Talk:Deva Victrix

Assessment Report

1. Article needs to be expanded and the structure and sectioning improved.
2. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. (See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Elliptical Building and Market Hall inscription

I improved the page by adding a separate section by adding a separate section for the elliptical building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site.

I also added a section for the Market Hall inscription.

And then along comes some 'gatekeeper' called Dougweller and deletes the whole lot, simply because it had a reference to Ralph Ellis in it. I doubt if Dougweller has even heard of the Deva fortress before now.

These sections greatly added to the page, and frankly it is sheer vandalism to just delete everything from this page.

I would urge you to look at these section and add back in the portions you approve of.

Roman Tours - (Website)

The Link to Deva Victrix Roman Tours Continues to keep getting removed from the article, stating it is "Commercial" Albeit it may be (but I am not stating that it is), but it is relevant to the article, it offers educational information to viewers.

Can this please go to an independant discussion ? //Melonite 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the link once. I can't see where it has been removed before then from this article, and so I'm not sure why you think it "continues to keep getting removed". If the link were to be added along with a suitable relevant and real contribution to the article for which it was a refence or citation, I think it could be justified in being kept.

The greater problem at the moment is that a substantial amount of material has been added by users, one in particular who has not responded to messages on his/her talk page, nor to emails sent to him/her to provide references and citations to the material added. In the absence of this, we are left with a li9t of material which might be verifiable, but for which we cannot decide, and which would probably be extremely difficult to provide references or citations for retrospectively by people who were not the original editors who added the material. In the light of this, the addition of yet more material that is not justified or (in the case of the external link we are discussing) not referred to in the main text as a referebce or citation has seemed to me to be giving us yet more of a mess to sort out. However, as I've said, if the link is referred to sensibly in the text, I see no reason why it could not be kept. The rest of the uncited information may well have to more radically edited to help conform to the requirements of wikipedia (WP:CITE, WP:References, and WP:A.)  DDStretch  (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Towards FA

Looks good. Just a few suggestions for improvements:

• The last sentence of the lead does not make sense - should the word "where" be omitted?
• History, para 2. "required as much as 2,400,000 litres (530,000 imp gal) a day" - of what?
• Under Legio XX Valeria Victrix, para 2. "To the east was the legions parade ground" - should there be an apostrophe?
• Ditto, para 3. "leaving Deva under garrisoned" - hyphen between under and garrisoned?
• Decline and abandonment, para 1. "the Legio XX Valeria Victrix – nor any other military units – was not on recorded as being garrisoned at Deva," does not make sense.
• Legionary baths, para 2. "Also part of the complex, but unsheltered, an exercise yard (palaestra)." Sentence without a verb.
• Next sentence. "The baths were heated hypocaust underfloor heating" - does that need a "by"?
• Ditto para 4. "Remains of the baths include columns from the exercise hall...." - this sentence needs attention, maybe a "which".
• Capital of Britannia?, para 1. "The building was located near centre of the fortress" - "the" before centre?

Good luck! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, I'll nominate it at FA later today. Nev1 (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Now nominated. Nev1 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-FA review

Roger Davies asked me to have a look at this. I've given it a copy edit, and the comments below are intended to help guide the process of brushing the article up before another nomination for FA. Congratulations to the main editor for all his work in researching and constructing this article: I am sure it can be nudged past the post.

• I found the grid ref obtrusive at the beginning (some articles put them in the top right corner, as, for example, at Thurso). In fact, I found the repeated inclusion of sizes and dimensions pedantic and damaging to the prose, but perhaps that's because I can't picture the size of anything from measurements. I find sentences such as the following indigestible and wonder if some of this sort of measuring could go in the notes: The new stone fortress walls were 1.36 metres (4.5 ft) thick at the base and 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) thick at the top.[24] Located at regular intervals, approximately 60 metres (200 ft) apart, along the walls were 22 towers about 6.5 metres (21 ft) square.[25] The defensive ditch was re-dug and was 7.5 metres (25 ft) wide and 2.45 metres (8.0 ft) deep.[25] An estimated 55,452 metric tons (54,576 LT/61,125 ST) of stone were used to build the new fortress defences.
  • The co-ordinates have been moved to the top right as suggested. As for measurements mid-prose I understand your concerns, but believe that the measurements are important. I think the best way to deal with this would to be include diagrams or plans wherever possible. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Although leads don’t necessarily need citations, I think the following claim requires one: The unusual size of the fortress ... suggests that it may have been intended as the base for a potential invasion of Ireland, and perhaps eventually to become the capital of Britain. That's a large theory to argue merely from size.
  • Reference added and other factors included. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better. qp10qp (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Later the article adds Another factor pointing to Deva Victrix as a provincial capital is the presence of a port. Once again, it occurs to me that Britannia had other ports.
  • Certainly, but the absence of a port would have counted against the town becoming a provincial capital. Perhaps some context should be added here along the lines of why a port is important. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of the empire's plans for Deva … What plans were these?

• The legion probably remained at the fortress until it eventually fell into disuse in the late 3rd or early 4th century. But the article tells us later that soldiers were still there in 383.
  • Prose tweaked, this was a simple mistake, evidently I can't count :-) Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• the largest known military amphitheatre in Britain. Were there larger non-military amphitheatres?
  • This is a question that's occurred to me, however the available sources state military amphitheatre. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The fortress was built by the Legio II Adiutrix in the AD 70s as the Roman army advanced north against the Brigantes. The article strikes me as vague on anti-tribal strategy: the Brigantes may have been a more easterly northern tribe against which York was built as an offensive fort. (If there had been a peace with the Brigantes, where would the border have been? Did the legion that built Deva reach the area without a fight?) We hear nothing of campaigns against the Welsh (were the Silures still unconquered at the time Deva was built?). Wales is not mentioned in the article at all, though we hear that Deva divided the "the Brigantes from the Ordovices". Yet Deva, given its position, was clearly built with Wales at least partly in mind. The article tells us that the bend in the river provided protection from the south and the west, but the implication of the fortress’s orientation in relation to the river is not otherwise explored. Surely Cerialis and Frontinus were preoccupied with the Welsh tribes in the 70s, which is when the article tells us Deva was built (presumably under their governorships).

• The article says at one point that the Brigantes were the Celtic tribe occupying most of what is now Northern England, but in another place we are told that Deva was in the lands of the Celtic Cornovii, whom we do not hear of again: were they themselves dividing the Brigantes from the Ordovices, then (scratches head)? The Romans decided the best way to ensure long term peace was by military conquest, and the corollary is that they would then incorporate the conquered land into the empire, controlling it from centres like Deva. Deva seems to have been a link between the chain of forts along the Welsh border (Caerleon, Wroxeter, Oswestry), providing the link across the Pennines to York. I am not sure it was an advance fort, since campaigns were launched far to the north of its location, right up into Scotland: and the article tells us that the legion moved down from Inchtuthil to rebuild Deva, which for me argues that it was not planned as any sort of provincial capital when it was first built of wood. Perhaps it was built, after conquest, as a means of holding the area, rather than as a factor in advances against the Brigantes.

• Could something be said about Deva’s position relative to the Roman road network?

• A plan of the camp would be useful. One cannot be sure that the museum model is academically sound.

• The fortress may have required as much as 2,400,000 litres (530,000 imp gal) of water a day,[7] supplied by fresh water piped in from natural springs in the suburb of Boughton 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) to the east. The figures are precise, but locating the springs in an English suburb less so–perhaps a more nuanced wording could be found here and at similar junctures.

• The fortress contained barracks, granaries (horrea), military headquarters (principia), and baths. Why is the Latin given for some words and not others?

• There is an alternative source for the naming of the settlement which suggests that the Roman name for the fortress was adopted directly from the British name of the river. But we haven’t been told the first source; perhaps both need to be mentioned, since there are so few sources.

• After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the settlement became known as Legacaestir, meaning 'City of the Legions' in Old English. This sentence probably needs uniting with Although both Gildas and Bede located the early 4th century Roman martyrs, Julius and Aaron, in the 'City of the Legions', that is generally identified as Isca Augusta (Caerleon) rather than Deva, otherwise the latter seems random. Some explanation may be needed on the second point, which I don’t readily grasp. Is the point that Caerleon was the real city of legions or simply that Julius and Aaron were martyred there rather than in Chester? Interestingly, Bede notes that the Britons "more correctly" called the city [meaning Chester] "Caerlegion". Either he was making a nice distinction that escapes me, or he was as confused as I am.

• discoveries such as an altar to Jupiter Tanarus. This sounds interesting; is it still around, or has it been lost? Do we know more? (Who is Jupiter Tanarus, for example?)
  • An explanation of who Jupiter Tanarus is has been added. Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Between 2007 and 2009, excavations are being made at the amphitheatre on behalf of Chester City Council with English Heritage. I copyedited this to read more clearly, but please check that I have understood it correctly.
  • Yep, looks fine. Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• During the 2nd century, at least part of the Legio XX Valeria Victrix took part in the construction of Hadrian's Wall,[28] leading to some sections of the fortress being abandoned and others being allowed to fall into disrepair. What is the connection between the building of Hadrian’s Wall and this neglect? What is the distinction between abandonment and disrepair here?

• Following attacks against barbarians in the early 3rd century under Septimus Severus, the fortress at Deva was again rebuilt, this time using an estimated 309,181 metric tons (304,298 LT/340,814 ST) of stone. What is the connection between these attacks against barbarians and the rebuilding of the fortress? Which barbarians are these?

• There were soldiers at Chester until at least 383 as demonstrated by coins from the imperial mints. How do the coins demonstrate this?

• That there is no evidence of repairs to the timber structure indicates that it was only intended to be temporary. I am not sure what this means. Do we know that some of it fell into disrepair? It strikes me that the lack of repairs may simply be because it was replaced before it needed them.
  • Correct, that alone would not imply the structure was meant to be temporary. I neglected to mention other factors involved, but these have now been included. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• a strange elliptical building was partially uncovered. What parts were uncovered? The foundations, or more?
  • The source just says the "walls of the building" (and some paving). Nev1 (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

-qp10qp (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

Can bibliography be separated in primery (Tacituc etc) and Secondary sources?--Vojvodaeist 12:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, done. Nev1 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)