Talk:Velites

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Velites/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written PASS

There are a few things minor I've noticed, however.

• In the last section, about Marius' military reforms, it would be helpful to add a general time frame of the reforms, so one wouldn't have to click on a different article to find out. "Reforms" should also be lower case.

• There are a couple of glitches in the introduction, unis (instead of units), and evntually (instead of eventually). Also, Maniple needs to be disambiguated to Maniple (military unit).

• There is a bit of overlinking, mostly in regards to Hastati, Principes, and Triarii (they should be linked in the intro and perhaps once in the main text, not every instance). Also, because all four entries in the "see also" section are already mentioned and linked in the text, they can safely be removed.

2 Factual accuracy PASS

• The only issue I see is that the lead section is unsourced; however, since it doesn't contain information that is already sourced in the article, it shouldn't be a problem.

3 Coverage PASS

• The article seems to cover all of the aspects of this type of infantry; their equipment, usage in battle, history of their development and retirement, etc. Looks good to me.

4 Neutrality PASS

• No evidence of POV issues in the article.

5 Stability PASS

• Seems to be stable, no issues here.

6 Images PASS

• Images are not required under GA criteria, so there are no problems here.

Once the relatively minor issues in point 1 are sorted out, this article should be ready for GA. Great work on this article! Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's my first GAN. Anyway, I've corrected the issues you pointed out, the Marian reforms now have a date, the spelling errors have been corrected and the Hastati, Principes and Triarii are linked to once, in the introduction.--Serviam (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also my first GA review (although I have been involved on the receiving end before, so I know more or less what to look for). I'll go ahead and promote it! Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I think that this article needs some work. It seems to repeat itself in many places. I would also be very interested to know any ancient sources which refer to this tactic you mention about the Velites riding along and dismounting to use their javelins, since such an account I have never encountered or given attention to. Your reference to their being first used in 211 BC is wrong, since their use is attested in many battles before that (e.g. all the battles against Hannibal in Italy as well as against the Gauls before that) Thanks!

GK1973 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the velites dismounting is written by Livy. This was the key tactic for the Romans to counter the superior Capuan cavalry, but don't nail me to the exact book. I will have to research that. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will find it myself.

GK1973 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

French Army

I think that certain units of the French Army of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic period were called "Velites" after the Roman model. Drutt (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Verutum und Parma

According to "Warfare in the Classical World" by John Warry (page 133) the javelin was called "verutum" and had a throwing thong ("amentum"). According to Wikipedia itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parma_%28shield%29 the shield was known as "parma" (although a quite identical Iberian shield was called "caetra"). I suppose this should be added. Lastdingo (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

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 has been assessed as A, for both projects. Really? I have my concerns not so much about the size being small, but rather what was wrong makes me question what I don't know about the content. I suggest a reassessment:

• lede - a quick look doesn't appear to summarise the content (or am I wrong in that?)
• singular titles per MOS (it is plural, with the singular now linking to wikt). A decision on if a singular title is appropriate and the article moved, or if this is an appropriate exception
  • another if both singular/plural are bold.
• B5 supporting materials - some, but not much, maybe that's enough?

I personally would have rated a C, so I've compromised for the Classical project at B (instead of A). Hope this questions help. Widefox; talk 14:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, the article underwent a project-wide GAN, so in reality if you disagree with its assessment rating you should be nominating it for a Good Article reassessment, which can be completed either as a community GAR or as an individual GAR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The article failed to have the title being just bold while claiming quality A. Both are fixed, assessing Classical Greece and Rome to B (such a departure from MOS should prevent B). This is worth noting to highlight the unchanged Military history WikiProject rating. Yes, if others agree GAR seems prudent. Widefox; talk 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It passed a MILHIST A-class review, you can see the entire thing here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I will also say that there was another picture, the author gave me permission, and I uploaded it, however when I asked him to send it in to OTRS, he refused, so it was deleted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Kindly don't downgrade it to what you "think it is", when that downgrading puts it below GA, when it passed GAN. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Iazyges hi, I read the MILHIST review etc before commenting. The lede is better than I initially thought, and GA1, 3, 6 may be borderline, e.g. Legacy would benefit being expanded from half a line as there's sources, clearly deficient in a non-core part. Per WP Classical Greece and Rome Start C, B, GA (outlier) A examples it could be anything from Start to GA but not A, (arguably C) wouldn't you agree? My feedback is as good as the next from someone not involved. Widefox; talk 14:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

From my experience A-class can work on a sliding scale. Some articles that are modern and well known, such as if the predator drone article was nominated, would be subjected to much more scrutiny. A-class has standards, but for ancient, niche subjects such as this, it is at the best it can be (as mentioned in the review.) Due to its age, there are more than 2 thousand years of potential corruption of original source, unlike modern sources which can't really be corrupted. I would love to work on fixing any problems you see, to the best of my ability. I am currently on my phone, away from home, so it may be a couple hours until I can work on it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What did they look like?! For an A, this article doesn't yet cover what they wore, either in prose or image. A quick search finds [1] "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). Core omission. Widefox; talk 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There was previously a much better image, but it was removed when author refused to send in to OTRS, I have added in a lesser quality image to replace it. The they rarely wore armor thing comes from a much more reliable source (Sabin). I am certain that some of the Velites may have had such armor, but the vast majority (RS' say all of them) wore nothing more than shirts to protect themselves. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Velites/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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

• 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." [2]
• What? I will admit, I am very close to asking for this to be closed as a bad faith GAR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Iazyges you're disputing

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." ISBN 9780521782739
2. "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." [3]

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 [4] [5] ! 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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fails

• GA1b. essential MOS
  • 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

Ill be honest, I had worries the Lede looked Copy and pasted. Can you point out any discrepancies? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• • 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.

MOS:FORLANG gives an example that shows an unbolded singular. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • 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.

Italics for both, unless that latin word is commonly used in english (such as via, or vice versa). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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

01:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(New) Where do you see uppercase velites? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• GA3a broad
  • What do they look like? (e.g. Signifer has a couple of photos)

 Done Look at the image. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • A quick search finds [6] "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).

 Done ISBN 9780521782739 page 513 says that they could not afford the armor, ISBN 9781472816337 page 27 explicitly states that they did not wear armor. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• • (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

 Done Moved to another section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• GA6a/
  • some, but not enough to illustrate - nothing on their appearance

 Done If you had looked at my response, or the article you would see an illustration of there appearance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

• 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)

 Done Moved to another section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Passes

• GA2 pass
• GA4 pass
• GA5 pass

Context

• 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 Start C, B, GA (outlier) A examples it could be anything from Start to GA but not A, (arguably C)

• Nom for A Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Velites seems to be based on it being at GA long, plus importance. How can it have passed to A, if these things for GA still aren't fixed?
  • A: "A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting." WP:ASSESS
    • A non-expert did find something wanting.

Which is what? Images? See below, that is a non-issue. 01:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• • GA: "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia"
    • Nearly all readers will want to know what they look like/dress

As it would seem that looking at the article is above you, here it is

. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Spirit of GA "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia" Widefox; talk 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• 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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• 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; talk 00:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Care to talk at all before adding banners to the page? What source? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 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; talk 01:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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 [7] [8], 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; talk 17:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

:::See the link where it's nowhere near too close. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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; talk 23:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

*User:Widefox I have requested that this be closed, per your lack of familiarity with GAR and GA criteria and instructions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

New Section

• 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. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Widefox Again, let us work on the article, and not argue. I have struck all of my comments that could be considered a personal attack. Can we agree to work on the article? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Widefox I have waited far longer than a few minutes, so I trust you aren't still editing. Do you have new suggestions or issues? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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; talk 16:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Widefox as its your individual assessment, you should either change it to community, or close it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: Could you either close this, or reopen it as a community re-assessment? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Singularis och plural?

A question arose on Swedish wikipedia about why the article name should be in plural? The rule is usually that the article name should be in singular. Regards --AHA (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)