Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Strasbourg

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.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Strasbourg

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it appears to be well below our A-Class standard, and would need quite a bit of work to bring it up to standard. It has already been demoted via adjustment of the assessment criteria but would appreciate formal confirmation of its delisting as an A-Class article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this up. Hopefully it will either draw some editors in who can help improve the article, or it can determine consensus to demote. By way of some background, some of the concerns raised about the article in its current state can be found at this version of the MILHIST talk page: [1] Additionally, the previous ACR was in 2008 and can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Strasbourg/archive1. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges and Cplakidas: Sorry for the ping, but I wonder if either of you have any recent sources that might help reference and improve this article? Based on some of your past noms, this might be an area you have some knowledge of, I think (please correct me if I am wrong). Unfortunately, it seems that the original A-class nominator from 2008 (Wandalstouring) seems to be no longer active. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsworthy's In the Name of Rome springs to mind, he has an entire chapter devoted to Julian's operations in Gaul. Ammianus' Julian: Narrative and Genre in the Res Gestae is also an important critical look into Ammianus' narrative (which is the main source) and the possible motivation and purpose behind its depiction(s) of Julian. I also remember reading Constantius II: Usurpers, Eunuchs and the Antichrist, which had a description of the battle with some interesting observations. There are also a few biographies of Julian that I haven't read, but which certainly ought to be used. Even Osprey has since published a Campaign series book on the battle, which might be interesting to at least look at. In brief, there's no shortage of sources, although I want to point out that the over-reliance on a primary source (Ammianus) is not in itself a problem, nor uncommon with ancient battles: he is the only detailed source, and the narrative will perforce rely on him. The problem is rather that Ammianus is used without being 'verified' by modern sources, and used to cite a lot of what appears to be personal reflection and analysis. I am too busy in other projects and real life right now, and the article is simply too large, else I might attempt to salvage this myself. I am not sure if this is his cup of tea, but perhaps Gog the Mild might be interested as well. Constantine ✍ 11:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that Gog the Mild will be a big fan of the "neat little rectangles in dead straight lines on the map"! Harrias ^talk 18:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested, it would be my cup of tea, and I have a couple of the sources, including Goldsworthy, but sadly I am also too busy with other projects to spare the time for this right now.

@Harrias: I don't know what you mean. I am sure that the Germans in particular lined up exactly as shown, dressing their lines with Teutonic efficiency. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:07 constantius2Chrono354.png Needs a US PD tag, and is missing source information to demonstrate that it meets the PD requirements.
File:Greatpalacemosaic.jpg Needs a US PD tag, and is missing all source information to demonstrate that it meets the PD requirements.
The table in the Roman order of battle includes some images without context.
Generally the captions are a bit long for my taste, but it is exactly that: my own taste. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comment from Harrias

Obviously the sourcing is the main issue here. Many statements are completely unsourced, and what is given relies very heavily on primary sources. If no significant work is completed on this (beginning with a complete overhaul of the sources), then I would support delisting. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gog the Mild

This is a very long article, going into quite a bit of detail; and so arguably fails A2: "does not go into unnecessary detail".
The language is ok, and not, IMO, a reason - on its own - for demotion, but if it were up for ACR I would personally want quite a lot of copy editing and tweaking before I would support it on A4: "The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant." Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"File:07 constantius2Chrono354.png" lacks a US PD tag.
As does "File:Greatpalacemosaic.jpg" Both easily resolvable of course.

To come off the fence - Delist, on A2. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist by Nick-D

Delist The very heavy reliance on a literally ancient primary source means that WP:V isn't met. There are several modern secondary sources on this battle, including an Osprey Publishing book from a few years ago, so there should be little need to use ancient sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist

Overreliance on ancient primary source of dubious reliability means that it fails source review. This is so bad it's verging on {{one source}} territory. b uidhe 15:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Unfortunately, it doesn't appear this one will be able to be brought back up to standard at this time, so I would suggest delisting. No prejudice about it being brought back to ACR some time in the future. Thank you all for sharing your opinions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist by CPA-5

This is even far from B-class. I recommend delisting this article to start. Per above comments I believe it doesn't meet b1 and b2 which is for me good enough to delist it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.