User talk:Ifly6/Founding of Rome

Request for feedback

@T8612 and Avilich: Again, hello there. Do you think there's anything gravely missing from this draft for the founding of Rome? Thanks, Ifly6 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything important missing. I made some minor changes to the table of dates; I removed Velleius' date since it's relative to that of Carthage and entirely derived from earlier authors already mentioned. Avilich (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit, you added a reference to Cambridge Ancient History, vol. viii part 2, p. 626. Assuming it's in vol 7 (rather than 8) part 2, that points somewhere into the bibliography. If it's wrong, could you correct it? (Edit. It can't be volume 8, as it doesn't even have 626 pages.) Ifly6 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I verified the old citation I had in that place, so I copied it back into place. Ifly6 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's volume 7, thanks for noticing. But it's really an appendix, and not the bibliography. Either citation is fine, only Drummond's appendix gives a more precise date than Momigliano which is why I substituted it. Avilich (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification; I added the citation back. I took a look at n. 7 thereat but the citation for the specific location in Polybius – vi.iia.2 or vi.11a.2 – wasn't cross-referenceable with the LacusCurtius version; I've left it in a separate reference if you have any special insight on it. Ifly6 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More feedback

@NebY: do you have any feedback on this draft replacement for main namespace's Founding of Rome? Ifly6 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give it proper attention just now, but at a quick glance I much prefer this, especially as I've been dipping into Cornell again in the last couple of days. I suspect a lot of editors and readers will too; after the success of SPQR, giving Livy and Dionysius pride of place makes Wikipedia look outdated. It could still use some copy-editing. Quick examples (I've not read everything yet):

"The conventional cultural divide for the period preceding the time at which Rome is known to have been inhabited revolves around a separation" is opaque, partly because "the period preceding the time at which Rome is known to have been inhabited" is longwinded, partly because the concept of a cultural divide may be new to many readers and isn't followed through by identifying any non-Indo-European speakers, partly because a revolving divide is just weird.

"If one draws" isn't our normal encyclopedic style, almost WP:NOTMANUAL., but the substance of this paragraph could precede the details in the one before.

Similarly the first three sentences of the Archaelogical evidence section could be shuffled 1-3-2 or even 3-1-2 (with more editing), ie closing with "Some modern scholars such as AC have still controversially suggested ...." and even opening with the archaeological evidence not the myth. I'm reminded of a training dictum that if you show trainees the wrong method first, that's what they'll learn.

I see a wiki-voice issue in the first para of "Ancient tradition and founding myths". "Basically all scholars agree" signals tendentiousness and "Some modern historians believe ... rests on tendentious interpretations ... not borne out by the facts" sure follows through on that promise. That can be copy-edited without losing force - and again, a 1-3-2 reshuffle of sentences would be part of it.

But from what I've read so far, the substance looks great and the structure's good too. Very welcome. NebY (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the train reading CAH² 5 right now, so can only respond in part. In my view, even before SPQR, Wikipedia looked outdated. Call me an academic but inasmuch as OCD³ or ² would never have given price of place to Liv and Dion Hal, Wikipedia never should have either. Paraphrasing primary sources uncritically should never have been okay; nor was any great Enlightenment brought by the Beardian gods necessary: it was something anyone could have discovered by just taking a class at university or going to a university library. Ifly6 (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits which I think should solve some of the issues you identified above. Ifly6 (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]