Template:Did you know nominations/Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)

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: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)

(

)

~~... that the Romans won a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes following the disaster at Teutoburg, but decided to leave Germany because its land was not considered valuable?~~ Source: Wells (2003), The Battle That Stopped Rome, pp. 206–7

Improved to Good Article status by SpartaN (talk). Self-nominated at 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC).

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - Source is offline but happy to AGF. However, in the article the statement “they considered German lands too poor for annexation” is sourced to p.204 of Wells. pp.206-7 referred to above is used to support that they that “it was too costly in economic and military resources” to go into in Germany. I guess either way the hook is sourced but could you clarify the exact sourcing of the hook.
Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Interesting thorough article, well-written with good quality sourcing. Earwig shows no issues. Just a minor query around the hook sourcing but otherwise will be good to go. DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I found the web link that (for me) shows a preview if you're able to see it: https://books.google.com/books?id=mc30CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206

SpartaN (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@SpartaN: Thanks for providing the link. It’s prompted a couple of thoughts for me. Firstly, Wells doesn’t seem to be saying the reason for the withdrawal is definitively known (“… the reasons for these decisions must have lain…”) i.e he’s making an assumption, however well founded. The hook is more definite than Wells is. Secondly, Wells’ emphasis is on the strength of the resistance being behind the reason - the poor value of the territory makes it “not worth it” because of the strength of the resistance. That’s not quite the same as just saying the land wasn’t valuable. (I notice the text you used in the article on this reflects that effort/value ratio issue.) To fix both points would you be prepared to consider an ALT1 which after “…Teutoburg” continues something along the lines of “…likely decided to leave Germany because the military effort was out of proportion to the territory’s value?” although there may need to be some trimming to get it into the 200 character limit. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@SpartaN and DeCausa: It's been over a month since the last comments here, have there been any updates? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
From my point of view I’m waiting for SpartaN’s reply to my last post here. But I notice they haven’t edited Wikipedia since then, over a month ago. So I’m not quite sure what can be done. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. Given that there's really only one issue holding the nomination back, would anyone be willing to adopt this in case SpartaN doesn't return? It would be a shame if the nomination failed at this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure what exactly are the DYK rules on this but, subject to that, options could be (a) I propose an ALT1 hook and someone else signs it off; (b) someone else proposes an ALT1 hook and I sign it off; (c) if anyone disagrees with me on the original hook I’m happy to step away and they sign it off. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the Wells source and concur that it is saying the withdrawal was more down to the ratio of effort required to potential reward, and have boldly tweaked the copy in the article to reflect this. For what it's worth, I think ALT1 works just fine. firefly ( t · c ) 11:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I’m just going to formalize the ALT1 and let someone else add the tick and sign off:

ALT1:... that the Romans won a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes after the disaster at Teutoburg but ~~likely~~ decided to leave Germany as the effort was out of proportion to the territory’s value?

DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the reviewer has proposed a new hook, another editor will be needed to sign this off. I'm not sure though if the section linking in the bold links is allowed, however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
sorry, I missed that. It’s not even necessary to link to a section of the article so I’ve taken it out of ALT1. DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
As this doesn’t seem to be moving I’m going to give ALT1 the tick as original reviewer. If the DYK regulars think this is out of process because I came up nwith ALT1 then happy for it to be reverted. DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, there is no rush to approve, and your approval of your own hook was indeed out of process. I have reverted SL93's promotion of the nomination to prep, and with any luck a new reviewer will be around soon enough to review your ALT1. (SL93, you're welcome to review it, but that means you cannot also promote it.) I've also struck the original hook due to the issues noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset Sorry for mixing up who approved it. SL93 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't notice the second sentence of the approval...not sure how that happened. Sorry, again. SL93 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
DeCausa Reading through the article again, your ALT1 hook seems to be mostly verifed in the Aftermath section, but I'm not seeing any indication of it being "likely". SL93 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that’s true. Where that came from was, in the above discussion with SpartaN on the original hook, they cited Wells in support. Wells says, in relation to Tiberius’ decision to ‘give up’, that “The reason for these decisions must have lain in the Germans’ tough resistance”. I’ve taken that to mean Wells’ was inferring Tiberius’ reasoning without direct evidence (or certainty) of Tiberius’ actual reason. However, you’re right that the way the article is written is more certain. I’m ok striking the “likely” or, possibly it would be better to amend the final sentence of the first paragraph of the Aftermath section to be more reflectve of Wells. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I will leave this here for someone else to look at. It would be helpful if the nominator came back. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that the nominator hasn't edited since October and no one else has offered to adopt this nomination in his place, it appears that there may no longer be a path forward for the nomination. Hopefully the issues with ALT1 can be sorted out soon but if that can't happen within a reasonable timeframe the nomination should probably be closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, I’ve taken another look at the Wills source and it does have this unqualified sentence: “The effort Rome expanded on the campaigns was vastly out of proportion to any conceivable gain from acquiring this new territory”. (p.206) On that basis I should strike the “likely” from ALT1 which I’ve done. Someone should be able to sign this off now. DeCausa (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 Good to Go. I haven't seen the reference myself, but with a big nod to User:DeCausa, the original reviewer who has adopted the nom and HAS seen the page, I see nothing incorrect with their original DYK review. A double check of sourcing as quoted above seems to have settled ALT1 as approved. Solid GA reviewer Sturmvogel 66 can be trusted to put quality forward as well. Well prepared for the mainpage. BusterD (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P1