Talk:Constitution of the Roman Republic/GA1

GA Review

First Impressions

These first impressions are just that, based on one read through; I will return to do a first review in the near future.

• Lead: ok reasonable for the length and depth of the article, but only one reference in the whole section
• ...The constitutional harmony relied on a careful balance between these three branches...
• ...The constitutional balance was first disrupted by (and towards) ... I am nopt sure I understand ...the democracy under the tribunates ... what are tribunates a link is needed
• Content box is incredibly long can it be shortened in any way, e.g. combine?
• some refs are before punctuation marks some not, all should be after any punctuation.
• ...Throughout the history of the republic, the constitutional evolution was driven by the struggle between the aristocracy and the ordinary citizens.... a big and important statement, should be referenced. So should ...In the immediate aftermath of the revolution, the senate and the assemblies were as powerless as they had been under the monarchy....
• in Patrician era (509-367 BC) the plebeians are introduced who / what are they ...(plebeians seceded to the Aventine hill)... a link needs to be made to a relevant article

or section. Same applies to ...the patricians agreed....

• ...the first plebeian praetor was elected... wikilink praetor and other such titles / words / roles on their first instance within the article.
• In Supremacy of the new nobility (287-133 BC) ...Masses of unemployed plebeians soon began to flood into Rome, and thus into the ranks of the legislative assemblies... another interesting and important statement which I feel needs a reference.

i have just come across Pompey three times in 18 words so I am going to stop for a while. Can I quote Yannismarou "A well-cited and well-researched article, but IMO it needs work in terms of prose and structure." I think this is a priority. I will ask a reviewer who's previous work has been very impressive, and also recommentd that a re reading of the Talk:Constitution_of_the_Roman_Republic#Review is undertaken and acted upon. It is an excellent article and in my one reading I have become interested in learning more, but many "facts" "characters" etc are introduced and left behind with no opportunity to discover more: as for example Yannismarou 's ... You don't have no closing, and you leave many questions to the reader: How long did this constitutional order last? How did it evolve and end? How did we pass from Rebublic to Empire? Any assessments concerning the effectiveness and durability of this constitutional order? Edmund Patrick – confer 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Dear editors, no movement at all on the GA front. Can someone please let me know what they want to happen,. as in a day or so I will fail this article otherwise. It is an excellent article well researched but prose and grammar need sorting alongside and amongst other points. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You implied that you only read through the first part of the article (up until the three mentions of Pompey), and that you would return to finish your read. I can make the wikilink/reference/context box changes you recommend, and try to re-edit the prose/grammar, but this last point is somewhat of a subjective matter. Would that be enough for GA status? Also, for some of the individuals I discuss, I can only talk about them so much, otherwise I will be detracting from the subject of this particular article. But many of these individuals/facts are addressed in the article. You mention the Gracchi tribunates. I have separate sections in the article for both the Gracchi brothers as well as the office of tribune. Would adding wikilinks be enough in these instances?

As for the end of your post, you say that the article doesn't tell how long the constitutional order lasted, how it evolved and ended, how we passed from republic to empire, and how effective the constitutional order was. However, I addressed this in the history section (the first major section) of the article. I don't understand what the problem with this section is in addressing these questions. Please elaborate in what you are requesting. RomanHistorian (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, after reading the peer review it was clear to me that I had better stop. For this to become a GA the peer review needs to be acted upon, the article changed to reflect the review, and then I will complete my read. This might not throw up that much more, but I did not want to repeat what was already in that review. I have asked an editor to look at the article in terms of prose and grammar, but understandably s/he has taken a wikibreak. It is up to you but I would recommend that you bring this article to the notice of other people that undertake such work, so that someone much better than I can cast a critical eye over it for grammar and prose. Edmund Patrick – confer 11:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The peer review was done a while ago, and for featured article status, not good article status. Since the criteria for GA is not as strict as that for FA, I decided to go for GA first. I would say that you should just ignore the peer review, since I just asked that person for an informal opinion. No formal process began when he did his review. I will spend a few days going through the article, to make the corrections and to try to clean up the grammar and prose. I will let you know when I am done. RomanHistorian (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

GA revisit

I have been keeping a watchful eye on the article following RomanHistorian request for time to make corrections and to try to clean up the grammar and prose. The article is coming along in leaps and bounds, well done for all the work. I am quite happy to leave the GA review until such time that I am asked, but as I read the article I would like to point out the occasional thought. For instance

• Constitutional history ...In 366 BC, in an effort by the Patricians to reassert their influence over the magisterial offices, two new offices were created.... yet the start of the next paragraph is ...By the middle of the 4th century BC,.... Why do we go "back" to the fourth century from the middle of the third.
• the image: Chart showing the checks and balances of the Constitution of the Roman Republic.. This is great and very informative but looks horrible within the article (I have checked it on three different computers two different systems). Is there a way of improving it. I see it mentions converting to SVG, would that be possible. Edmund Patrick – confer 16:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• The chart also has words missing? "divided into blocs called ."--TEAKAY-C II R (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   fine for GA, but think about making the information accessible to a general reader (e.g. ..were out of harmony with the genius of the Roman constitution. Genius is an odd word to use here, correct but not used in this way in general use - principle / idea behind /concept ).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   if references supporting Abbott become available make use of them, to widen the field of referencing support. I know there is not a lot of publications available.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image Chart showing the checks is still not clear enough though this is not a failing point for a GA. Try to get an expert to convert it. I can understand the user of the other images though one or two have flimsy links to the article, they may not add much, but they do not detract.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A complicated subject but the article does inform and has links to the development of politics in the relevant times. Well done and congratulations, though there is much to do for a FA.

Edmund Patrick – confer 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)