Talk:Comitium/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I believe some copy editing needs to be done. There are some instances of words being incorrectly capitalised, and the meaning of some sentences is unclear. For example, "Par excellence was no longer the comitium" is not a complete sentence. Another example: "Reduced to such a point, that the single most important monument, too sacred to move, slowly faded in memory of its origins and eventually even its location". The sentence is too long and doesn't even mention what the monument in question is. The problems with prose were quickly apparent (both the examples I have given are from the lead), and are spread throughout the article. Also, as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, however there is information in it which does not appear in the main body of the article. For example, the meaning of the name.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The referencing simply is not enough. The sources referenced at the end of the article may contain all of the information used in the article, however, without inline citations I cannot tell where it comes from. Without knowing where the information comes from, I cannot judge whether this article contains any original research.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article does not give any dates. If someone who was unfamiliar with the subject of ancient Rome read this article, they would not know when the Kingdom and Republican periods were. The decline and cause of the comitium is not detailed in the body of the article. Also, what is the state of the comitium today? What archaeological excavations have there been on the site, what steps (if any) have been undertaken to preserve it?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There are no particular problems with neutrality or points of view. However, the statement "There still appears to be much debate by scholars as to several monuments of the early Kingdom and Republic comitium" should be expanded to explain what the different points of view are to ensure the article is balanced.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On the chance that the author of this article still has the sources to hand and knows where the information came from, I will place the article on hold in the hope that it can be significantly exppanded and references added. If progress is not made by the time the hold expires, the article will not pass GA standards. Nev1 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On the chance that the author of this article still has the sources to hand and knows where the information came from, I will place the article on hold in the hope that it can be significantly exppanded and references added. If progress is not made by the time the hold expires, the article will not pass GA standards. Nev1 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent input! I will begin addressing the issues immediately.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would like to thank Nev1 for "Holding" the article and not just failing it, when he could well have been justified in doing so. The article had a few very quick expansions in the past that I never got around to referencing or adding the in line citations to.


 * Here are a few notes of what has been done so far and what is planned for the next couple of days.


 * I am not an English major and grammar, spelling and capitalization has always been a bit of a struggle, but I have figured out a way to overcome the obstacle by simply comparing the style of others in the references I am using. I had made the mistake of copying the style of a less than reliable reference from another article.....and have decided not to use it here and to remove it from other articles I have started or contributed to. While the site seems legit and has been used by many others form Ancient Rome subjects it has been determined that it is a self published website and not a reliable source.


 * Grammar and caps fixed. (But need to look to see if I changed anything that should remain capitalized.


 * References doubled, but still require more.


 * Article format changed, sections changed, links removed from section headers and information rearranged and removed to not be redundant. Also some information that I have not been able to verify have been removed until I remember what reference stated it. Chances are the reference was used on another page as well.


 * Begun expanding article. The subject has a long history. Article could be very large. Beginning to add information on all monuments within the space. Great deal in publication on this subject from somewhat distant past (100 years ago or more) however this subject has not been completely excavated and updated information is hard to come by. Mostly theoretical.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added 20 additional inline citations, but there are still large chunks not referenced as I have also expanded the article. Continuing on.

OK, I have expanded the article as much as I could within the last week and referenced as much as i could and wikilinked as much as I could. I am continuing on with the article but I think I have covered all the bases on the review, I hope grammar is improved, but if anything sticks out just let me know and i'll fix it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's one hell of an expansion, the article must be three times bigger. I'll try to get round to re-reading it either tonight or (more likely) tomorrow as I'm logging off for now. Nev1 (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Further comments
Sorry I've taken so long to get back to this review, things kept getting in the way. While the article now much more comprehensive, and I have given it a copy edit, I cannot yet pass it as there are some outstanding sourcing issues. I am however, much happier with the depth of the article. As well as the comments below, I have added some tags to the article, highlighting areas that need sources to satisfy WP:V.
 * The prose is a bit clunky in places, and sometimes making it hard to understand. In other cases, it's not clear how some information is relevant or linked to the subject of the comitium. Here are a few examples of where the prose needs work (I have fixed a few myself):
 * "A trench of a circular nature was cut..." it's easier and simpler to say "A circular trench was cut..."
 * Rather than "using divination called upon by Romulus", "Romulus used divination" is easier to read and clearer.
 * It's unclear how the following relates to the comitium, was the complex part of the comitium or adjacent? "A royal complex may have extended from the House of the Vestal Virgins on one end of the Forum Romanum to what is now the Curia Julia"
 * "The ditch is called mundus- the same name given firmament": given firmament is an odd phrase and one that I at least did not understand.
 * "At one point the comitium had sunken rounded steps creating an amphitheater directly in front of the senate house, that was added and then later buried or leveled": was the senate house added later and buried or was it the amphitheater? I might be simpler to break this down into two sentences.
 * "shrine of the god of vulcan" is simpler as "shrine of Vulcan" as it's explained earlier that Vulcan is a god.


 * "The Comitia Curiata (curiate assembly), the main assembly for the first two decades of the Roman Republic": is there a "was" missing?
 * This article is about the comitium of Rome,however since comitia (would that be the plural) were found in towns and cities across the empire perhaps the article should be moved to Comitium, Rome, to prevent confusion. This leads me to the point that the lead is unclear whether the comitium being talked about is the one in Rome or comitiums in general. The phrase "The comitium was the normal designated space in all Roman cities for contiones..." indicates the later although the rest of the article is about the comitium in Rome. How about something like "There were comitiums designated areas in all Roman cities for contiones, assembling the eligible people for elections, councils and tribunals"? Also, contiones needs to be defined, unless contiones were "assembli[es] [of] the eligible people for elections, councils and tribunals" in which case that segment could be rephrased to "... for contiones, the assemblies of people eligible for elections, councils and tribunals".
 * The overview section is a little confused, for example the detail about the similarities between the lives of Romulus and Servius Tullius deviates off topic. The section could be disposed of all together and a note made at the start of the Kingdom section that the origin of the comitium is "blurred between "modern legends" and archaeological discovery".
 * "the original altar and shrine of Vulcan may have served as a podium for senators or political opponents": political opponents of what? How about "senators or politicians"?
 * The article states that "[Julius Caesar's] father only reached the position of Magistrate", but which magistracy did he hold? In ancient Rome, there were many types of magistrate.
 * There's a clarification tag that needs addressing ("sacred importance from the banks of the[clarification needed]")

Once again, my apologies for not returning to this review sooner. Despite the article having been on hold for a long time already (which I am entirely responsible for) the required changes necessitate extending the hold further still. I'll check back in a week, when I hope to be able to pass the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, I am now closing the review and will not be passing it. There are still unresolved issues, but once they are addressed, I believe it would be worth taking the article to WP:GAN again. Nev1 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the fully detailed needs for the article. I will take the review as a To-do-list. Hopefully I can get it to the point that it can be listed as GA. Once again thank you for the input. It is greatly appreciated.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)