I fixed the title to be bold and linked the singular to wikt (instead of the plural title). The reference template used a set number of columns (a minor point about them being deprecated) - fixed. This lead me to question the assessment A (for both projects):
I have my concerns partly about the size being small (more like a Start), but rather what was wrong style wise makes me question what I don't know about the content. I suggest a reassessment:
Immediate failures Criteria 2&3. copyright close paraphrasing "The velites were placed in front of the array, then, partly so that the boldest of the velites could distinguish themselves by seeking out single combat with individual enemies." [1]
"The velites were placed at the front of the maniples, so that the boldest of the velites had the opportunity to distinguish themselves by seeking out single combat with an enemy." ISBN9780521782739
"The velites were placed in front of the array, then, partly so that the boldest of the velites could distinguish themselves by seeking out single combat with individual enemies." [2]
is not WP:PARAPHRASE?! (tip - see part that says even small sections with attibution may be) I discovered the close paraphrasing and tagged it, but then the tag was incorrectly removed twice [3][4] ! How exactly is that bad faith? Think you should retract that, and what impression do you think this leaves on an independent assessment when you're willing to sweep serious issues under the carpet, and then blame the messenger? Widefox; talk 02:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
::@Widefox: It has been fixed. I would recommend you retract this assessment as you seem to have failed much of the initial steps outlined in WP:GAR. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum02:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede does summarise the content but still seems to act as the first section (some info is in the lede, but not in the body) maybe due to relatively large lede for small article
Title should only be bolded (not linked) - fixed (but when broken this was assessed as A, and such a departure from MOS should prevent B let alone GA or A), should the singular also be bolded? Possibly not (but it was me that switched the wikt links), so someone with domain knowledge may know better.
Other MOS issue - italic/singular titles per MOS (it is plural, with the singular now linking to wikt). I'm guessing it should be italic as from Latin, and used only for French? The source I saw had it in italics.
Yes, so the article is wrong, and inconsistent with the list article where they're all italic. It also uses both uppercase and lowercase. Widefox; talk
A quick search finds [5] "wore the lorica (coat of mail)...leathern jacket...drawers, sandals". The lede has "They rarely wore armour", with no details of what/if or their clothes (or range of outfits due to what they got their hands on financially).
(bordering b) Legacy - if we're having a section, then half a line isn't enough, it would benefit being expanded from half a line as there's sources, clearly deficient in a non-core part
Immediate failures Criteria 3. section expand tag on Legacy - either it's important enough for it's own section so an instant fail / Fail GA2a broad or not essential but cannot be easily merged into another section (non-fail)
I personally would have rated a C, so I've assessed for the Classical project at B (instead of A). This is worth noting to highlight the unchanged Military history WikiProject rating.
Per WP Classical Greece and Rome StartC, B, GA (outlier)A examples it could be anything from Start to GA but not A, (arguably C)
Spirit of GA "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia" Widefox; talk23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest here, the only real issues were with MOS, which you have now fixed. Apart from the Images (which has been rectified as best as it can), there are no real problems. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
talk page explains difficulty with old sources, but I point out "If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." Widefox; talk00:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The references here are not an issue. The only issue is if the new image doesn't cut it, which it fairly should. I will also quote the criteria directly: Illustrated, if possible, by images. Even if the new image does not meet the criteria, it falls under the "Not possible" which doesn't fail it. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum00:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Iazyges Care to let uninvolved editors edit and highlight copyright infringements without being reverted - see WP:OWN. Do not revert serious copyright issues again, it is disruptive. Also, this was meant to be an individual assessment, which clearly has immediate fail and I may close at any time. Widefox; talk01:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, individual reassessments do not have "immediate fail" as an option. The instructions at WP:GAR are quite specific, and include both of the following for individual reassessments: Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer, which I don't believe you have done. More to the specific point here, Wait for other editors to respond. Do everything you can to improve the article during this time. So far as I can tell, you didn't notify anyone nor any WikiProject, and you need to make these notifications and give the people and projects a chance to respond; standard on Wikipedia is to allow a full seven days for such a response after notification, and it's typical to allow more if improvements are being made. GARs can only result in an article being kept or delisted as a Good Article; the GAR process has no power to downgrade a specific project-given status like A-class, which was the result of a review last month. You'll need to get the Military WikiProject to agree to any downgrade there. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:BlueMoonset it was suggested to me to do an individual reassessment, I notified those that I saw, maybe I missed one out? So as you are factually incorrect to state I notified nobody - see [6][7], and at least one other account was abandoned, and several others already knew. I'll give you a chance to retract that falsehood before discussing with you. See WP:AGF, alternative facts and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS when it comes to MILHIST assessing for another project rating. (see my final comment below). MILHIST don't WP:OWN the article, anyone independent like me, but not me now may edit and point out copyvios, which must be removed. Deal with it. Widefox; talk17:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, I apologize for my error in missing the editors you notified when I looked. I shouldn't have missed them. However, you didn't notify any of the WikiProjects that I can see, and still hadn't as of your above post. I do wonder, as you did, about the MilhistBot changing the GA assessment for the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject to A; I see it was restored to GA after discussion on the article's talk page, based on the GA review this past summer, which is what this reassessment will affect. (If it is delisted at GA, I imagine that MILHIST will do their own downgrade; they've done it before.) However, if you are not going to pursue this reassessment yourself and want to leave it to the community, it will have to be reopened as a community reassessment if you wish a reassessment to happen. Please let me know what you wish to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: He has demanded I not speak to him anymore, but I believe he wishes it to continue, as he makes several references to copyvio needing to be fixed (but not actually mentioning any more, and appears to just believe it to be true). So I would recommend you change it to community. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset no problem. I've moved on. I was slow to get the message that valid feedback, however minor for a GAR, but from a GAR newbie isn't welcome here. Has anyone checked for other copyvios yet? I don't know. My suspicion was correct that there were issues, and it's improved now. How can that ever happen that a newly assessed A has copyvios? It wasn't clear to me why it was suggested to me to do an Individual assessment when it may have already been apparent that it's contested, so a community one seems more appropriate. Nobody doing any GAR should be put through 19 notifications in a few hours - despite me asking one editor to stop notifying me, I'm still getting them from that person today. I only randomly arrived and fixed things, what will driving outsiders away do for the quality? The feedback on the feedback feedback is..."all yours".Widefox; talk23:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Widefox Ok, hopefully to end the dispute before it may progress, what I was referring to was the pre-assessment step #3: "Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting." And also that images are listed as "If possible", rather than mandatory. Are there any other issues you have with the article? While I would be happy to go over MOS with you, it is outside of GAR, and should be left to the talk page. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum03:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My assessment was struck through and edit warred, my copyvio notice was edit warred away before it was fixed. As there's little opportunity for a non-involved editor like me to get involved in this process, I want no part of it. WP:OWN doesn't help the article. Are there more copyright violations? The first prose I checked turned out to be a copyvio. That's not a minor (MOS type) issue when this claims to be A. That sums up the level of scrutiny that may still be needed. I leave it for you guys to take forward, thanks. Widefox; talk16:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Look at the image. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
