Talk:Marian reforms/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I should say at the outset that I'm hugely impressed with the recent work on this article: having read Bret Devereux's critique of the old one, it's extremely impressive to see such a dramatic turnaround on a topic with many eyes on it and where, I suspect, making bold changes is not always easy. Will give it a read now and make initial comments. I'm a classicist but this isn't my specific field, so I'll try to make tentative comments on content as well as form, but please do bear my relative inexpertise in mind.
Resolved matters
[edit]Resolved matters
|
---|
|
Comments before formal review
[edit]Lead/General
[edit]- The article is inconsistent as to whether it's e.g. the 20th century or the twentieth. Personally, I'd spell it out, but anything consistent is fine.
- The MOS would prefer e.g. Marius's, but compliance with that particular clause isn't needed for GA and I'm perfectly happy to overlook it.
- There are a few very short paragraphs of only one or two sentences. If possible, it's better to combine these into more substantial blocks.
- The use of names-as-adjectives could be a little unclear, especially to those with English as an additional language: I'd suggest e.g. Polybius' credibility rather than Polybian credibility in most cases.
- In my copyedit, I've cut out a few bits that could be seen as WP:PUFFERY ("a very influential article...", "an important book..." etc).
- MOS:LEADCITE: unless a direct or implied quotation, we don't generally cite things in the lead that are also cited in the body. Under MOS:LEAD, there shouldn't really be anything in the lead that isn't in the body, and there shouldn't really be anything in the body that isn't cited, so most of the citations in the lead should be possible to do away with.
Background
[edit]For much of the twentieth century, historians held that the property qualification separating the five classes and the was reduced over the course of the second century to a nugatory level due to a shortage of manpower. It is not clear whether, over the course of the second century BC, the qualification was actually reduced.
: the join between these two sentences is a little confusing. As we've started the first one with a time phrase, it would help to do the same for the second: when did we start to change our minds? Alternatively, we could give some idea as to why C20th historians thought as they did, and why that evidence is no longer considered convincing.
"The view that the property qualification... was progressively reduced derives much of its plausibility from the fact that it fits well with received doctrine on Roman manpower... It would thus smack of circularity to use the supposed second century reduction in the property qualification as evidence for the shortage of assidui."
Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)- That's a footnote: most people won't read that at the same time as the main text (or indeed at all). Bringing the first part of that in paraphrase into the main text would be an advantage, I think. I like the pugnaciousness of "it would smack of circularity" but best kept far from Wikivoice! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Added a mention of the three figures. Ifly6 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I now find this sentence (
It is not clear whether, over the course of the second century BC, the qualification was actually reduced, as the basis for that belief was merely three undated figures for it which could be ordered in a descending order
) very hard to follow. Suggest something likeHowever, the basis for that belief was merely three undated Roman figures for the amount of property required to serve, and it is therefore unclear whether that qualification actually did reduce over time.
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)- Rephrased taking some of your suggestion into account. Ifly6 (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I now find this sentence (
- Added a mention of the three figures. Ifly6 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's a footnote: most people won't read that at the same time as the main text (or indeed at all). Bringing the first part of that in paraphrase into the main text would be an advantage, I think. I like the pugnaciousness of "it would smack of circularity" but best kept far from Wikivoice! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Attributed reforms
[edit]In traditional modern historiography
: I'd suggest coming up with a consistent shorthand for "the view that Marius snapped his fingers and everything changed overnight". I'm not sure that modern is quite right, given that we're situating this as an outdated paradigm, but also worry that traditional might give it a bit more gravitas than needed.
- The words are used that way because there are two traditional historiographies. The first is the traditional historiography of Plut, Val Max, etc. The second is the traditional historiography of moderns. The word "traditional" has been criticised as implicitly meaning "out-dated"; it's well situated in the middle if you think it's also giving something gravitas. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's sometimes a little unclear to this reader, at least, which scholarly body is being talked about. Presumably "traditional modern historiography" isn't that of Plutarch and co.? Suggest "in the conventional view of the Marian Reforms...", which leaves both doors open but is also clear that we're not talking about modern-modern (post 1980ish which is, after all, nearly half a century ago...) historiography. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it the "conventional" view because it isn't the conventional view anymore. Given the timing of "modern" stretches from the Early modern period to the present, I don't really think "modern" means "recently". Ifly6 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think something can be both "modern" and no longer in use ("modern cars have bench seats and a man with a red flag to walk in front of them"). I wouldn't have a massive problem with simply traditional historiography. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps something akin to "classical"? "Older"? "Traditional" implies some sort of fundamental conflict and change in sources and methods, which, while would be appropriate if we were referring to Gibbon, doesn't sit well with the relative contemporaneousness of this misconception and the continuation of that into popular conception. Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Possible (though again, the problem of older vs oldest will arise). "Maximalist" might be an option, though I'm wary of creating historiographical terminology de novo. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps something akin to "classical"? "Older"? "Traditional" implies some sort of fundamental conflict and change in sources and methods, which, while would be appropriate if we were referring to Gibbon, doesn't sit well with the relative contemporaneousness of this misconception and the continuation of that into popular conception. Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think something can be both "modern" and no longer in use ("modern cars have bench seats and a man with a red flag to walk in front of them"). I wouldn't have a massive problem with simply traditional historiography. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it the "conventional" view because it isn't the conventional view anymore. Given the timing of "modern" stretches from the Early modern period to the present, I don't really think "modern" means "recently". Ifly6 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Beyond the attribution to Marius of setting the precedent for recruiting the poor, made by the historian Valerius Maximus in the early 1st century AD, only two reforms (distinguished from mere actions taken by Marius) are attributed, in sources postdating his career by hundreds of years, to Marius directly: a redesign of the pilum and sole use of the eagle as the legionary standard
: this is a very long sentence, with lots of subordination: Cicero would have loved it, but it would be clearer if split down.
- There's lots of sources and people named here. Given that we're tracking a debate over time, I think it's important that we properly introduce each one by where, when and from roughly what perspective they wrote: I'd added a bit on Valerius Maximus. Sallust's ideological attachment to Caesar, for example, is important (because if the Republic collapsed because of moral decline, you can't blame his boss!), while it's relevant that CAH 2 was written between the 1970s and 1990s, while Caidou is very up-to-the-minute (in fact, his 2018 book is a spruced-up version of his doctoral thesis from 2013).
- RJ Evans was a DPhil student when he wrote the cited source:
he's gone on to fairly distinguished things, but not as a classicist[it's a different RJ Evans]. Perhaps too much prominence given to him here? Perhaps similar on Caidou, though at least that's a peer-reviewed book: more context might help. Have you seen this review?
- Yes, I have seen it. It's ... in the bibliography and cited in the body. I had the author of that review look over this article before I pushed to the main-space. Cadiou cites Evans positively. Ifly6 (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, if Evans is what we've got, it's what we've got, but we should as a matter of principle look to replace a doctoral thesis with a more heavily-vetted work of scholarship (per WP:THESIS) if the opportunity arises. We're absolutely fine to use it here; there's no reliability issue especially given its citation in wider literature. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is a book version of the thesis: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24594537 (a review thereof). I didn't cite the book as I don't have it; the thesis version is far more widely available. Ifly6 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- The book version is available online here, in various PDFs. It would be an improvement to cite that over the thesis (since it will have undergone further review by the author and others), but certainly above and beyond the call of duty for this stage. If it turns out to be a straightforward job, I might have a go at porting the citations over. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is a book version of the thesis: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24594537 (a review thereof). I didn't cite the book as I don't have it; the thesis version is far more widely available. Ifly6 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The second edition Cambridge Ancient History
: why this and not Lintott by name?It is sometimes claimed that Marius' decision...
: as this narrative goes on, it starts to get unclear that we're still talking about a discredited point of view; the tone sounds as if we're simply stating facts, until the sharp stop of "there are, however...".Beyond continued conscription after Marius' time, especially during the Social War, the wealth and social background of the men who joined before and after the opening of recruitment changed little
: I don't think beyond quite works in this context: usually, it should mean "except for", but conscription is being identified as as point of continuity.- Now changed to "Notwithstanding", which still implies that continued conscription should have changed the wealth and social background of the men who joined the army. Assuming the opposite is intended, we could simply split the sentence: "Conscription continued ... and the wealth and social background ..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Ifly6 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
only five asses per day
: can we put that into context as to roughly how much it was?
- Ancient prices are practically inconvertible to modern prices. That it was not much is already present. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- The usual way to do this is to compare with something like a day's pay for a skilled worker (admittedly, we often use military pay as the yardstick...). It's a pretty common practice in ancient historical writing; you're right that it would be unhelpful to say "equivalent to $10 today" or something equally arbitrary. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Further to this: on spot check, Gruen calls it "a bare subsistence". I'd add that judgement to the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Extremely low
with Gruen quote "bare subsistence" added to note. Ifly6 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Further to this: on spot check, Gruen calls it "a bare subsistence". I'd add that judgement to the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- On the pilum, it's not clear to someone who doesn't already know what the wooden peg would do. We're missing the (now debated) assertion that the head was meant to break off.
Marius' redesign did not stick
: MOS:IDIOM would like this rephrased more literally, particularly as pila do, literally, stick into shields and people.
- We don't entirely know what the wooden peg does. Plutarch isn't entirely clear. The head wasn't meant to break off. (Also, the common claim that the pilum was designed to do these things is wrong: military historians now largely believe that it was a nice plus from a design meant to penetrate.) Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- This seems clear enough in the article at the moment; either a clarifying edit or simply my eyes adjusting on second reading. On the eagles, we have Nash 2010, p91. in The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus (here), who talks about the eagle as one of, along with the standard itself, "the archetypal symbols of order and discipline within the Roman army". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Pliny's Natural History
: as before, contextualise. Can we make it explicit that the eagle was the universal standard by Pliny's day, and so he's doing the classic Roman thing of projecting something important back onto a great man of the past?
- I don't know whether the eagle is universal by the imperial period. That would require a source. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- There's a couple of circas in this section: if used, these should be bracketed off, but see my comment on the Pyrrhic War above as to whether more precise dates wouldn't be better.
- There two. The first is the arming of capite censi during the Pyrrhic war requiring a circa. The second is Gaius Gracchus' two tribunates which are so mixed together it also requires a circa. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- The only one that's a problem is
before deploying them in the Lusitanian War c. 145 BC
, which is the problem of having the abbreviation in body text. As the date is for the deployment, not the war, I'd suggestbefore deploying them in approximately 145 BC during the Lusitanian War
. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)- I don't think having c. is an issue. Ifly6 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not enough of one to hold up a GA nomination, at any rate. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think having c. is an issue. Ifly6 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- The only one that's a problem is
- There two. The first is the arming of capite censi during the Pyrrhic war requiring a circa. The second is Gaius Gracchus' two tribunates which are so mixed together it also requires a circa. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Polybius'
: we've given a date for the battle, but more important to give one for Polybius (and perhaps to explain a bit about him to establish that he knew what he was talking about).
- The date of Polybius is not relevant; that he is usually reliable is now added and cited. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the date is important when we're saying that he's the first attestation of something. I do think "a usually reliable historian" is a bit simplistic in these postmodern days, but I'm not going to start a major scrap over it at GA level. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Only during the civil wars
: I'd give an explicit time period here, as we're trying to date this development. Likewise for triumviral period later.
- Added
later last century BC
. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) - Added dates for Caesar's civvy and the triumviral period. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've added dates already: 49 – 45 BC and 43 – 31 BC. Ifly6 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'd give specific dates for Caesar's civil war and the triumviral period, as the relative chronology is important to the argument that the article is making.
- Added
mutineers demanded lands as a pretext for larger donatives
: I'm not sure the word pretext (a false justification for something) is quite right here: do we mean that mutineers demanded lands as a form of donative?
- They demanded lands as a pretext for a cash donative as in I say I want land but actually I want a bribe. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah: so they never really expected to receive the lands? If so, suggest expanding a little and clarifying. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- That feels like what the word "pretext" in this sentence would mean. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- It wasn't clear to me when I read it; it's possible that I'm the only one who'd fail to see the intended meaning, but I doubt it. Pretext is itself an often-misunderstood word. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- That feels like what the word "pretext" in this sentence would mean. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah: so they never really expected to receive the lands? If so, suggest expanding a little and clarifying. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- They demanded lands as a pretext for a cash donative as in I say I want land but actually I want a bribe. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Historiography
[edit]largely in the interest of creating exempla (moral parables) of traditions broken rather than conveying historical events
: I think the antithesis here is a little strong: would suggest removing the second part, as Val. Max. would probably have argued that the two were one and the same. It's certainly not a distinction that any Roman historian would have recognised, and an increasingly problematic one in modern historiography (with apologies to poor old Ranke).
- I'm rather sure this distinction still carries weight. It's also what's in cited Cadiou. That Val Max's claims are thought of poorly and with history contorted into his framework is well established. See Gowing 2005, the introduction to Val Max in the recent Loebs, etc. Whether or not Val Max would have recognised this distinction is irrelevant; modern historians don't think Tiberius Gracchus (or was it Gaius) tried to overthrow the senate as Val Max claims. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Happy if cited, though I'll put this one into the spot checks. Since the various 'Turns' (linguistic and social) of the tail end of the last century, historians (and ancient historians in particular) are pretty wary of the idea that there exists an 'objective' historian narrative (wie es eigentlich gewesen), and that historians are either stating facts or displaying their nasty, tricky biases. Every source has a perspective and will be influenced by that perspective even when simply reporting things that are true (how do you choose which truths to report, in what order, and with what language?). A fairly simple fix would be just to delete rather than conveying historical events. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- My translation the relevant portion of of Cadiou 2018 p 88:
Ifly6 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Thus, on closer inspection, most of the texts mentioning the dilectus of 107 do not make the levy as such the object of their discourse, but use the trace of it in the collective memory as a pretext to formulate moral considerations which, in reality, constitute their real subject (ambitio for Sallust; consuetudo for Valerius Maximus) or which arise from the most stereotypical observations of the political imagination (acting bono publico in Exuperantius; the drift of superbia for John the Lydian). However, the discursive practices of ancient authors – whether they are historians, biographers, or rhetoricians – do not guarantee that these interpretations necessarily have a direct relationship with the historical fact on which they claim to be based.
- Happy if cited, though I'll put this one into the spot checks. Since the various 'Turns' (linguistic and social) of the tail end of the last century, historians (and ancient historians in particular) are pretty wary of the idea that there exists an 'objective' historian narrative (wie es eigentlich gewesen), and that historians are either stating facts or displaying their nasty, tricky biases. Every source has a perspective and will be influenced by that perspective even when simply reporting things that are true (how do you choose which truths to report, in what order, and with what language?). A fairly simple fix would be just to delete rather than conveying historical events. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm rather sure this distinction still carries weight. It's also what's in cited Cadiou. That Val Max's claims are thought of poorly and with history contorted into his framework is well established. See Gowing 2005, the introduction to Val Max in the recent Loebs, etc. Whether or not Val Max would have recognised this distinction is irrelevant; modern historians don't think Tiberius Gracchus (or was it Gaius) tried to overthrow the senate as Val Max claims. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Much of this work, however, did not carry over into the Anglophone scholarship until the 1980s / The British classicist Peter Brunt, in his 1971 book Italian Manpower, also questioned the extent to which Polybius' descriptions reflected the army of the mid-second century
: these two sentences don't quite fit together. Was Brunt a radical outlier in 1971, or had he only taken on part of the revisionist view?
- Omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
William Harris
: who and when was he?
- Harris is a classics professor at Columbia. I've now noted the citation that F makes. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- A small nit:
William Vernon Harris, an American classicist, first showed in 1979
means that the first time Harris showed it was in 1979, but I think we mean that Harris was the first to show it, and that he did so in 1979. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)- Omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- A small nit:
- Harris is a classics professor at Columbia. I've now noted the citation that F makes. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
this recast Marius' call in 107BC for volunteers as Numidia not being a rich eastern kingdom on which Roman armies could engorge themselves
: this is a bit confusing. I think phrasing it in the positive (that is, getting rid of the not) would help.
- Rephrased. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
this recast Marius' call in 107 BC for volunteers as reflecting enthusiasm emerging from the relative scarcity of expected plunder from Numidia
: I no longer understand this (lots of abstract nouns, which might be the problem). Do we mean that Marius called for volunteers because he expected there to be relatively little plunder available in Numidia (and therefore that soldiers weren't signing up in their usual numbers)? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Do we mean that Marius called for volunteers because he expected there to be relatively little plunder available in Numidia (and therefore that soldiers weren't signing up in their usual numbers)?
Yes. Ifly6 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)- OK: suggest clarifying if you haven't already done so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Rephrased. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
and the bidding wars for military loyalty that waged concurrently with the actual fighting
: this could be clearer: in particular, we could establish the extent to which bidding wars is (not) a metaphor.
- I used
bidding wars
because it is not a metaphor. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) - Strictly speaking, it's inherently a metaphor (most auctions don't involve generals, divisions and bloodshed): since it's so commonly used in a more figurative sense, we might consider being absolutely explicit that we mean "generals making attempts to secure their soldiers' loyalty through gifts and donatives" (ideally phrased a little more snappily than I've just managed). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- How about
generals' attempts to secure military loyalty with pay increases
? Ifly6 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)- If accurate: in my head, I think of donatives here, but those might be more an imperial-period thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- How about
- I used
Citations
[edit]- MOS:TITLECAPS would like title case (The History of Rome, not The history of Rome) at least for book and journal titles in English, though some style guides do otherwise for chapter and article titles.
- In note 92, we have the unsourced statement
Rüstow's book became the main progenitor of the comprehensive Marian reforms hypothesis, likely because it was written in German instead of Latin.
- It's not unsourced. Note 92:
Faszcza 2021, p. 21. Rüstow's book became the main progenitor of the comprehensive Marian reforms hypothesis, likely because it was written in German instead of Latin.
Ifly6 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC) - Ah: is that sentence cited to Faszcza 2021, p21? The full stop implies otherwise. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's in the same note. Ifly6 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's the equivalent of citing the sentence before if you put a period/full stop after it. To indicate that it supports the sentence after, you use a colon. Even less ambiguous would be a footnote within a footnote. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Resolved. Ifly6 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's the equivalent of citing the sentence before if you put a period/full stop after it. To indicate that it supports the sentence after, you use a colon. Even less ambiguous would be a footnote within a footnote. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's in the same note. Ifly6 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not unsourced. Note 92:
- Strongly advise against the abbreviation et seq, both for accessibility and for precision: giving a definite range is much better.
Image review
[edit]- File:Friedrich Wilhelm Rüstow.jpg needs a tag for the original work.
- There are no leads as to the publication date of the "original" photograph. We should bring this to GAR discussion. Ifly6 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what there is to discuss: the key to the US copyright is the date of publication (see here). If it had never been published before 2003, you could use PD-US-unpublished, but as we know it was published in 1935, that won't wash. Alternatively, if you can find the 1935 publication and show that it doesn't have a copyright notice, and that its author's life plus 70 years ended before 1996, you can use PD-1996. Very happy for you to call on a second opinion if you'd like. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Friedrich_Wilhelm_R%C3%BCstow.jpg)
- Removed the image of Rüstow. I sent a message to the Swiss National Library as to whether they have higher quality images of the man. If they get back I might add something of the sort back. There is simply no way to prove, without onerous archival research, anything about the original publication date of the image. Ifly6 (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Spot checks (sourcing, TSI, plagiarism)
[edit]Earwig's happy: it flags up a few bits of overlap with online sources, but those are limited to the fact that both have cited the same sources. I can't see anything on the CLOP side to be concerned about at this stage.
In each case, could I have the direct quotation for the sourced material. I don't need translations from French, but would appreciate them from Polish.
- Note 17
Under the this scheme, the proletarii were exempt from conscription except when an emergency, called a tumultus, was declared; under such circumstances, the poorest were levied as well. The first documented instance of the proletarii being called up was some time in the fourth century; they first received arms at state expense in c. 281 BC, at the start of the Pyrrhic War.
(OCD 4).
An emergency levy (tumultuarius dilectus) was the only time that *proletarii (citizens who fell below the military census qualification for military service) could be enrolled (Gell. 16. 10. 11–13), and on a famous occasion, probably the invasion of *Pyrrhus in 281 BCE, they were for the first time armed at public expense (Enn., Ann. 170–2 Skutsch; Cassius Hemina fr. 21 Peter).
Ifly6 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)- All good except that I don't understand where our circa has crept in: circa is a matter of precision rather than accuracy, and the OCD seems certain that 281 is the precise date for the arming if it were indeed related to Pyrrhus' invasion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've confirmed that the date given in Cassius Hemina fr 21 Peter is exactly 281 BC per Quintus Marcius Philippus (consul 281 BC). Ifly6 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand the source, it's clear that, if the first arming was during the Pyrrhic War, it was definitely 281 BC, but it's only "probably" certain that those two events go together. We've collapsed that in the article and need to phrase it a little less confidently (more or less as the source does would be fine, as the phrasing is so quotidian) to maintain WP:TSI. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Ifly6 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand the source, it's clear that, if the first arming was during the Pyrrhic War, it was definitely 281 BC, but it's only "probably" certain that those two events go together. We've collapsed that in the article and need to phrase it a little less confidently (more or less as the source does would be fine, as the phrasing is so quotidian) to maintain WP:TSI. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've confirmed that the date given in Cassius Hemina fr 21 Peter is exactly 281 BC per Quintus Marcius Philippus (consul 281 BC). Ifly6 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]I had talked to Taylor. There are no in-depth historiographies in English. Rafferty recommended Cadiou, already cited, but Cadiou's historiographical section in the introduction goes only back to the late 19th century. Ifly6 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't have current access to the original Cadiou in French; the only place nearby that has it is the Library of Congress. I wrote for myself an English translation, however. Ifly6 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- We can do the checks without Caidou: it's not ideal to have to take the article's main source on faith, but it is what it is. Ignore those for now; let's work through what we've got here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Review template
[edit]GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- With the caveat that I've only been able to check a major source at second hand (and that only thanks to the nominator's very assiduous translation of it), I have no reason for concern here.
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- This is now sorted, and I appreciate the nominator's patience with what can be an arcane and counter-intuitive area of the rules and the law.
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- y
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- A credit to the encyclopaedia: the nominator (and their collaborators) have taken an article which was badly outdated and situated it right at the cutting edge of contemporary scholarship.
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
- ^ Faszcza 2021, p. 21.