Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gallic Wars

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Gallic Wars
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Eight critical years that catapulted Julius Caesar to such wealth and fame that he was able to cross the Rubicon, putting in motion a civil war that would lead to the end the Roman Republic and rise an empire in its place. The war and its study raises important questions about what it means for the victor to write history. As my DYK noted, Julius Caesar's portrayal of his actions in the Gallic Wars have led historians to call him one of history's first "spin doctors." I received an unusually thorough GA review from Levivich, for which I am quite thankful. I thus think it ready to run the A-gauntlet. This is my first time at A-class, so please bear with me, there are some things I am still learning about MILHIST :) CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from HF
Some source formatting issues here, from a quick look
 * "Siege of Alesia". Archived from the original on 17 October 2017." - needs the publisher
 * " Caesar062308 (7 June 2016). "Tide and time: Re-dating Caesar's invasion of Britain". www.txstate.edu. Retrieved 27 November 2020." - source link is dead
 * Actually replaced with the original source, since the Txstate thing was actually a press release about the article CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * " Luibheid, 1970 & 88–94." - ref formatting
 * There's a short ref to Herzfeld 1975 but the only Herzfeld long reference is 1960
 * McCarty 2008 is missing the publisher.

Hog Farm Talk 05:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm Done! Thanks for the comments. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by from CPA

 * There are some MOS:SANDWICH issues here. It might be a good idea to remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @CPA-5 The guidance of sandwich notes that wide images across from each other are to be avoided. But it does not seem to offer the same warning for regular size images. Which images did you have in mind? How would you suggest I fix it without having to just remove images? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry for taking so long to answer this. You can use "multiple image" template it will put the images under each other. All the images left of the "55 BC: Crossing the Rhine and the English Channel", "Siege of Alesia, end of the revolt" and the "51 and 50 BC: Pacification of the last Gauls" should be deleted or moved with "multiple image" template. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Johannes Schade
Ave User:CaptainEek. This looks indeed very good and I will probably have only minor remarks. I lack experience as a reviewer. Please, just ignore me when I talk rubbish or better point out where I went wrong—and thank you so much for having caused the deprecation of inline parenthetical referencing. You are famous for that and I think people expect more of the same from you. What about deprecating some of the duplicate citation templates. But now let's go into medias res. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Before the article content


 * English variety. - I suppose it's American English.
 * I hope you understand this issue better than I do. I would have expected that the English variant of an article must always be declared. However, MOS:ENGVAR only discusses the variability of the English used in the articles and does not seem to prescribe the use of the corresponding tag; MOS:TIES seems to prescribe the use of such a tag but only in cases of a national tie between the subject and the English variant. There is no national tie in the present case, but perhaps a European one. Anyway, please consider adding the tag indicating the variant you think should be applied, e.g. Use British English, Use Oxford spelling, EngvarB, Use European English. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ I still think you should add the tag to indicate the article's English variety.

Infobox


 * Infobox too long? - I feel the article's infobox is too long, but I must admit that I have found no recommendations or prescriptions in that regard in the guidelines.
 * The other changes have cut it down a bit
 * ✅ Accepted


 * Territorial changes, Roman Republic annexes Gaul. - Past tense is generally used in Wikipedia, hence change to "annexed".
 * Not so in infoboxes? WW2, WWI for example
 * I do not find examples of present tense in the infoboxes of the articles WW1 and WW2. The entries in infoboxes are rarely entire sentences and usually lack verbs. This is also the case of the infoboxes you cite as examples. Perhaps change to "Annexation of Gaul by the Roman Republic" or similar, avoiding the use of a verb. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅After all you may well be right and present tense is correct even in an history article. Accepted.


 * Territorial changes, Gaul becomes a Roman province. - Not really needed, omit, otherwise change to past tense.


 * Location. - Why is "Northern Italy" included as a location of the Gallic Wars? Perhaps it is not necessary to enumerate modern countries. Something like "Gaul with incursions into Britain and beyond the Rhine" might be good enough.
 * I think modern readers will be more likely to know where Italy is than the Rhine
 * But why mention "Northern Italy"? the Gallic wars were not fought in northern Italy. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ I see now you explain Gaul by saying "Gaul (present-date France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland, and norther Italy)". This is a large interpretaton of Gaul, not Caesar's ("Gaul is a whole divided in three parts..."), which excludes Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Narbonensis. Caesar's definition is the one relevant here, hence without Northern Italy. Don't you agree?


 * Belligerents. - Why do Iberians appear as belligerents? They do not seem to be mentioned in the body's text.


 * Commanders and leaders. - Only people mentioned in the body should be mentioned in the infobox. There should be no need for a citation in this list, nor should it be necessary to say "and others" WP:INFOBOXCITE.


 * Strength. - In principle there should be no citations, but in this case I find them useful. However, they should just be repeats from the ones in the body and should include pages.
 * I've just removed Appian and Plutarchs numbers. I haven't done the same in the casualties; Appians work weirdly doesn't have page numbers, and I don't have Field's book that quotes Plutarch


 * Citations in the infobox. - Normally, the infobox, just like the lead, should not introduce new information but should summarise or present in a different format information that has been presented in the body. WP:INFOBOXCITE says "editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article."


 * Image: image_size. - The default for the size of the image in the infobox is 220px. This value can be adjusted by the user and should therefore not be fixed to a size given in pixels (WP:IMGSIZE). You specify "| image_size = 300px". image_size should therefore be used only exceptionally. The image_upright can be used instead or the "upright" parameter of the File: such as in: File: name . The value 1.4 would specify a width of 308 pixels, given the mentioned default width.

. I know they are sometimes difficult or awkward to avoid and I use them myself in some situations, but not in the infobox where they are easy to replace with Plainlist or Unbulleted list.
 * Breaks. - MOS:NOBR forbids the use of HTML Breaks, i.e.

Lead


 * 1st paragraph. - In the 1st sentence you seem to define the Gallic wars as excluding the excursions into present-day England, but in the 2nd sentence you seem to include it.


 * 1st paragraph: Britonic. - I would prefer "British". The article Roman Britain uses it. Wiktionary does not recognize "Britonic" as an English word. The words "Brittonic" and "Brythonic" pertain to a group of Celtic languages, that includes Welsh.


 * 2nd paragraph: nearly defeated him. - I would prefer "almost defeated him" over "nearly defeated him" as "nearly" might be interpreted as meaning they were defeated by a narrow margin.


 * 2nd paragraph: indomitable siege works at the Battle of Alesia crushed .... - The word "indomitable" means "which cannot be tamed" and is usually applied to living beings, not to siege works. Also, siege works, by themselves, seldom crush people.
 * Indomitable is synonymous to unconquerable, according to Merriam Webster. I'm quite fond of the wording I must admit.
 * It means "untamable" from the Latin verb domitare to tame. You cannot tame a fortification. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Since you really seem to like indomitable fortifications, let's have them. Accepted.
 * Thank you :)


 * 4th paragraph: consider it to be unreliable. - You discuss the strong and weak sides of Caesar's Commentaries very well elsewhere. This blunt statement seems excessive (IMHO). To say they are unreliable sounds as if not a single word were true and all pure invention: Caesar's book a hoax. Obviously, Caesar is biased, but his account cannot be rejected altogether. What we have from Cassius Dio (who is more objective) is often quite summary and lacks many details that matter in the present context. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed to "prone to exaggeration"
 * ✅ Is probably fine. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Background: Sociopolitical


 * Only paragraph, citation source in Google Books, Gilliver 2003, pp. 7, 13–15. - This source is partly accessible by a (short) preview in Google Books, which already stops after page 14. Nevertheless, the url with the value https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O1xsBgAAQBAJ should be added to the source description. Searches are also possible in Google Books. For the rest, the source is inaccessible, which is a pity because it is the most frequently used source in the article and renders the WP:V checking often impossible.

*Only paragraph, citation (adequate range?), Gilliver 2003, pp. 7, 13–15. - The cited page 7 covers about all the content of the paragraph except the last sentence. Pages 13 and 14 of the source are about the Roman army. Page 15 is not part of the preview. Retracted Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Background: Military


 * 2nd paragraph: Matthew 2009, p 35–37. - The text on the three cited pages of the source should support all statements made in the paragraph that need such support. You state (last sentence) that "A cohort held 480 men, ten of which combined with a small cavalry, engineers, and officers made a legion of around 5,000 men." I find no support for this statement on the three cited pages (if I have read them carefully enough; it is a lot of reading). Please mark, I do not doubt that what you say is true. Page 14 of Gilliver could have been cited as support for this statement. Matthew as an English-language source should omit the language. Also, the page number (|pages=37 !?) should appear in the inline citation, not in the source list. The spacing of the bibliographic entry for Matthew differs from all the others.
 * Ah, that paragraph is amalgamated from that and another book by Goldworthy, but I didn't have the page number so I had originally ommited it, since 480*10+a few other lads was roughly 5000 anyway. I have now cited to Goldsworthys book, but admit I know not the page
 * ❌ You must come up with a reasonable citation for "A cohort held 480 men, ten of which combined with a small cavalry, engineers, and officers made a legion of around 5,000 men." The book you mention, "In the name of Rome" can be previewed and searched at "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-hd8CwAAQBAJ". I mentioned Gilliver p. 14 that would give (as I would use it) I feel that would support your statement well enough. However, you are of course free to cite whatever RS you prefer.

However, perhaps I should not insist too much on the WP:V here. User:Gog the Mild told me "Verifiability gets a relatively light touch at ACR." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Donough_MacCarty,_1st_Earl_of_Clancarty#Notes), Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that is to say, compared with FAC. The criterion at ACR is "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day, User:Gog the Mild. I take this for an encouragement for the apprentice-reviewer to go on. The criterion in FA is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;". The most evident difference is that inline citations are not explicitly required in ACR. However, the nominee does graciously provide them. General references seem to have gone out of fashion for articles befond stubbyness (perhaps another archaic feature that could be thrown out in an RfC by CaptainEek). Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 4th & last paragraph: Ariovistus. - The Suebian king appears here for the first time, a bit abruptly. Perhaps he should have been introduced earlier as king of the Suebi.
 * Actually, that mention wasn't key, so I just removed it so he could properly introduced further down
 * ✅ Accepted Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 4th & last paragraph, citation: Grant 1974, p. 87. - First citation from Grant. You cite Grant 1974. I found Grant 1969 at Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/juliuscaesar0000gran_k2z5/. It seems the pagination agrees. Please add the url in the corresponding source list entry.


 * 4th & last paragraph, citation: Goldsworthy 2007, p. 246. - First citation from Goldsworthy. There seem to be issues with differences in pagination in various editions. You cite the 2007 edition. Where did you read it? Internet Archive has the 2008 edition at https://archive.org/details/caesarlifeofcolo00gold/. There is a Wikipeia article about the book: Caesar, Life of a Colossus but linking it in the template throws an Cite-book error.
 * I didn't read it. The sources were already extant when I overhauled the article.
 * ❌ No excuse, by nominating the article you took responsability for all that. You cite "Goldsworthy (2007) Caesar, Life of a Colossus". As reviewer I can ask you for an excerpt from the source so that I can make a spot check of text-source integrity (WP:INTEGRITY). I have the impression that you are unable to provide this. In this case I propose to move this citation and all other citations that point to this source, from the 2007 edition to the 2008 edition that is available from Internet Archive at "https://archive.org/details/caesarlifeofcolo00gold/". Therefore, please change the citation accordingly so that I can make the spot check.


 * 4th & last paragraph, terminal citation: Walter 1952, p. 158. - Add url with value "https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.530976/" and volume with value "1" (i.e. volume 1).

Background: Julius Caesar


 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: agonist. - Did you mean "protagonist"?
 * No. I originally wrote antagonist, but someone else changed it to agonist. I think they're probably right, Ceasar could be the prot-agonist or ant-agonist depending on POV, but he was certainly an agonist.
 * ✅ Accepted Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph, 4th sentence, citation: von Ungern-Sternberg 2014, p. 91. - Implemented using Cite encyclopedia in the source list. Perhaps Cite book would be better. I do not believe this is an encyclopedia. In either case a page range should be given that covers the chapter or article written by Von Ungern-Sternberg. Add edition with value "2nd". The 1st edition was published in 2004.


 * 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: via. - The preposition "via" (by the way of) should IMHO not be abused like this.


 * 1st paragraph: Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus. - Please consider linking Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (consul 58 BC)
 * It already is?
 * ✅ My bad.


 * 2nd paragraph: The assignment of the provinces that comprise what is now Northern Italy .... - I fail to see how present-day northern Italy corresponds to more than one former Roman province. Illyricum lies along the east coast of the Adriatic sea.
 * I don't understand? What do you suggest I write instead?
 * ❌ Simply use singular: "The assignment of the province that comprises ..."


 * 2nd paragraph, terminal citation source: Chrissanthos. - Curiously, the book's correct title is "Julius and Caesar" (please correct this in the source list). Also, the bibliographic description for this source should include an ISBN rather than an OCLC (I believe only the one or the other is needed).
 * Title fixed. I see no reason an OCLC and an ISBN cannot coexist?
 * ✅ Sure, if you want to provide both, there is nothing wrong about it.


 * 2nd paragraph: Chrissanthos 2019, p. 73. - This citation might be mistaken. The paragraph is mainly about the four legions Caesar had at this stage, but they are not even mentioned on page 73; or is the text I am reading (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hUbzDwAAQBAJ) a differently paged edition?
 * ❌ Sorry I was wrong about the title, which is "The Year of Julius and Caesar". The book can be previewed in Google Books at "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hUbzDwAAQBAJ" (please correct the title and add the URL to the book's description in the source list). However, the original objection still stands: nothing on page 73 seems to support the text (is this the wrong page?).


 * 3rd paragraph: It is possible that Gaul was not his initial target, he may have been planning a campaign against the Kingdom of Dacia .... - The sentence is supported by the citation "Caesar 1982" (in the middle of the paragraph), which lacks the page number or range (WP:PAGENUM). Add url with value "https://archive.org/details/conquestofgaul00juli/" and edition with value "2nd".
 * URL added. Alas, I can't find the exact page number since I can't preview it all, but I know once upon a time I had a copy that was accessible and I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in that range
 * ❌ The page number is required. WP:PAGENUM states "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited." This is part of WP:CITE which is a Wikipedia guideline. You can read the entire book at the URL I gave you. The problem is that the searches fail so you have to do some reading. Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Beginning of the wars


 * Headings. - The other section headings featuring campaigns mention the year (58 BC in this case). This would probably be useful here as well. It is awkward to have a heading "Campaign against the Suebi" under the heading "Campaign against the Helvetii" as the former are not part of the latter.


 * 1st paragraph: They intended to travel across Gaul to the west coast, a route that would have taken them around the Alps .... - I fail to see how a route from Switzerland to the Saintonge would "take them around the Alps". Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 3rd paragraph: Caesar's consideration of the Gallic request to enter Rome .... Not "Rome" but "Roman land". Johannes Schade


 * Illustration. - The colours of the arrows are difficult to distinguish. The campaign against the Belgae in 57 BC is omitted. A table that resumes the campaigns might be usedful in addition to a figure?

Battle of Bibracte


 * 1st paragraph, on a sloped hill. - Would you agree that "on a slope" would be good enough?


 * 2nd paragraph, a census written in Greek was found. - Which source says so? It is quite surely a misunderstanding. Caesar says it was written using Greek letters (litteris Graecis confectae; see https://archive.org/details/commentarii0102caesuoft/page/n71/) but does not state in which language it was written. It is well known that southern Gauls at Ceasar's time used the Greek alphabet when writing (which they did not do very often).


 * 2nd paragraph, Historians believe .... - Such a statement about what historians believe requires a citation that states that there is agreement among experts who have considered the topic. You cannot get there by citing individual historians, even big numbers of them (WP:RS/AC). It might pass if you leave the historians out and say directly "The total probably was ..." giving a citation for the minimum and a citation for the maximum of the range.


 * 2nd paragraph, citation: Delbrück 1990, pp. 475. - A single page is cited, hence "p." and not "pp.". This is the first citation of Delbrück in the text (there also is one in the infobox). Delbrück's original title is "Geschichte de Kriegskunst ...". The work has four volumes. Three German editions were published in 1900, 1908 and 1920 (I do not suggest that you cite it in the German edition). Caesar should be in the first volume. The English translation is based on the 3rd edtion (1920) of the German work. Internet Archive has all four German volumes but only volume 3 of the English translation. The first volume can be previewed in Google Books at (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MP2k4rx-Q_UC). I do not know where you read it, but it would be nice if you could use the edition described in Google Books. The preview includes the cited page 475 but unluckily not the page 46, cited further down in the text. Please complete the description given in the source list. Do not forget the "|author-link=Hans Delbrück", the volume number and the URL. I think it would be nice to mention the year of the original publication : "|orig-year=1st pub. 1920" in addition to the year of publicatio of the English version.


 * 3rd (last) paragraph, Caesar 1982, pp 25–29. - The paragraph is about Bibracte and is supported by a single citation "Caesar 1982, pp 25–29". I found this text in Internet Archive, 1982, 2nd edition, but the pages do not match. The cited pages 25–29 cover the end of the Introduction, written by Jane F Gardner (pp. 25–26), the Preface (p.26), and the beginning of the translation of Caesar's text (pp 28–29). I find the first mention of Bibracte on p 39. Please help me work out what is wrong.

Campaign against the Suebi


 * 1st paragraph: He found his excuse following victory over the Helvetii. A group of Gallic tribes congratulated him .... - These two sentences are supported by a citation "Walter 1952, p. 158". The cited page admittedly talks about Ariovistus but does not mention the "congratulation by a group of Gallic people".


 * 1st paragraph: Not only did Caesar have a responsibility to protect the longstanding allegiance of the Aedui, but this proposition presented an opportunity to expand Rome's borders, strengthen loyalty within Caesar’s army and establish him as the commander of Rome’s troops abroad.. - This sentence is supported by a citation "Goldsworthy 2007, p 271". The page 271 in the 2008 edition (Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/caesarlifeofcolo00gold/page/271/) is about the Usipetes and Tencteri. Quite obviously there is a shift in page numbers between the two editions. I wondered whether the text should not rather cite the page numbers from the accessible edition so that readers can follow, or if you could compare the two editions and tell me whether the shift is systematic and how big (in pages) the difference is? It would help reviewer a lot in the spotchecks usually expected in source reviews.


 * 2nd paragraph: Caesar began marched towards it and arrived before Ariovistus - Replace with: "Caesar marched towards it and arrived before Ariovistus". The sentence is supported by a citation "Goldsworthy 2007, pp. 274–275". In the 2008 edition the corresponding page seems to be 225. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph: They met under a truce at a knoll outside of town. The sentence is supported by a citation referring to "Walter 1952, pp. 173–176". Walter (p. 173) states "It was somewhere in Alsace, between Thann and Mulhouse" but the article maintains it was outside Visontio (present-day Besançon). A clear contradiction between the text and the source. Needs to be resolved.


 * Caption: Celtic cities are in green, Germanic cities in orange. - I suppose you mean "tribes". On the map, the cities are all black dots. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

57 BC: Campaigns in the east


 * 1st paragraph, terminal citation Gilliver 2003, pp. 36–40. - This citation (numbered 47 at present) is used here for the first time and is used altogether 6 times for quite different content. Is it really each time adequate and covers each time all the supported text? Is the whole 4-page range each time needed or could it be more specific? I cannot verify because the preview in Goggle Books ends at page 14.


 * 2nd paragraph: Intervening again in an intra-Gallic conflict, Caesar marched against the Belgae tribal confederation, who inhabited the area roughly bounded by modern-day Belgium. They had recently attacked a tribe allied with Rome and before marching with his army to meet them, Caesar ordered the Remi and other neighboring Gauls to investigate the Belgae's actions.. - These two sentences appear to be supported by a citation at the end of the 2nd sentence that reads "Esov 1996, p. 66". This citation indeed supports the second part of the second sentence "Caesar ordered the Remi and other neighboring Gauls to investigate the Belgae's actions." but not the text before it. It is however possible that the part before it is supported by the citation from Gilliver at the end of the paragraph, which I cannot read because Gilliver is not accessible beyond p 14. Could the tribe allied with Rome be named?


 * 2nd paragraph: The Belgae and the Romans encountered each other near Bibrax. - Replace with: "The Belgae and the Romans met near Bibrax, the main oppidum (fortified settlement) of the Remi ...", Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Nervii ambush: the battle of the Sabis


 * 1st Paragraph: The Nervii set up an ambush along the river Sambre. - According to the article Battle of the Sabis, the river was not the Sambre but the Selle near Saulzoir. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 3rd paragraph: Caesar's cockiness had nearly ended in defeat. - As above in the lead, I suggest "almost" instead of "nearly" for clarity.


 * 3rd paragraph: The Belgae were broken, and most of the Germanic tribes offered submission to Rome. - Caesar does not include the Belgae among the Celts in his famous first sentence "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur." Authors discuss whether the Belgae were Germanic or Celtic in language or origin and it remains more or less unknown or uncertain. Also see the Nordwestblock hypothesis. The article does not mention Germanic tribes among the Belgae before and the cited sentence is therefore difficult to understand for the reader. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 3rd paragraph: He saw a minor setback towards winter as he sent one of his officers to the Great St Bernard Pass, where local tribes fought back fiercely; he abandoned the campaign.. - Hardly understandable. Possibly marginal to the subject. Explain better, or remove? The French article (Guerre des Gaules) explains this episode with considerable detail. IMHO I would leave it out. One may even doubt whether the present-day Valais, where this happened, was part of Gaul.Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

56 BC: Campaign against the Veneti


 * 1st paragraph: anger Rome and prepared. - I suggest a more precise use of the tense: "had prepared", in order to stress anteriority.


 * 2nd paragraph: and Quintus Titurius Sabinus took forces to Normandy.. - The name "Normandy" is of course anachronistic. Probably best to call it "present-day Normandy". You did this very correctly in the 1st sentence of the lead. Just keep it up. We are talking about a time, long long ago. Besides, I fail to find any Wikipedia guideline about anachronisms. WP:PRESENTISM is only an essay. Can you possibly help me and point one out to me? I might need this for future reviews. The MOS says "Avoid anachronism" (MOS:PLACE). Do not confuse with WP.PLACE, which is about naming of articles about geographic places. Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Morbihan


 * Caption: Rome is in red, Veneti in green. - Replace with: "Romans in red, Veneti in green" Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph: At last, the Roman fleet sailed, and encountered the Venetic fleet off the coast of Brittany in the Gulf of Morbihan. - The name "Morbihan" (Breton: mor-bihan; sea, little) is of course anachronistic. I would suggest "present-day Gulf of Morbihan".

Caesar's subordinates and mopping up


 * 1st paragraph: During the Venetic campaign, Caesar's subordinates had been busy pacifying Normandy and Aquitania.. - Anachronism. Probably "present-day Normandy".


 * 1st paragraph: The tribes consequently surrendered, yielding up all of Normandy to the Romans.. - Again: present-day Normandy.

Crossing the Rhine and the English channel


 * Template See also. - I wondered whether this is the correct template. Should it not rather be undefined?

Revolts in Gaul


 * 3rd paragraph: sfn. - Missing parameter name. Should be ("pp=" added): " ".


 * 3rd paragraph: captured a number of Roman troops as prisoners. - I suggest "taken some Romans prisoners".

52 BC: Vercingetorix's revolt


 * 2nd paragraph: Caesar took a winding route to the Gallic army to capture several oppidium for food.. - Replace with "Caesar took a winding route to the Gallic army to capture several oppida for food.". The Latin plural of "oppidum" is "oppida" (how did you come to "oppidium"?), otherwise you can use an English plural and write oppidums (IMHO less favored).

Siege of Alesia, end of the revolt


 * Should there not be a under the heading?

1st paragraph, 1st sentence, citation: Delbrück 1990, p. 46. - Page 46 is unluckily not part of the preview in Google Books. However, on p. 499 there is a suitable citation which says that 80,000 gauls were defending the oppidum. Please check whether this is an error in the page number.

Pacification of the last Gauls

2nd paragraph: The legions were again wintered in Gaul. - Why passive voice?

The commentarii
 * 1st paragraph, citation, Grillo & Krebs 2018, p. 7. - Grillo & Krebs can be previewed in Google Books. The url in the source list should point to: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DpNADwAAQBAJ, not to WorldCat. The author should be added. Published in 2018, this should mention an ISBN instead of the OCLC.


 * 2nd paragraph, Greek. - Written in Greek did not necessarily mean in the Greek language. The article Gaulish states that southern Gauls used the Greek alphabet to write their language. Caesar says they were written using Greek letters (litteris Graecis confectae; .https://archive.org/details/commentarii0102caesuoft/page/n71/).


 * 4th paragraph: Henige 1998. - The citation lacks the page. You must provide locations (WP:PAGENUM)


 * 5th & last paragraph: Grillo & Krebs 2018, pp. 20–27. - I read the text of the citation at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DpNADwAAQBAJ where the cited page range is part of a chapter written by Raaflaub. He should be presented as the author, whereas Grillo and Krebs are editors of the collection.

In literature


 * Only paragraph, citation, Herzfeld 1960, p. 214. - The title of Herzfeld's book is "Geschichte in Gestalten". It is a collection of short biographies, written by various authors in many volumes. Caesar is in the 1st volume. The book is written in German. It does not seem to be accessible online. We have Adcock: "Caesar as Man of Letters", which can be read at: https://archive.org/search.php?query=Caesar%20as%20man%20of%20letters. Could Adcock be used instead Herzfeld? WP:NONENG prescribes "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance."

User:CaptainEek, I have completed my first traverse. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * User:CaptainEEK, please see my new insertions above under the headings "Before the article content" (concerning the English variety), under "Infobox", and "Lead". Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * User:CaptainEek, I have marked outstanding actions with Not done. Besides, I found where the MOS prescribes to avoid anachronisms. It is in MOS:PLACE. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Johannes Schade Your thorough comments are most appreciated. Thank you for bearing with me, I know I'm going at a bit of a snails pace. Between nominating and now, the world and my life have suddenly become much more complicated. I tackled a few more items, but I'm not done yet with the sections. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. We are not in a hurry. Hope you come right, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator query
Hi, I note that you haven't posted here for a couple of months. I was wondering if you were still interested in taking this nomination forward. Could you confirm, or otherwise? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gog the Mild Thanks for pinging me. I think I'm going to have to abandon this for the time being :( I really appreciate all the work by Johannes Schade and intend to implement it eventually. But I've lost the main book I used to write this, and life is a lot right now, so I no longer have the time or the resources to do this justice. Thanks for understanding. I'm so sorry. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh well, life happens. Thanks for the prompt response. I'll archive this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)