Talk:Londinium/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this article is a long way from GA standard.

There is no source for the lead image and the note for it is unreferenced.
The next map of Roman Britain has text so small that (on my screen) some of the text is illegible.
According to Wikipedia rules, images of coins are copyright if taken from websites or copyright books.
There are a number of "citation needed" markers. These should be dealt with before GAN.
Some of the sources cited - e.g. refs 2, 3, and 16 - are original sources. This is original research.
Notes should give the information needed, not refer to another note, particularly where no page numbers are given, as with note 8.
Citation styles are erratic and inconsistent and erratic. Merrifield's London, City of the Romans is frequently cited, yet it is not in the list of references. It is cited in note 29 but details of the book are not given until note 40.
The arrangement of books in the references section is erratic. They should be in alphabetical order of surname of author, which should be shown before the forename.
The discussion of the origin of the name London is unsatisfactory. "Instead, the Latin name was probably based on a native Brittonic placename reconstructed as *Londinion." This is referenced to an 1889 work as endorsed by a 1911 work. This is far too dated. It is unclear how the 9th century History of the Britons is relevant to the origin over 800 years earlier. Modern discussions are by Schrijver and Coates (referred to in the notes and discussed in more detail in Etymology of London article). I have a copy of Coates' article which I can email to you if you wish.
The section on location is unreferenced.
The section on status has 2 "citation needed".
The founding section has "citation needed" and the last paragraph is unreferenced.
Roads section. The last part of the first paragraph is unreferenced and another "citation needed".
Boudicca. The quote from Tacitus is WP:OR and the last comment that "no supporting archaeological evidence has been discovered" is cited to an 1878 source, which is far too old for such a statement.
1st century - another "citation needed".
2nd century - the 2st paragraph and most of the 3rd are unreferenced.
London Wall - 2 more "citation needed" and the end of all 3 paragaraphs are unreferenced.
Carausian Revolt - the last 2 sentences are unreferenced.
4th century - the last sentences in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs are unreferenced.
5th century - another "citation needed" and most of the first paragraph is unreferenced.
There is the basis of a good article here, but it needs far more work, so I regret I have to fail it. Do nominate it again once the issues have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]