Talk:Deva Victrix/GA

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

very good article, just some prose flow issues, and some more on the current status of the fortress would be nice.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Just a few spots that need some prose tweaking, and tiny bit more in the lead

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Couple of source tweaks

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'd like a bit more on the current status of the site, and more information on the excavations, etc.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Foundation section, first paragraph, do you mean 'best way'? as it is currently written it doesn't make sense.
  • Done, now reads "the Romans decided the best way to ensure long term peace was to conquer the lands of the Brigantes" Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Same section, second paragraph, the last part of the last sentence is poorly connected to the first part. Perhaps "The fortress, which may have required as much as 2,400,000 litres (530,000 imp gal) a day in drinking water, had its water supply piped in from natural springs in the suburb of Boughton, 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) to the east."
  • Restructured along the lines suggested here. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Same section, next paragraph, second sentence 'they were destroyed for the construction' sounds a bit odd to me, perhaps "they were destroyed in the construction"
  • Changed to "they were destroyed to allow the construction of the fortress", I hope this will do. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Same section and paragraph, next sentence "The first phased buildings.."? I think you mean "The first phase of buildings..."
  • Quite right, done. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Legio XX Valeria Victrix in Deva Victrix, the last paragraph, first sentence, missing the conversion for the tonnage. Also tons of what? Stone? Dirt? Timber?
  • Conversion added, I looked it up and it's stone. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline and abandonment, last paragraph, last sentence. "robbed out"? I'm a yank, does this mean they salvaged it?
  • Robbed out means nicked for use in other buildings rather than salvaged. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably better to avoid slang. Nicked is British slang for stolen, I know that (I'm not totally unilingual) but using slang is unencyclopedic. Use "stolen" (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Robbed out may be a technical term, I not sure, if I find out it is I'll re-add it with the elaboration of it being stolen Nev1 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Missing the conversions in the Capital of Britannia section also.
  • Conversions added. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/geninfo.html is probably an okay source, but it might be questioned at FAC. (Probably by me, actually).
  • Okay, I'll look for something better, I'm sure there is one available, if not online. That said, do you think it would be worth going for FA? Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Malleus is working on this too, and you might get his opinion, but it's certainly a very nice article. Archaeology is very underrepresented at FA, it would be great to see more. *I* think it's worth the nomination, with a bit more work on prose, but check with Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. Hooray for google books. Nev1 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 69, "The Chester Amphitheatre project" is lacking a publisher.
  • Done Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 74 Agricola 24. Is that Tacitus' Agricola? You need to format it better, and give a better link than the section number. I'm not sure on the exact way to link to a wikisource page though.
  • I'm not sure how to reference ancient sources on wikipedia, I'll look into it. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For me, I usually am using a translated published source, so I just cite it like a book, giving the ancient author as the author and the translator as an editor/coauthor with (translator) appended. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I've added the translation to the bibliography and changed the format of the ref 74 to author (date), chapter. Nev1 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• The lead feels just a bit skimpy for the article. WP:LEAD suggests two or three paragraphs for articles about this size. Maybe mention the Minerva shrine, and a bit on the naming of the site?
  • The lead has been about doubled in size. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• I would like a bit more on the aftermath. Is there anything that links the Roman settlement with the Saxon burh? Did the site stay occupied or was there a period of abandonment? What is now on the site today? Was it settled over in the middle ages? Is the site a protected historic site? Obviously it sounds like excavations have taken place, but when did they start?
  • Much more information added on post Roman activity. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All in all, a very nice article. Just a few quibbles, and I would like to see more on where the site is now.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

looks good! I recommend a good copyedit and/or peer review and then it looks good for FAC! Passing it for GA now Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! I'm not convinced about peer reviews, it seems like deliberately sailing into the doldrums as some articles wait ages to get feedback that could just as easily (and more quickly) be got from FAC; and sometimes all an article gets it an automated review! The copy edit is a very good idea, then hopefully onto FAC :-) Nev1 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

recently there has been a big effort at PR to get every article at least one useful review, it's worth giving it a try again. I do try to peer review (when I'm not on the road like I am right now) and others are making an effort. Doesn't cost you anything, at least, while you're waiting on a copyeditor. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good news; I've just put the article forward for a peer review. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)