Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Velites

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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 promoted by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Velites

edit
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

Velites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, it has been a good article for some time, more than 8 years, they can be seen as vital to the history of light, irregular forces. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley

  • I am doubtful whether this article and the one above on the Hastati are suitable A-Class candidates. They were taken to GA in 2008 by an editor who has long ago ceased editing, and the A-Class nominator has made no contributions to the articles. The references are all undated books, but most have an access date, and it is unclear whether this is the date the editor read the book or whether they accessed pages online. Neither the nominator or reviewers may have access to the sources, so they may not be able to check references, or assess whether the books are reliable sources according to current standards. A principal source is William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, which was published in many editions between 1842 and 1890. This is far too dated, even if we knew which edition was used. There are a couple of citation neededs in one of the articles, and very little detail about the role these infantry classes played in specific battles. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I will work on what you have mentioned. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I have fixed all of the citaiton, I am working towards adding more and citing more currently. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Lucilius mentioned below is probably Gaius Lucilius, but the citation is a vague reference to an original source. So far as I can tell with no knowledge of the subject, the content is good, apart from the lack of dates in the lead. I would like to see more on specific battles, but if the information is not available that should not be a bar to promotion. The referencing is unacceptably poor. Only four of the 17 citations are OK. The others are vague citations of original sources or far too dated. I think all sourcing need to be re-done by the nominator. Some may be available online, but others will probably only be available in a library. I second Rupert's thanks for Iazyges's efforts, and hope they are able to bring this interesting article up to scratch. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Which ones are good, and which need fixing.
Sabin and Southern are reliable sources, although in view of the original editor's standard of referencing, they need checking to see that they do really support what the article says. If you cannot get access to these sources then I probably can. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources are not reliable and need replacing - and the text amending if the sources you find do not support the text. Krenz 1991 is an article in [1] - which is probably unobtainable unless you are willing to buy it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have introduced errors in citation 1 which I have amended. "accessdate=" should only be used for online sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: My bad, I was using the cite book tool, I have purged the polybius ones and krentz.

@Dudley Miles: would this be considered reliable?[1] I have sent the non sabin and southern to the gulags. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the book but I assume one published by Routledge should be an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look further over the next few days but some preliminary comments.
  • Refs 1, 3 and 7 are to primary sources. It is better to use secondary works as assessing the reliability of primary sources is original research.

 Done

  • I would delete 1st ed in ref 2 as only 1 ed has been published.

 Done

  • I get a bad link on ref 4.

 Done

  • Ref 13 is Elton (1996) 104. This needs expanding.

 Done

  • You need to delete the reference to Lucilius unless you can definitely establish who he is.

 Fixed

  • I believe this can establish it? [2]
  • You have linked to pages in Google books, but this link does not work for me. I just get sent to the bibliographical details. I may have to wait until I can get access to the sources to comment further, and this may take some time. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed

  • I have been able to check print copies of a few references.
  • Ref 8 Lazenby looks OK, although it uses an additional page which I have added to the reference. You cite 1998 as the publication date but the copy I consulted was the original publication in 1978, see [2]. Nikki can you advise please how this ref should be shown? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

 Done

minus Removed

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. The topic is definitely well beyond my area of expertise, so I just have a few general suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there appears to be a mix of citation styles: for A-class these should be consistent. There is no set style, but consistency is the key.
  • the full bibliographic details for Krentz should be provided in some way

 Done

  • what year was the Mommsen work published?

 Done

  • "done away with" seems a bit informal. Would "disbanded" work?

 Done

  • "Lucilius suggests..." is there a link for Lucilius?

 Done I cannot for the life of me find out which lucilius it is.

  • suggest a paragraph split in the lead here: "Velites did not form their own..."

 Done

  • is there a link that could be added for the siege of Capua in 211 BC, if not it should probably be a red link as it sounds like it is most likely notable?

 Done

  • suggest linking Polybius

 Done

  • inconsistent spelling "principes" v. "princeps"; also it should be linked on first mention in the body of the article

 Done

 Done

  • File:Velites.jpg: this is a nice image (except for the large copyright attribution - is there anyway that the author would release it without this?), but the details on the image description page are not sufficient currently. You need to provide more details about where it was published (was it in a book, or on another website?), also if the author has given permission for its use, this needs to be documented through the OTRS system. You can find more information about this here: [3].
  • I note that you have many of the references now due to concerns raised above. Do you have suitable sources to replace these? The A-class referencing standards require at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. Regards,
@Dudley Miles: I am currently looking, I may have found one, would you consider this a reliable source? [4]

AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I've uploaded a version of the image without the watermarking, since derivative works are covered by the OTRS release. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: thanks, for some reason if I try to insert it as a thumbnail, it has the watermark, but if i try to insert it at its full size it does not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is their anything else you think needs to be changed for it to be up to A status? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) @Dudley Miles:, @AustralianRupert:, and @Hchc2009:, Firstly, thank you all for your work on this article, secondly, I believe all the issues on this have been resolved (except for the thumnail still having the watermark for inexplicable reasons.) Do you also feel that it is ready? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead contains some info not in the body: the length of the javelin and the metal points, the Battle of Zama, the use as a screening force, the fact of rarely wearing armour, and wearing wolfskin, the point about 1,000 velites in an early Roman legion, and the two theories (that rorarii and velities were interchangable, and that the leves' equipment was upgraded etc)? These points should be worked into the body of the article also

 Done

  • if the above information is added to the body with references, then the citations in the lead aren't required per WP:LEAD

 Done

  • there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs (I've marked where I think citations are needed)

 Done

  • reference 4 should be formatted so the bare url isn't visible

 Done

  • I have now had a chance to look at Sabin, and it is clear this article is nowhere near GA, let alone A-Class. It says that the velites "wore a headdress made from wolf skin to allow officers to differentiate between them and heavier legionaries" and "The velites could not receive decorations for bravery in battle if they fought within the ordered lines of the legion". Both statements are cited to Sabin p. 513, and neither are in this source, which says that the velites wore wolf skins so that they could be identified when they performed acts of valour, and nothing about them ever serving in the ordered lines. Sabin says "The velites were placed in front of the array, then, partly so that the boldest of the young men could distinguish themselves by seeking out combat with individual enemies. This is why they need to be identifiable, and why they, rather than the soldiers in the array behind, were awarded decorations." The article misses half the purpose of the velite system, which was as much about giving young men a chance to win glory as it was a tactical formation. There are also many other statements not in the source cited. I regret I have to oppose, although I will be happy to look at it again if you can get access to the print sources and re-write it. 08:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I believe I have fixed it.

Thanks for your efforts, and you have corrected a major error, but the whole article needs checking against the sources and re-writing. Can you get access to the hard copy books? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Ill check, are any of them downloadable as PDFs that you know of? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. You should be able to get them from your local library through inter-library loan, but that would probably take some time. Alternatively, you could enquire about access to the library of a local university or college. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles:, I bought a couple books about rome, ill search them for velites. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, I have yet to find the book, I am still searching. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links
  • Support This short-er article has to be weighed against the potentially available information on a niche, ancient topic. It is well-sourced, composed, and seems to meet the Class A criteria by my judgment. LavaBaron (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges has nominated four articles on ancient Roman military history, Principes, Triarii, Hastati and Velites. All were taken through GA in 2008 by an editor who ceased editing in 2011. I have looked in detail at Velites. My initial impression was that the content is OK but not the referencing, but when I checked the sources I found that the original editor had misinterpreted them on several important points. Iazyges does not have access to the sources, but has made considerable improvements to Velites in response to my comments, and is looking for reliable sources to bring the article up to A-Class standard. I would therefore suggest that Velites should be kept as a candidate, but it would be better if the other three are withdrawn, as they almost certainly need a complete re-write to get them to the standard to be considered for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Yes I have, a lot of the sources added in are from Google books. There are no google books out that I haven't looked at. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments.
  • I am not sure whether it is a rule but I think it is usual to leave references out of the lead as it should be a summary of deails referenced below.
It is at the editor's discretion, I personally think its better to leave them in in case of any dispute over the lead, the ref is easily available. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some dates in the lead would be helpful. 1. The dates the Velites operated in first sentence.

 Done 2. Date of the Battle of Zama.  Done 3. Date of the Marian reforms.  Done

  • "As backup weapons, they also carried gladii, relatively short thrusting swords 74 centimetres (29 inches) in length that were the main weapons of the hastati and principes." This sentence does not quite work. Maybe "The hastati and principes carried gladii, relatively short thrusting swords 74 centimetres (29 inches) in length, as their main weapons, and the velites carried them as backup weapons."

 Done

  • The Polybius quote needs a citation.

 Done (the citation above it was the same for it)

  • "After they had fallen back, some would fall back behind the Triarii," Repetiton of fall back - I am not sure what you mean.

 Done

  • "some would sustain the Hastati or Principes (Depending on which was attacking) with darts," This reads a bit oddly. Presumably you mean support by throwing darts, and Depending should not be dapitalised.

 Done

  • "however usually a corps of deportates" I do not understand this.

 Done

  • "the advance of the hastati, who were armed with swords, and were the first line of attack." Maybe "the first line of attack after the velites".
 Done I have removed it because the sentence contradicts the previous one, and i feel the part as a whole is better without it.
  • the Second Punic War and Battle of Lake Trasimene - I would give the dates.

 Done

  • "With the formal military reforms of Gaius Marius in 107 BC," I think the word "formal" is superfluous.

 Done

@Dudley Miles: all of your suggestions have been added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After they had fallen back, some would move behind the Triarii, some would supply the Hastati or Principes, depending on which was currently attacking, with darts". This is still clumsy. How about "After they had fallen back, they would move up behind the attacking troops and throw darts at the enemy." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles:  Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'll close it now that it has 3 supports, and no objections. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:55, 6 December 2016 (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.
  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=oo6CAgAAQBAJ&dq=Lucilius+7.290+Rorarius+Veles&source=gbs_navlinks_s
  2. ^ https://archive.org/details/cluciliicarminu01lucigoog
  3. ^ http://sites.psu.edu/successoftheromans/wp-content/uploads/sites/10644/2014/03/Veles.jpg
  4. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=oo6CAgAAQBAJ&dq=Lucilius+7.290+Rorarius+Veles&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Velites&oldid=753400648"