Wikipedia:Featured article review/Structural history of the Roman military/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by User:Marskell 17:28, 22 July 2008 [1].
Structural history of the Roman military[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history
It fails 1(c), the section on the Manipular legion is innacurate — there were at least two reforms during this period, and two different ypes of legions with varying tactics and equipment, the refs don't seem to be reliable in that respect. The Non-citizen recruitment (49 BC – 27 BC) section could be expanded too, and it should really be a subsection of the Marian legion, and also, rather than being reffered to as "Manipular legion", "Imperial legion" etc, thy are normally named after somebody, like the Marian legion — the manipular legion was orignially a Camillan legion, but after some reforms became the Polybian legion, and the Imperial legion should be the Augustan legion.
{{Cite book}} and similar templates aren't used at all in the article, instead the refs are handmade, and the lead section lacks references (Okay, it is just a summary of the article but it should have the same refs as in the section is summarises, shouldn't it?)--Serviam (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without getting into the accuracy issue—I'm not really qualified to comment on that—neither citation templates nor citation in the lead section are required by any policy or guideline, and, with an article this heavily cited, simply collecting citations for the lead by gathering those from the relevant sections would make it unreadable in any case. Kirill (prof) 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just sorta echoing Kirill here: footnotes in the lead section are a mistake rather than a requirement, last time I checked (which has been awhile). And there's really no need to use {{Cite book}} ever. But this particular article does use a weird {{bibliobox}} template, which is an odd and ungainly innovation that has no precedent in the published world, as far as I know. This is the only article that uses it—and the creator no longer edits Wikipedia—so anyone should feel free to reformat the "Bibliography" section to one of the standard Wikipedia formats. Having a separate "footnotes" and "citations" section is another unneeded oddity, but not unheard of on Wikipedia. Combining the two would be an easy improvement.
- As for the inaccuracies, it might have been more productive to raise those issues on the talk page of the article first, rather than here, unless the nominator feels the article is too inaccurate to easily salvage. Reviewers here typically won't know enough about a given topic to judge if the nominator is more knowledgeable than those who wrote the featured article. —Kevin Myers 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the guy who did most of the work on it, and most Roman articles, stopped editing sometime last year (PocklingtonDan). I'll put a not eon the military history project talk page then. It may be possible to salvage it, though it would take a good bit of work, and I'm not prepared to do it at the moment, though someone else might.--Serviam (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the Template:Bibliobox from the references. May I say that I don't think has any citation issues of any form. It seems to be one of the most well-cited articles I have seen. From an accuracy standpoint, it follows the sources; if you question those sources then you need to provide your own that contradict them.
- If I am reading your concerns correctly, you think the Manipular region section should be renamed? I disagree, that section header adequately explains the content of the section, and as such it does its job. To add it to the "Marian legion (107 BC – 49 BC)" section would destroy the chronology. Woody (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say to add it there, I meant that it should be split it into two sections; Camillan legion and Polybian legion, that's the main innacuracy, because half way through that section there was a large military reform which has been completely ommited, so I suppose it's more 1(b) than 1(c). It also doesn't mention Leves, light javelin armed infantry, predessesors of the velites, which don't seem to have received any coverage on wikipedia at all...--Serviam (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the "Non-citizen recruitment (49 BC – 27 BC)" section should really be a subsection of "Marian legion (107 BC – 49 BC)", which actually lasted untill 27 BC, when Augustus came to power. "Introduction of vexillationes (76 AD – 117 AD)" should be a subsection of "Imperial legions and reformation of the auxilia (27 BC – 75 AD)", which should really be called "Augustan legion", and lasted up untill 117 AD, a bit of 2(b) there . The seperate citations and footnotes sections are also a little strange--Serviam (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for my sources, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] are all reliable, particularly the second link, that gives an in-depth history of the roman legions.--Serviam (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that strange to have separate footnotes and citations, it is becoming more and more common on FACs as it is clearer to the reader. With regards to the subsections, I can't really comment yet as I haven't looked into it enough. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay thanks for your comments anyway.--Serviam (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How are those sources reliable. They all look like they come from fairly unreliable websites, except maybe the second link which is an excerpt from a book from 1875 - not exactly the newest research. Surely the multiple book sources used now are more reliable? --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are reliable in that they seem to agree with the stuff I know about the Romans, so I assume they are reliable. and regardless of refs, there is a good bit of stuff left out. Those books that are already in the article mention it, probably the author of the wikipedia article didn't think them significant (As they still faught in maniples, but had different equipment and weapons and some kinds of troops had disappeared)--Serviam (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:RS regarding sources. Web sources must be written either by a noted historian or noted organisation or clearly and transparently demonstrate their sources. Otherwise anyone could have written them without any academic legitimacy. These sources do not (at least at first glance) fulfill either of these requirements and as the person suggesting them, the onus is on you to prove their reliability. I think this issue is one that would be better raised on the talk page rather than here. To add, citations should not be used in the lead, the lead is an introduction and anything mentioned there should be cited elsewhere in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read what I said, please, the books used in the article do mention this, but they have been left out in the article for some strange reason.--Serviam (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So use the books not the websites. Requesting expansion doesn't require new sources if the old ones have the info needed. Jay32183 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? I was asked for other sources, and I found them...--Serviam (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is some confusion here. Basically, if the books contain the information required then you (or someone else with the books) should use the information in them to deal with the comprehensiveness issues you raise and use the books to source this expansion. The websites you provided cannot be used to source an FA because (per WP:RS) they have no obvious indication that what they state has any academic legitimacy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? I was asked for other sources, and I found them...--Serviam (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So use the books not the websites. Requesting expansion doesn't require new sources if the old ones have the info needed. Jay32183 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read what I said, please, the books used in the article do mention this, but they have been left out in the article for some strange reason.--Serviam (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:RS regarding sources. Web sources must be written either by a noted historian or noted organisation or clearly and transparently demonstrate their sources. Otherwise anyone could have written them without any academic legitimacy. These sources do not (at least at first glance) fulfill either of these requirements and as the person suggesting them, the onus is on you to prove their reliability. I think this issue is one that would be better raised on the talk page rather than here. To add, citations should not be used in the lead, the lead is an introduction and anything mentioned there should be cited elsewhere in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are reliable in that they seem to agree with the stuff I know about the Romans, so I assume they are reliable. and regardless of refs, there is a good bit of stuff left out. Those books that are already in the article mention it, probably the author of the wikipedia article didn't think them significant (As they still faught in maniples, but had different equipment and weapons and some kinds of troops had disappeared)--Serviam (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How are those sources reliable. They all look like they come from fairly unreliable websites, except maybe the second link which is an excerpt from a book from 1875 - not exactly the newest research. Surely the multiple book sources used now are more reliable? --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay thanks for your comments anyway.--Serviam (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that strange to have separate footnotes and citations, it is becoming more and more common on FACs as it is clearer to the reader. With regards to the subsections, I can't really comment yet as I haven't looked into it enough. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason that the footnotes are alpha, delta, beta, lambda, eta, xi? I'd have expected alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta. It's a minor concern, but since we're here, I'd thought I'd ask. Jay32183 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixes needed. Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS throughout on direct quotes. Some clauses are double and triple cited; there seems to be some overciting, but a content expert would need to evaluate. I found missing named refs and there are like more (I can put them in a spreadsheet later to check unless someone else gets to it first). Wikilinking is going to need attention (I linked one word, and noticed Bronze Age unlinked, as samples). That's all I had time for, but maybe someone will get to some of this before I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts I've got through my other article work suprisingly fast, and at thsi rate I can start fixing the small factual errors early next week. Unless anyone else thinks it shouldn;t be, I say just leave it featured.--Serviam (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can leave it featured after you fixed the errors. (That has a priority over fixing triarii) Wandalstouring (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c). Marskell (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article's referencing level looks to me fine (although I do not have the time to proof-read them, I admit). And it is a great article! Which should keep its star. The prose is good, but I cannot say if it deserves to be called "professional". I think we'll need Tony's or Ceoil's opinion on that. As far as I am concerned, I'll work on the formatting of the citations, and on the MoS issues my eye will catch.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Density of citations is not a problem AFAICS. Well written, and overall grand. ( Ceoil sláinte 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was hoping for more comments, but I think this is in keep territory and will move it out now. Marskell (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.