Talk:Rostra/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this article On Hold. There are sections entirely devoid of in-line citations and there are {{citations}} flags. The article is non-compliant with WP:verify. Pyrotec (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

As some work has been done on this article, I will start the Initial review. This will involve considering the articel section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History -

The first paragraph is unreferenced.
If you are intending to use a book as Ref 7 and 10, the book needs to be properly citated and the relevant page number(s) given.
Note: Ref 8 is the "same" as ref 7 and 10, but it is properly cited.
The last paragraph is unreferenced.

- Tribal assemblies and tribunals & Vulcanal -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two subsections appear to be compliant.

- Rostra Vetera -

Ref 25 states "Quoted in Arnold, footnote 54, 274", but there is no reference to Arnold.

- Debate and confusion of architectural elements -

Entirely unreferenced.

Honorary names -
- Rostra Augusti -

Appears to be compliant.

- Rostra Vandalica & Rostra Ad Palmam/Domitian/Flavian Rostra

Entirely unreferenced.

Site today

Unreferenced.

- In contemporary news -

First paragraph is unreferenced.

Other known Rostra -
- Rostra Iulii -

Appears to be compliant.

- Rostra Diocletiani -

Entirely unreferenced.

WP:Lead -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real life

I got a little busy this last week. If you feel the article should just be declined for now, I understand and will support any desicion you make. Otherwise, I may not be able to sit down for too long for another couple of days.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Just not enough time now. Thanks for the review. Go ahead and fail and I will relist when I have made the needed changes. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the update. I'm closing review at the Nomintor's request. Pyrotec (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcanal confusion

There is confusion here regarding the location of the Vulcanal. The article says it was "Underneath the Lapis Niger", but my source (Grant, Michael (1970), The Roman Forum, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; Photos by Werner Forman, pg 214. — including a map, pg 44) — places it about 40 meters away (behind the New Rostra, built around the time of Julius Caesar's assassination). It may be that much older sources place it nearer the Lapis Niger. Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this until now so I apologize for the delay in replying. The actual alter of the Vulcanal was the location of the original "Black Stone" stele which was covered over with black marble slabs in the early Imperial age (slightly off kilter). I am unfamiliar with this being placed in confusion behind the Rostra Augusti, and forty meters is too far from the structure to be behind it. That seems to actually cut through the Capitoline hill and ends up on the otherside. That's 105 ft. The reference may actually be speaking of the Greek Gymnasium located near by.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no absolute on information from this time. Don't change this without further discussion. There is a formed consensus on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]