Talk:Mamucium/GA1

GA Review

I'm going to review this nom. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to put this article on hold until a few problems are resolved:

• In "Location", the sentence "In the Roman period where the River Medlock and River Irwell joined and the crossing point were separated by an area of marshland" needs work. I think it means "The rivers Medlock and Irwell joined at point A, and the fort protected the river crossing at point B. Between pt. A and b was marshland." Is the marshland even relevant? Was the fort built on marshland? I hope I didn't misread the sentence.

• Removed the bit about the marsh, doesn't seem important now. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• What does it mean that the fort was "linked" to other forts (in the Location section). You might want to clear that up.

• The links were mainly administrative, I hope I've made that clear in the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Same thing: what does "sourced their materials" mean? (I'm not a history expert, if you couldn't tell).

• It just means they got the tegulae from the same place, I've edited the sentence to make that clearer. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The second sentence in the second paragraph of Location doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph. Maybe explain how it changed, or what happened as a result of the change.

• A bit more has been added into the next sentence to make it clear how the two sentences are linked. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Add "In addition," to the beginning of the Deansgate paragraph, or some other kind of transition to link Coccium to Deansgate.

• Done, and I've moved that sentence to where it belonged: in the previous paragraph when the roads were discussed. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence "Deansgate, a busy thoroughfare, passes close to the east of the fort and follows the general line of Roman road to Ribchester and Castlefield – the area the fort is in – is on the south west corner of Manchester city centre." is really like two sentences. IMO, it should be cut at the first hyphen and turned into two sentences/or in some other way made clearer.

• Split as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Again, work on transitions, like for the last sentence in Locations

• The second paragraph of the section has been rearranged. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Final note for locations: it'd be nice to have a visual for locations, but not totally necessary

• It's difficult to find a good one, would an image of the fort with a back drop of modern buildings be acceptable? (That's the modern location) I may be able to find something. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• In History, you say a "sherd of broken pottery". Is it supposed to be shard?

• Archaeologists seem to use sherd, whereas everyone else uses shard. Changed. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Was the fort built in 79 by the Setantii? If so, say so. If not, don't put "it was built in 79" in the same sentence as the sentantii.

• Fixed, it now reads "Although the area was in the territory of the Celtic tribe Brigantes until the Romans annexed the area, it may have been under the control of the Setantii, a sub-tribe of the Brigantes.[9] The fort was built around 79;[10] it was built as part of the fortifications erected under Gnaeus Julius Agricola during his campaigns against the Brigantes after the treaty with the Celtic tribe failed". Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• It was "designed to be garrisoned by a cohort, about infantry". What's the last part mean?

  It was meant to read "about 500 infantry", fixed. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Manchester and the Roman fort at Slack – which neighboured Castleshaw – superseded Castleshaw Roman fort in the 120s"... superseded THE castleshaw? I'm not sure, otherwise I'd change it myself.

• I've changed the text to avoid this problem, it now reads "superseded the fort at Castleshaw in the 120s". Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Outline the three main phases of construction: "The second phase included a vicus..."

• I've included a brief statement: "Excavations have demonstrated that the fort had three main phases of construction; one in 79, the second in 160, and the third in 200". Is this enough? Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's about it. The later part seems fine, just the beginning is the problem. The pictures are all tagged, the refs are fine, it's stable and Neutral. Good job. Just make it clearer and it should pass.

As for FA recommendations, I'd suggest adding a map for Locations and some other pics, if possible. Also (this is just me) but you might consider moving the layout section up in the article or incorporate it into the article. I'd also (this is just my pickyness again), but I'd separate the first paragraph in history into time periods. Good job anyway Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to summarise, I've made these changes per your review. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Nev1

Thank you. That's so much better. I think all of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm going to go ahead and promote this article to GA status. Thanks for your speedy work! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Organized, clear, flows well
2. Reliable refs
3. Stays on topic
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Pics all have tags