Talk:Rostra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Rostra was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 15, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Architecture (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rome (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rostrum[edit]

Is the rostrum a decorative beak or a heavy galley ram? --Error 03:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither. This article is about a platform on which one speaks.
Also, the picture is terrible; the rostra is hidden in the background. Could someone please find a new picture? Fuzzform 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually Error is correct...rostrum is a ships ram...Rostra is the speakers platform that get's it's name from the rostrum displayed on the platform.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article also states that the Rostra was built by Caesar and Octavian....it was much older than that and changed several times.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am making changes. Sue me.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive my editing style on this page. It was very difficult to clear through the mass of incorrect information to figure out what was excepted and knwon facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excepted? LOL! I am such a dweeb! --Amadscientist (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit[edit]

  • As recently requested by Amadscientist, I've given the article an extensive copyedit. More is needed. I'm not in a place over this holiday where I have resources for research but will try to do some and make improvements when I return from holiday. Note that the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Rostra Augusti" (a description of certain monuments) is clearly garbled. Someone with the appropriate research resources is needed to sort this out. Simmaren (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've marked several places where citations are required, but the entire article cries out for citations. This should be the focus of any plan for improvement. Simmaren (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will start gathering references.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Working Comments[edit]

  • I removed the reference to the Curia (wikilinked to Curia Julia) in the first sentence of the lede. The Rostra Vetera dates to the early 300s B.C., while the Curia Julia wasn't built until 44 B.C. and therefore shouldn't be a part of a description of the "original" setting. I will be adding additional information from various sources, as well as reorganizing a bit. Some of the detailed description in the lede belongs (IMO) later in the article. Simmaren (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am still in medias res. Simmaren (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I note that the article on "Rostra" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary says that the term "Rostra Vetera" was used in the time of Augustus and later to distinguish what the article now calls the Rostra Augusti from other later Rostra located elsewhere. This requires more investigation. Simmaren (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The images are helpful but there may be too many for an article of this size. Let's worry about that later. Simmaren (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The material under "Rostra Augusti" needs work. Some of it appears to be confused -- the Lapis Niger is next to the Rostra Vetera, not the Rostra Augusti. Further research is needed, especially in specialist works on the Forum. I've gone about as far as possible with the more general works in my own library. Simmaren (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • One or two aspects of the diagram of the Comitium may be incorrect. The diagrams I have seen in my sources show the orientation of the main axis to be northwest/southeast and not north/south as shown here. Accordingly, the Rostra should be shown on the east side of the Comitium with the Curia Hostila to the northwest. Also, the Curia Hostilia is shown out-of-scale in this diagram (too large relative to the size of the Comitium). Also, as indicated elsewhere, the label "Rostra Vetera" is anachronistic (that is, the term was not in use until the original Rostra was replaced by Caesar and Augustus and referred to the replacement Rostra. Simmaren (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to find a substitute for the quote from Bunsen. It is old and the description is based on an examination of two old coins, not exactly a high resolution source. Presumably, there is much more recent information based on archeological investigation, inscriptions and other records that have become available since Bunsen wrote. Better to cite these. Simmaren (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of this article (like the Curia Julia reference) were already here on the artcile before I began making changes. I have been researching the Rostra and the Comitium for a while and I am pretty sure I have it's location correct based on several other diagrams that have copyright. However I have taken your suggestion and altered the illustration to reflect other descriptions as well.
I think some of the information you deleted does need to come back.....but I prefer to get sources arranged first now that there is another editor working. I will get the sources for the citation tags added.
I have two goals for this article. Eventually sections for all the rostra of Ancient Rome. There was another rostra discovered during the original digs that was misinterpreted as a medieval building and demolished but I think it was the Rostra of Vespasian. Also plan one more illustration of the Rostra Vetera.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Your plans sound fine to me. I recognize that what is here now may be improved but is definitely incomplete. As I indicated, my immediate research resources are exhausted, but I can visit a university library soon to borrow more. I tried to eliminate information which seemed wrong or for which I had no reliable supporting sources. If deleted information can be reliably sourced it should come back in, of course. I appreciate the problem of unsourced "legacy" information. Simmaren (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Project Illustration[edit]

The diagram is based on a number of sources for locations much of which is from Platner's topographical dictionary. I based the scale on later archeology sketches from in front the Curia Julia. The scale of the Curia Hostilia and the locations of the other structures are based on other maps as well as written documetation.

Please give all input you have on the illustrations as they can be changed to match consensus. If you have sources let me read them or you can change the image yourself if you would like.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • My two sources for layout are Millar and Stambaugh. These are consistent although I'm not sure that together they amount to a "consensus". Millar spends a lot of time describing the layout and topography of the City preliminary to discussing his main topic: the "crowd" in Roman politics during the Republic. He has a diagram of the Republican forum (p. 40). Stambaugh's focus is more directly relevant: ancient Rome as a city. He has a perspective drawing (fig 8, p. 112) which is very helpful. Perhaps I could scan these and send them to you by e.mail? Both show the long axis of the Forum Romanum oriented northwest-southeast, with the Comitium, Curia Hostilis and Rostra at the north/northwest corner. The Curia is behind (furthest north) and fronts on the Comitium amphitheater and faces the center of the Forum. The Rostra appears to be on the opposite (south) side of the Comitium amphitheater from the Curia. Thanks for the invitation to change the image but I'm afraid I lack the technical skill at the moment and woud like to reach agreement on the way it should look in any case. Thanks for your cooperation. Simmaren (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be so many different layouts because of the length of time the Rostra was used, how many time the Comitium was altered and how many times the Curia was rebuilt. I am attempting to illustrate as many periods as possible.
There is a newer version from an auther I just cited that shows the Rostra next to the Lapis Niger an the Graecostasis close to the way I had originaly layed it out. It is based on 1998 photos of the most recent excavations around the Lapis Niger, but yes, you input is very important....as you are the only other editor her. What we decide is consensus once we agree on it. As more editor begin to contribute consensu may change but must be accompanied with references to cite published facts.....that are recent. (as you state there is very credible newer information out there)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rostra location[edit]

It makes more sense if the Rostra was on the side your mention....but all sources are showing the other. Is this a confusion with the Graecostasis?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting references[edit]

It is not possible to check many of the references that have been used. I will endeavor to find these references and properly format them.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rostrum is a different subject, theatrical or otherwise[edit]

The definition of "Rostra" has very definite meaning in the ancient world and in to days world as well.

Rostrum (singular) was defined after the 18th century to mean a speakers podium or pulpit as well as a raised theatrical platform.[1]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Webster, Inc, Merriam- (1991). The Merriam-Webster New Book of Word Histories. Merriam-Webster. p. 403. ISBN 9780877796039. 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rostra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting this article On Hold. There are sections entirely devoid of in-line citations and there are {{citations}} flags. The article is non-compliant with WP:verify. Pyrotec (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Initial comments[edit]

As some work has been done on this article, I will start the Initial review. This will involve considering the articel section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • History -
  • The first paragraph is unreferenced.
  • If you are intending to use a book as Ref 7 and 10, the book needs to be properly citated and the relevant page number(s) given.
  • Note: Ref 8 is the "same" as ref 7 and 10, but it is properly cited.
  • The last paragraph is unreferenced.
    • Tribal assemblies and tribunals & Vulcanal -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • These two subsections appear to be compliant.
    • Rostra Vetera -
  • Ref 25 states "Quoted in Arnold, footnote 54, 274", but there is no reference to Arnold.
    • Debate and confusion of architectural elements -
  • Entirely unreferenced.
  • Honorary names -
    • Rostra Augusti -
  • Appears to be compliant.
    • Rostra Vandalica & Rostra Ad Palmam/Domitian/Flavian Rostra
  • Entirely unreferenced.
  • Site today
  • Unreferenced.
    • In contemporary news -
  • First paragraph is unreferenced.
  • Other known Rostra -
    • Rostra Iulii -
  • Appears to be compliant.
    • Rostra Diocletiani -
  • Entirely unreferenced.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Real life[edit]

I got a little busy this last week. If you feel the article should just be declined for now, I understand and will support any desicion you make. Otherwise, I may not be able to sit down for too long for another couple of days.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Just not enough time now. Thanks for the review. Go ahead and fail and I will relist when I have made the needed changes. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the update. I'm closing review at the Nomintor's request. Pyrotec (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Vulcanal confusion[edit]

There is confusion here regarding the location of the Vulcanal. The article says it was "Underneath the Lapis Niger", but my source (Grant, Michael (1970), The Roman Forum, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; Photos by Werner Forman, pg 214. — including a map, pg 44) — places it about 40 meters away (behind the New Rostra, built around the time of Julius Caesar's assassination). It may be that much older sources place it nearer the Lapis Niger. Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now so I apologize for the delay in replying. The actual alter of the Vulcanal was the location of the original "Black Stone" stele which was covered over with black marble slabs in the early Imperial age (slightly off kilter). I am unfamiliar with this being placed in confusion behind the Rostra Augusti, and forty meters is too far from the structure to be behind it. That seems to actually cut through the Capitoline hill and ends up on the otherside. That's 105 ft. The reference may actually be speaking of the Greek Gymnasium located near by.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no absolute on information from this time. Don't change this without further discussion. There is a formed consensus on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)