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 articles
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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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 articles
I discovered this article today and I notice it is relatively recently made. Can someone give a rationale for its existence in terms of Wikipedian priorities such as notability and verifiability? Where are its boundaries? If nothing else the community needs to get the rationale for this article clear, so it can be properly integrated and improved.
I am struck by the fact that the article is at its core an editorializing article, without any clear source for that editorializing. In other words it looks at first glance like it is original work proposing or defending a sort of theory about a period, rather than just reporting events. To me it seems that the basic reasoning for this whole article is the idea that ALL the third century invasions are unique and also somehow connected? Note, what I am not denying:
It might well be that the idea of causal links between the Gothic pressures and problems in the west with Franks and Alemanni can be sourced from modern secondary sources.
It might well be that there are secondary sources who argue that the third century invasions were a special turning point.
However, if there is academic debate about these ideas, then who are the proponents, and who are the critics of it? That's how we must approach articles about complex theoretical topics.
Being practical about it, is this article trying to do too much? Should the article be stripped back and better focussed? Remarkably, and I think controversially, this is not just for example about the 3rd century Gothic invasions, which are certainly treated by secondary sources as linked, rather unique to the period, and very notable. However, instead this article also claims to be about North Africa and Persia. It also contains a quite long digression listing Roman units on the European limes (which has an article). Should all these things be in one article?
If OTOH the aim of the article was just to report events, then all the events it discusses in already in many other articles which already exist. If not, then once again let's at least please get an explanation on record, of what extra information this article is giving.
,_logo.png){kind=logo}
