Talk:Roman Dacia/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 19:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, first of all I want to clarify that the writer (and creator) of this article is the inactive Codrinb, who has all the merit. In fact, he promoted this article to GA the first time, but it was reassessed and failed the second nomination. This may bring some issues to the review and I will understand if it fails, but I will try my best to make it pass. And as for your articles, I'm currently reviewing one, but I might take a look at some of your short articles. Super Ψ Dro 19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi (again?) - I have to say, it's not a topic I know much about, so I will probably look through the sources for help reviewing and ask a lot of questions. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that! Super Ψ Dro 21:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, I have a doubt. Are quotes supposed to have links? Super Ψ Dro 21:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Usually not Kingsif (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• In the hat note, it uses "on" for referring to land in present territories - should this not be "in"?

Fixed

• Copyvio check looks fine; the heavy sources are a Wikipedia mirror and a page where some of the Latin quotes are

What do you mean by "heavy sources"?

The ones that have a high copyvio % - it's all good here. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• It might be worth introducing a pronunciation guide in the lead - some people (American education system...) may think it's 'da-see-a'

I will try to request it somewhere. Should it include "Roman" as well or only "Dacia"?

Roman should be easy enough. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I now have both the IPA pronunciation and the respell, but the user who helped me said I shouldn't add "Roman" per WP:MOS since it's a common word. Should I only add Dacia? Super Ψ Dro 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, don't add 'Roman' (that is what I intended above, I can see how it's ambiguous) Kingsif (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, done. Super Ψ Dro 19:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Selection of academic sources all look quality; and a good amount are available online
• Consistent ref formatting, and everything looks cited inline appropriately
• Lead has one too many paragraphs; it seems good coverage, could the information be merged/moved around a bit?

I have tried to change it a bit but there is not much to do, almost everything is quite useful and the sentences I could remove still have many details.

• Good infobox and useful sidebars
• All images free and licensed
• Could the Trajan Column image be made upright size and perhaps moved to the right, to not squash the indented quote below it?

Sure, done.

• Illustration all relevant, including good use of indentation for select quotes
• Will continue with prose Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Lead still too long

Done, I deleted the entire lead while editing and re-wrote it.

• As part of Caesar's planned Parthian campaign of 44 BC, he planned to cross into - close repetition of "planned" could be tweaked

Done.

• Although the planned expedition into Dacia also follows close after

Fixed.

• Yet for all this, there existed a measure of social, diplomatic, and political interaction between the Roman Empire and the Dacians during much of the late pre-Roman period is in a storytelling tone, not an encyclopedic one

Rewritted.

• Decebalus should be wikilinked the first time it appears

Done.

• Yet this episode was merely a prelude to the emperor Trajan's wars of conquest in Dacia - fruity storytelling language, it's effectively a "coming up next time" sentence, please rephrase

Done.

• All that was left to deal with were - I sense storytelling may be a recurring issue

Fixed.

• But he was in no position to return to Rome - ditto

Fixed, I think.

• Dacia, exposed as it was - this is where I stop leaving examples and ask for a review/re-write. It's interesting prose, but it's more a narrative version of events than an encyclopedia record. I haven't seen an issue with grammar yet, though, so notwithstanding typos and perhaps some punctuation, it should be fine in that regard. Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I could nominate this to WP:GOCE, but some months might pass until they take this article, so this would have to happen after the review. Super Ψ Dro 10:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: GOCE does slow it down - I've asked for it on GAN a few times, but usually when it's a rough translation. Otherwise, I prefer to get the willing nominator to do the copyedit, presuming their English is fine. Would you be okay with rewriting it like this? Kingsif (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If you mean rewrite it as we have done so far, of course! Super Ψ Dro 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Yes, that's it - could you ping me when you're done/if you have questions? Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, I thought you meant that you were going to continue reading the article and telling me what to rewrite. Anyways, I've given it another reading and removed what didn't seem encyclopedic prose to me. I think it would be better if you gave it a fast read too in case I have omitted any sentence, though. Super Ψ Dro 20:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: If that's what you'd think would work best, we can. I'm reading through now and can flag some things, e.g. But he could not return to Rome, and possibly similar instances, don't need the word "But" - and starting a sentence with it does generally indicate storytelling tone. There's other words and phrases used to start sentences that can be omitted for this. Things like The Roxolani, angry over a Roman decision to cease the payments to which Trajan had agreed, allied themselves with the Iazyges and both tribes revolted against Rome are more descriptive than explanatory, which can be improved by reordering the sentence, like "The Roxolani allied themselves with the Iazyges to revolt against Rome, because they were angry over a Roman decision to cease payments to which Trajan had agreed". It's looking stronger though, there aren't a lot of such examples. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, both fixed, although I think "but he could not return to Rome" was fine. Super Ψ Dro 11:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Great, I'm not seeing much else that sticks out - I've you've been over the article for similar phrasings, it should be fine. It seems appropriately neutral, and the sources all look great and clean. Your ping didn't work, but I'm now following the page if you want to reply. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• on hold Prose very narrative, but otherwise good. Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ping @Super Dromaeosaurus: For response: it's been a while, if you've checked the prose it should be good. Kingsif (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Yeah, I checked everything after the Marcomannic Wars subsection because I assume you revised that part, so it should be done. Super Ψ Dro 09:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, then this can pass! Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice work everyone! Codrin.B (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)