Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deva Victrix/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:58, 11 May 2008.

Deva Victrix
Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it fulfils the FA criteria; it's undergone a peer review. The article is about a Roman town in England. All constructive criticism is welcome. Nev1 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Current ref 78 "Chester Ampitheatre Project" is lacking a publisher.
 * All other links worked fine. Full disclosure, I passed this article for GA earlier in April. Hopefully, I can find time to do a fuller review later. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Publisher added. Nev1 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - excellent and comprehensive article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments In general very good - I have made some smallish clarificatory edits. The name Victrix should be explained, and the relationship of the Roman town/camp to the modern city expanded, probably with a final section. Neither here nor in Chester city walls is it explained what portions of the current city walls follow the line of the Roman walls. a superimposed map would help greatly. Nor I think is the Chester Museum mentioned. What modern streets follow Roman patterns? Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Chester Museum is the Grosvenor Museum. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Victrix is now explained as meaning victorious. I should be able to expand on the city walls tomorrow, although a map showing it may be challenging. How do you think the relationship between the Roman town/camp to the modern city should be expanded? Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, describing the 4 corners in terms of modern locations, mentioning any main streets and wall sections following Roman paths, and (if any) other minor remaining traces of the Roman city. Was there a bridge, or ford?  I've forgotten if one was mentioned.  Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm afraid the changes will have to wait until at least Tuesday as I don't have access to the sources I've been using. Nev1 (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose The copy isn't up to snuff I'm afraid, which is a pity because this is lovingly put together and well researched. It needs a vigorous prune by competent classicist (or at least an editor familiar with the period) to excise some of the repetition, longwindedness and awkwardnesses. Here are some random examples:
 * first in timber and then by the end of the first century they started to use stone > "first in timber and from the end of the first century in stone"?
 * The fortress walls were rebuilt in stone, the new wall was 1.36 metres (4.5 ft) thick at the base of the wall and 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) thick at the top > "The new stone walls were 1.36 metres (4.5 ft) thick at the base and 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) thick at the top"?
 * most likely diminished in line with the rest of the Empire > "most likely diminished in line with the rest of the empire's forces"?
 * Translate canabae legionis?
 * Consolidate all the "cabanae legionis'' fragments into one section? Perhaps with an explanation? They're scattered throughout the text and disrupt the flow.
 * In "#Legionary quarry", "be seen today" appears in two proximate sentences.
 * In "#Foundation", "baths for the soldiers to maintain hygiene" > is it necessary to explain what baths are for? A similar explanation appears elsewhere in the article (in #Legionary baths).
 * Consistency: centuries are mostly spelled out ("first" and "second") but "1st and 2nd century" appears in #Foundation.
 * Repetition: Two explanations of building started in the 70s in #Foundation.
 * Repetition: Numerous explanations of buildings being rebuilt in stone.
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at copy editing some of the article myself, I think it's better but probably not complete. I've done the things you suggests (apart from the translation of canabae legionis, it means something of the legion or legionary something) and would appreciate it if you could take another look and give some more suggestions. Nev1 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Canabae legionis = Huts (or wine-booths) of the legion. Camp-followers, I suppose, in modern army speak.
 * I really do urge you to get someone else to copy-edit it for you. You can try a request at the Milhist logistics dept or in the Milhist Classical warfare task force. Another candidate might be Geuiwogbil (who is knowledgeable about Roman emperors). -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.