Talk:Siege warfare in ancient Rome

Military history: National / African / European / Italian / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	African military history task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Intertranswiki/OKA

This article has been created, improved, or expanded by a translator from the Open Knowledge Association. See the OKA task force page of WikiProject Intertranswiki.Intertranswiki/OKAWikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKATemplate:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKAOKA

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 11:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Reconstruction of the fortifications of Caesar's army at Alesia

~~... that the reality of Roman Siege (pictured) is accompanied with pitched battles?~~ Source: "The Gallic strategy of 52 BC was based on a scorched-earth policy, hit-and-run tactics to cut the Romans off from their supplies, and an avoidance of pitched battle. It failed because of the Romans' skill in siege warfare." Gilliver, Catherine (2003). Caesar's Gallic wars, 58–50 BC. New York: Routledge. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-203-49484-4. OCLC 57577646
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Schick models of Jerusalem

Created by Manoru007 (talk). Nominated by JeBonSer (talk) at 11:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Siege (Roman history); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Your hook makes no sense. Please propose another hook. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: Did you know that siege warfare (pictured) was a common tactic used by the Romans during their conquest in all parts of the Mediterranean region? Source: G.Cascarino, L'esercito romano. Armamento e organizzazione, Vol. II - Da Augusto ai Severi, p.265.</ref> JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 05:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created on September 1st, nominated within 7 days. Long enough and passes Earwig's Copyvio. The first few sentences in the lead aren't sourced and aren't in the article otherwise, per WP:leadcite, you will want to fix that. I don't actually see the ALT1 explicitly stated in the article - I'd like to see that if we are to use it. It's not the most interesting alt. May I suggest:

ALT2 ...that the Romans used siege warfare but believed it was an inferior form of combat. Source: https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub408/entry-6357.html

This Alt stems from a one of the sentences that's missing a source.
* ~~Is your QPQ complete?~~

I have vision issues, can a second reviewer check the image clarity? Thanks! Annwfwn (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image looks fine to me. Quite clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hawkeyes, @Hawkeye7:. Annwfwn (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @JeBonSer:. Annwfwn (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Annwfwn: Which sentence did you mean? Yes, every time I nominate an article I always provide a QPQ. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 14:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JeBonSer: Ahhh I apologize, I completely missed the QPQ. The article looks great with the changes that you made. Thoughts on the hook? Annwfwn (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go for the suggested hook. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 09:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JeBonSer, Annwfwn, and PrimalMustelid: thanks for the good hook! Unfortunately, we're a bit away from the Main Page right now. I'm seeing a decent number of unsourced paragraphs, and the hook is sourced to factsanddetails.com (not really the caliber of source i'm looking for). Could these be cleared up first? Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this nomination. I have other jobs to do in real life as for now. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 05:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The current title is not good (English) Wikipedian form. Improvements would be:

Srnec (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll move it to the third title. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]