Talk:Triarii/GA1

GA Review

• Please specify which parts of the equipment were obligatory and which not. There was no standardisation of helmets and swords until professional legions were introduced. Of course, there were preferences, but you have to state them as that and not as standards. It is not clear fronm the text how large a legion could be and that no matter how large it was, the number of triarii was fixed.

• Many Triarii purchased equipment from the state, so most of it was very similar. I will mention this anway

• Which sources tells they had always a complete plate cuirass? Didn't they switch to chainmail, didn't some carry a linothorax in the early times?

• No nearly all Triarii wore plate cuirasses, they may have have worn linothoraxes early on, and mail wasn't common amoung them.  Done

That contradicts my sources. I will need to research that issue, so it is not done.

• Which source tells that they only had the clipeus and no aspis?

• The Third book mentioned in references tells us this. It's also mentioned in the second book but I did not use this as a reference. Pliny also wrote about them using the Clipeus.--Serviam (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to the site where Pliny mentions this and keep in mind that he wrote when they were no longer in military service.

• It doesn't fully cover the topic because it omits the cooperation between velites/rorarii&accensi and triarii. You have to mention when what kind of unit was in use. Take a look at phalanx. It's not necessary to mention the details of equipment for hastati and principes.

•  Done

not done

• Polybius did reform the Roman army? That's new to me. Please clarify who did reform, when he did that and who is a mere hostage writing about the Roman wars.

• The polybian military era wasn't brought about by a single reform, and it's just named after Polybius even though he had no part in it. Scipio Africanus contributed to it, along with a number of othe generals. — "A reform, partly brought about by Scipio Africanus after his campaigns in Iberia, saw the classes of infantry now sorted by length of service rather than wealth, and the Leves, Rorarii and Accensi had now disappeared."

The velites were in use before Scipio took over any command. You can't attribute that to him. The text doesn't make it clear that there was a series of reforms.

Yes, but he was one of the first who organised by length of service rather than wealth. I don't have a source for that so I can't include it, but it's why it's mentioned in the article.--Serviam (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• You should mention the Roman proverb concerning the triarii in Latin and in English.

• I do, it's in the introdutction — "hence the expression rem ad Triarios redisse, "it has come to the Triarii"

With a source of course.

• You mention that leves were replaced. Who were they? That's missing.

• I do mention it, "the Leves, javelin armed light infantry skirmishers who were attached to maniples of Hastati

• Your links aren't proper, please check that they all direct where you want them. I corrected Camillan and Polybian legion in the intro. Use that as an example.

•  Done

• The article should be completely restructured. You have three dates that are essential for understanding the triarii (Camillian reform, Polybius description and the Etruscan kings). You current structure is 2, 3, 1. Make it 1, 2, 3.

• I'm pretty sure the triarii weren't present under Servius Tullius. The first class just bore some similarites with regards to weapons and equipment.

They weren't called triarii, but their fighting style developed from hoplite warfare.

• The structure of the intro and the first equipment section should be restructured. In equipment you go into the details of their social standing and in the intro you go into the details of their equipment and proverbs. Start with the social standing in the intro and say they were well-armed hoplites with short spears in the last battle line. No details about helmets and swords. A triarii is defined by his shield, his spear, his armour and that he was an old man, not a youngster. For this equipment wealth was needed and they stem from the traditionally wealthiest class. However, concerning wealth you should also mention the equites in the article.

•  Done--Serviam (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mention the equites in the article, not the intro.

Structure and content are the issues for keeping this GA on hold. Your writing style isn't brilliant, but understandable. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The current structure is this:

• Definition
• Summary of article, misc info

Equipment and organisation

• Equipment of the Camillan era
• Organisation of the Camillan era
• Equipment of the Polybian era
• Organisation of the Polybian era

History

• Origins
• Reform
• Retirement

What structure would you like?--Serviam (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New structure:

• Definition
• Summary of article, misc info

History

• Origins
• Reform
• Retirement

Equipment

• Equipment of the Camillan era
• Equipment of the Polybian era

Organisation

• Organisation of the Camillan era
• Organisation of the Polybian era

Proverbs

• The legacy of the triarii

I hope that helps. I shortened the intro to contain only essential information. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article is of sufficient length to justify that many sections. I think it might be better to include that proverb in the intro, rather than its own section. It would be better placed there.--Serviam (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm worried that seperate sections for equipment and organisation breaks the flow and chronology of the article. I've divided it up appropriatly anyway.--Serviam (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you just once really do what you claim to have  Done? I went through the article again and I'm still not convinced that you quoted the sources correctly. This will take some time until I've checked your sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'll look into the references, that's a valid concern, there are some statements left without refs, I'll get those books out agian, but I really don't like your new layout, it's not well structured at all. Fail it if you must, but GAR should not be the place to impose one's will on the article, you should read the work, point out any defects for correction, then pass/fail based on the criteria, but not impose great structural changes. I really, really don't like the new format, it's not chronological and the flow is lost. The information is fragmented, rather than grouped by military period, and I think it's hard to read.--Serviam (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You can ask for a second opinion if you are not satisfied with my review. Reverting someone's complete work just because you don't like the layout is rude and unnecessary. At least I'm doing little bits on the article myself instead of just failing it. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When there was no reply for quite a while I assumed reverting to previous format would be okay. Now, we need to discuss the formats here. I prefer my format because

• It is consistent with the other Roman soldier articles: Velites (Already GA), Hastati, Principes and Leves
• It's chronological
• Information is easier to find and isn't fragmented as it is in the second format
• It has no paragraph or section stubs, which should be avoided according to Wikipedia:Layout — "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading"

--Serviam (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• You structured the other article. That is no argument. Learn English grammar and write the troop types with no capital letter at the start.
• The new structure is chronological, the old wasn't.
• I disagree.
• The section stub isn't beautiful, I agree. That can be expanded.

I told you to get another reviewer if you don't agree with my changes. I had another editor, who wrote some good articles on the Roman military, take a look at this article and he also thinks it is not fit for a higher class. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact I structured them doesn't make the argument any less relevant. The new structure has a history section first, then a bit about the camillan era, then a piece about the polybian era, then back to the camillan era again, then back to the polybian. That's not chronological, that's mixed up. If the section stub isn't buetiful, fail the article according to the criteria 1 and 3.--Serviam (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I've fixed the article, the proverb is referenced, the spelling is fixed, please just rate it according to the criteria and pass or fail it rather than performing large format changes — I.e. fill out this:--Serviam (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

1 Well written FAIL

Fail

2 Factual accuracy FAIL

Fail

3 Coverage FAIL

Fail

4 Neutrality PASS

Pass

5 Stability FAIL

Fail

6 Images FAIL

Fail Wandalstouring (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And why? Please give reasons so I an improve on it, see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. There's an example here--Serviam (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What facts are you disputing? I've referenced the whole thing, why have you failed on factual accuracy? Perhaps coverage if you think I've left something out, but you never mentioned any issues on factual accuracy.--Serviam (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I was asked to give a second opinion here. I looked at the two formats that were being suggested, and don't see any significant problems with either. I marginally prefer this one but it's not a big deal that shouldn't prevent GA status, as either way the information is all there. I took a casual read through and the prose is generally OK, though obviously it could be improved in some areas. It is well referenced, has no images (hence no image issues) and seems broad enough. The only outstanding issue is stability due to the layout issue here, so hopefully you guys can solve this one amicably without resorting to edit warring. If you can't, I would suggest a third opinion (I've tried to avoid looking at that in too much detail so you can get someone to look specifically at that if you like) or some other form of dispute resolution. Otherwise I don't see any way in which it doesn't meet the GA criteria. —Giggy 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Above I made along list of content issues that have not been solved. The problem doesn't appear to an editor not familiar with the topic, so I have to disregard giggy's comment on content. Summary style for the intro is clearly violated again. That's a minor issue I improved and you reverted again (like mentioning armour and helmets, while helmets are part of armour and adding the proverb in the article summary). These claims that all had Montefortino bronze helmets is nonsense. There was no standard equipment, so you have to reword these issue to present what we actually do know, like Montefortino was popular and so on. Just start solving the issues above and do it right this time. That means I give the done templates, not you. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another issue has appeared to me. You use Smith's dictionary from 1875 for 25% of your references. For the quote it is OK, but the rest should be changed to a modern source because science did make some progress regarding the Roman equipment. The same for Mommsen, he is dated, although good work for his time. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No recent discoveries conflict with smith's dictionry. The information in it I'm using as a source is correct, and the vast majority of our information on Roman soldiers comes from roma writers who have been dead almost two thousand years anyway. Anyway, I'll take it you've failed the article, and will do some work on it and I hope to nominate it again in tehe near future.--Serviam (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind your grammar and spelling if you don't improve your material will hardly pass B-class. Use a more recent source than Smith. If he is not contradicted by modern sources than use these modern sources. I read Penrose today. She clearly contradicts this article. Triarii have 4m long lances according to her and are depicted wearing chainmail on an ancient altar. It is very diffcult to help improve this article. I have worked several articles to A-class and FA, but you beat them all. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutly no reason to exclude smith based on the fact he is old. I cannot find any sources that are as detailed as him, and I also cannot find any that contradict him. Penrose's book does contradict the length of the spears mentioend in the article, but no other source does, the ones that are specific all agree, now the GA review is over, I will work on it myself. I appreciate your ciritism, but I believe Much of it is unnessecary.--Serviam (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess English is a second language to you and you don't have any background education in history or archaeology. Smith is OK for quoting ancient texts, but Penrose is more reliable on equipment becasue she does use archaeological evidence. That said you have to reflect all points of view in the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop accusing me of using bad English in cases where I am not. Assuming that a source is okay has nothing to do with what language I speak thank you very much. I'm starting to take your constant repition that I have bad English in places where it's completely irrelevant as a personal attack. I've been studying history for three years now. Your claim that "Equipment and usage" sounds like a guide on how to become a hastatus and you inserting "the correct english term" when either would suffice indicates your English isn't up to scratch. English is my first language, the only other language I understand is conversational German I learned while at school.--Serviam (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes according to your userpage English is your second language, German being your first. While that should be completely irrelvant, I thought that since you're holding English you percieve as bad against me, I should mention it.--Serviam (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)