Talk:Triarii

	Triarii has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 7, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 13, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 8, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed November 9, 2016 WikiProject A-class review Not approved Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Additional information: /  This article has failed an A-Class review. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. I should also make it clear here that I have read through the contentious review of July and thus am aware of the problems raised there. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

I'm a little unsure of this article's structure (I know you've heard this before, but bear with me). Basically, I'm curious as to why the article jumps around in time: it starts with the Camillian system, moves to the Polybian system, then tells us of the unit's origins and then about their demise. Surely a more logical system would begin with origins, then move chronologically though the systems and end with a description of the Marian Reforms?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shall restructure the article chronologically then if you'd prefer it that way. Btw my internet is having problems at the moment so I might not be be able to connect and reply to you in a timely manner.--Serviam (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done there may be some problems because I just moved paragraphs around rather than rewrite them. If you spot anythign I'll be happy to correct it.--Serviam (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me this reads much better as a reader can follow the choronology of the triarii. If you don't mind I'll add some extra titles to break the text up a bit. I recommend a similar structure with the other roman troop type articles you have worked on.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll apply this new structure to the other articles too--Serviam (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

Sources are all good, although I'd like to see dates of publication for all the book sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the dates to the templates.--Serviam (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've done soemthing to the refrence list, the text is now very big...I'm not sure how to fix it--Serviam (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine to me, I'm not sure what is causing the problem for you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It corrected itself after I reloaded the page. The reference list had a really large font size, I'm not sure what caused it...--Serviam (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

I'm curious, are there any battles at which the Triarii were particularly lauded? Is there anything for which they are especially famous or noted? Are there any juicy quotes about Triarii from ancient writers that might be included? A proverb is mentioned in the previous review but I can't see any evidence of it here or in the article's history, to what is this referring? I'm asking because at the moment the article doesn't really have a hook that characterises the Triarii and makes them exceptional.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were used in quite a few battles, almost always in the way described in the article. I'm not sure if there are any paticular battles worthy of mention, from the ones I have heard of anyway. Do you have any in mind? The proverb is mentioned in the prose; "Hence the expression rem ad Triarios redisse, "it has come to the triarii", signalling an act of desperation."--Serviam (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not dependant on pass/fail, but I recommend incorporating the proverb into the article in someway, as it is a piece of information that people may be coming to wikipedia to find out about and also because it is interesting in describing the importance of the triarii. I know very little about this era of Roman history, I was enquiring about battles and such in case there was any particular piece of history that is attached to the triarii.

You mean in a section of its own? I'll do a little more research as well there may be some instances where triarii were involved in something unconventional...--Serviam (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More research would be good, but regarding the proverb, this is my mistake, I overlooked it in my first read through and its fine as it is (although check for the spacing at the end of the sentence).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c

(non-free images have fair use rationales):

Are there really no suitable images for this article? I'm surprised there are no public domain images of Triarii.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of pictures of later post marian legionaries, though the only ones I've found of triarii are modern paintings that are copyrighted. I haven't found any contemporary drawings or anything either.

Thats a shame, images would be nice.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

The issues above really require discussion here rather than direct action in the article itself at this stage. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the above and please don't think I'm demanding widespread changes. The article is very good and very interesting. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably good enough to pass now, I'll just have another read through.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues above really require discussion here rather than direct action in the article itself at this stage. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the above and please don't think I'm demanding widespread changes. The article is very good and very interesting. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably good enough to pass now, I'll just have another read through.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of small things that should be easy to fix.

• "In most battles triarii were not used and they were eventually done away with after the Marian reforms of 107 BC." from the lead, explain why they were not often used.

•  Done--Serviam (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "and let them carry on." and "and let them take over" are not hugely encyclopedic, try "who would then engage the enemy" instead.

•  Done--Serviam (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article should link to the specific article about the Roman soldiers who replaced this system after the Marian reforms, not simply "Medium Infantry"

• Well there wasn't really a special name for legionaries of that time, they were just reffered to as "miles", which simply means "soldiers". I will insert a piped link with the word "miles" linked to legionary.--Serviam (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was looking for.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Otherwise its fine, deal with these small things and I'll pass the article. Ir ecommend making similar structual changes to the other articles you have a GAN, for the same reasons as I suggested this one be changed. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the guidelines on italicising latin names? Should they be italicised?--Serviam (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, words in a foreign language should generally be italicised unless they have entered the English language themselves.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have italicised the names of the legionaries.--Serviam (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am now happy for this to pass as a GA, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, tahnks for the review!--Serviam (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]