Rewrote along newer consensus that Sulla's "conservatism" was just branding rather than actually trying to go back to the past. Sulla's "new republic" was a very different kind of beast than the traditional republic that preceded it. Flower 2010.
New version does not engage in party politics. Also explains the (now over-a-century-old) consensus that populares and optimates were methods of working and ideological bents rather than Democrats and Republicans™. See generally Robb 2018.
Rewrite completed with reference to newer scholarship in English. Also included more illustrations corrected a number of factual errors identified in the older article. Also excised the party-politics "populares-hate-the-death-penalty" (Cinna, Marius, Octavian, Antony, Lepidus, and Caesar – especially in his second campaign to Spain during the civil war – just really hate the death penalty don't they!) 19th century descriptions.
New content. While the clustering of the topics may be slightly artificial, each sub-element is not entirely well discussed alone, as the emergency decrees went together in a package.
The article seemed to have been written like so: someone wrote up an article treating it as if it were real; then someone realised that nobody believes that anymore and added a few hedge words all over the place; it then stayed that way for a decade. There is a consensus that the 1st CC is fictitious; the article should reflect that from root to branch.
Sourcing was rather poor and heavily biased towards Cicero. Rewrote based on DH Berry's Catilinarians along with other sources. Gruen 1995 includes a great analysis of who joined the conspiracy and their disparate reasons. Old article read like Catiline's conspiracy (1) popped into existence like Athena and at the same time (2) was something Catiline – DEVILISH PLOTTER! – had been planning since he was an infant.
Sourcing also was rather poor. It was based heavily on Sallust, which is known to be not entirely reliable in all matters: he's more focused on blackening Catiline's character than giving a truthful recollection of events. I didn't rewrite the Cultural depictions section: I'm not sure how people write these, honestly, they seem to be very ad hoc. There doesn't seem to be any academic literature which reviews Catiline's cultural legacy in toto (Beard 2015 devotes a few paragraphs but that is not sufficient).
Wrote an article on the War of Mutina, taking place of jumbled and duplicated narratives at the two battle pages: Battle of Mutina and Battle of Forum Gallorum. Some further work necessary to clean up those battle pages.
Hugely expanded on a relatively terse article which missed a number of earlier life events and included some dubious inaccuracies (inheriting the post of pontifex maximus; claiming that he was assassinated by Gracchans). New version also provided needed context to his most famous act, killing Tiberius Gracchus, which in the original was a Gracchan-influenced morality play (which is not surprising given that Plut. TG has been hypothesised to be based on such a play).
Overwrote an article which was based on this ancient 1920s Bennett paper that has been largely panned by more recent scholarship: [Bennett's] more general conclusions do not seem to be consistent with the facts and he seems to misunderstand both Cinna's position in Rome and his importance in Roman politics. New version is based on CAH2 9 and a recent book on Cinna published in 2002 which encompasses a lot of the re-evaluation of the mid-century. "I followed my usual custom and took up the general cause of" – Sall. Cat. 35 – excising the unnecessary repetition of melodramatic primary source anecdotes.
Old version of the article was largely a paraphrase of Plut. Cam., which is simply extremely bad research. Rewritten version is based largely on four sources: the OCD4 article by Drummond, Cornell 1995, Forsythe 2005, and Münzer's article in RE. The last one was the most annoying: I spent about a week typing the article – in academic German (which I don't know) – into Wikisource! Later additions sourced from R M Ogilvie's Commentary on Livy.
Started work on a page on the quaestiones perpetuae, the permanent jury courts of the republic. Honestly, was kinda shocked at the time: how do we not have one?.
It has a full set of citations for what he did now, where, and why you should believe instead of massive uncited portions that were just paraphrases anecdotes and battle scenes of Livy and Polybius.
Old version of the article was really bad. New version deals substantially with the archaeological remains of the period, recent research on the Gracchi, their influences per that recent research, an accurate summary of their activities, the aftermath of the reforms, their legacy, how their legacy was formed, etc. It does not include non-historians' speculations about how certain slaves owned by other people were the most virtuous.
Old version was very short. Substantial narrative and explanations added from CAH2 8, Badian and Gruen's journal articles and book chapters, etc. Name is not yet stable as to 12 April though, but article content is radically overhauled for the better.
The old version of the article repeated 19th century nonsense about fictitious reforms that never happened. Bret Devereaux rightfully wrote on the matter here. Rewrote entirely using modern sources (and had to read large portions of Cadiou, L'armee imaginaire (2018), a hard-to-get book in academic French). Took feedback on the article draft from two classicists (both of whom ended up cited in the article). Started prior to Devereaux's blog post but news of it pushed my incipient thoughts on it to completion.
Old version was largely incomplete and reliant on a number of primary sources (mainly Cicero). Rewrote based on Tatum 1999, also replacing obsolete or popular press secondary sources such as Holland Rubicon and DGRBM.
Pursuant to discussion on WP:CGR, to be archived probably at 43, article then at Lycurgus (lawgiver) was stubified. My version, which at the time was incipient, was then worked on aggressively to fill in the content gap. I moved over the stubified version on given day.
Replaced old article which was essentially wrong, while also spending a huge amount of time on irrelevant stuff (like the trinundinum that didn't even apply to the curiae), due to its reliance on Abbott History and description of Roman political institutions (1901).
Replaced old article which was still mainly based around the 1911 Britannica with one written around on modern sources. Included novel coverage of municipal aediles.
Replaced old article which was essentially Unreliable primary source X said foo; unreliable primary source Y said bar; and unreliable primary source Z said baz for every event in the entire war. New article covers background, course, aftermath, and legacy using the best modern treatment of the conflict, Kent 2020, with comparison from other modern sources such as CAH2 7.2.
Replaced old article which was mainly original research from primary sources with a few citations to not-super-reliable secondary sources with one written on CAH2 9 and other sources. Generally kept to a summary style with a focus on themes rather than a day-by-day recounting of events.
No article on the iudicia publica existed before. Having already written the article on the quaestiones perpetuae, this was necessary to complete the task.
Tatum, W Jeffrey (1999). The patrician tribune: Publius Clodius Pulcher. Studies in the history of Greece and Rome (Paperbacked.). University of North Carolina Press. ISBN978-0-8078-7206-2. LCCN98-37096.