Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Auxilia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Auxiliaries (Roman military)[edit]
- Promoted --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Review extended. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the suggestion by The Nouv, I'm submitting this article for A-class review. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I'll look at it more in depth later, but something that really stood out was the lack of inline citations for many paragraphs. For example, in the section Roman Republic (to 30 BC), the second paragraph is note cited. In the first and third paragraphs, if those citations belong to the entire paragraph, should they not be at the end - otherwise, I could assume that the second half of those paragraphs are unsourced. There are other paragraphs all the way down which follow the same pattern, and others which are completely unsourced. Can the principle editor be pinged to see if he or she can provide more references? It's a great article, and I'd hate to see it fail. It is notable that as the article progresses citations get a a lot better.
- Also, some of the citations can be grouped - for example, numbers 21, 22 and 23. Then 24 and 25. There are a few others. I apologize, but I don't know the site - what makes www.roman-britain.org a good source? I don't think this question is pertinant to A-class (not sure), but is a valuable question if the article is ever put through a FAC. Also, in reference 51 what does it mean by implied by Tacitus? If it's clear that this is said, perhaps the word implied shouldn't be used, otherwise this can be mistaken as an attempt to bring meaning out of something which may not be clear, which comes into the realm of POV and misinterpretations - I think this should be avoided.
- However, like I said, a good article and it would be great to see this as an A-class - especially as someone interested in classical military history. JonCatalán (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have the issues been sufficiently adressed? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- www.roman-britain.org is an excellent source. It gives the full epigraphic reference for each entry. EraNavigator (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they have! Support JonCatalán (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Overall a good effort, but needs a source/citation for the following statement towards the top of the article: "There is some evidence that there was a small number of women fighting amongst the auxilia as well. This was in contrast to the legions, which admitted Roman citizens only." Enriquecardova (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this recently contributed statement is someone's idea of a joke. I've removed it. EraNavigator (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs a lot of MOS cleanups - date ranges need ndash instead of hyphen. I have done some of these. Secondly, the citations that are repeated need to be grouped together with a b c d etc, whereas at the moment, many are just repeated printed out in full multiple times. Also why is it using BC/AD, and with they have to be used consistently. In some places they are omitted and in other places there are spaces after the number and/or after the ca. but in other places there are not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dates: BC and AD have only been used when there is ambiguity: i.e. during the rule of Augustus, which ran from 30BC to 14AD. Otherwise they are assumed AD. As for the rest of the MOS points: would you be so kind as to deal with them yourself, as I'm unfamiliar with these protocols? EraNavigator (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the suggestions in regards to B.C. versus B.C.E. and A.D. versus C.E.? B.C.E. and C.E. seem like the better choice, given their neutrality in terms of religious 'affiliation'. But, I'm not sure about Wikipedia's guidelines in this regard. JonCatalán (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe either may be used. Frankly, I think BCE and CE are politically correct nonsense and everyone I know (Christian or otherwise) has never had any problem using the traditional forms, which are easier to pronounce and distinguish. EraNavigator (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good interesting piece but it does need a MoS copy-edit and a spruce-up by a prose pro before it goes anywhere near FAC. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.