added Fishwick and Shaw's dates so now it says Sometime in late AD 39[31] or early 40.
  • Historians Duncan Fishwick and Brent Shaw theorized that Ptolemy was killed because of his association with Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus (etc): I think we need to be fair to Fishwick and Shaw and say that they also say a) there's basically no good evidence for what happened and b) that he almost certainly had nothing to do with the conspiracy, but may well have been falsely rumoured to have done.
    • The entire paragraph only says that they theorized that he might have been suspected of a conspiracy because their families were linked, but I reworded it to be more clear that it's only a theory and that he was still probably innocent.
  • @UndercoverClassicist: I made some changes to the article and came to a consensus with Sobek2000 on a few points. Would you mind taking a final look at the article? Edward056686 (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @UndercoverClassicist: I would like to make this a Featured Article eventually, so I've made some major changes to the article during this review. I did wait a couple weeks between your last comments and when I started making big changes, but it's still a lot so I'd understand if you don't want to continue the review. Over the past month I've switched to just minor stuff like adding nbsp and small copyedits. Edward056686 (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)