Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hastati


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Hastati

 * Nominator(s): Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the hastati were an early example of how small, flexible units can be better than large armies. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: is there an image that could be used to illustrate this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think about File:Manipulus hastati - principes Polybius.png? It is about the formation and alignment of troops of Hastati, I think this can added. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That would just need to have the source for the information added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: G'day, interesting article, thanks for your efforts so far. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC) ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ (I removed it as I couldnt find a good source) ✅
 * I did a little copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit:
 * the citations to books do not need accessdates
 * are there years of publication for the Mommsen, Southern, Penrose, and Smith works?
 * the table labelled "Organization of republican legions" appears to be unreferenced
 * watch out for duplicate links in the body. The duplicate link tool reports the following terms as overlinked: Marcus Furius Camillus, and principes
 * is there a link for Scipio?


 * is there a publisher for the Mommsen and Goldsworthy refs?

Iazyges has nominated four articles on ancient Roman military history, Principes, Triarii, Hastati and Velites. All were taken through GA in 2008 by an editor who ceased editing in 2011. I have looked in detail at Velites. My initial impression was that the content is OK but not the referencing, but when I checked the sources I found that the original editor had misinterpreted them on several important points. Iazyges does not have access to the sources, but has made considerable improvements to Velites in response to my comments, and is looking for reliable sources to bring the article up to A-Class standard. I would therefore suggest that Velites should be kept as a candidate, but it would be better if the other three are withdrawn, as they almost certainly need a complete re-write to get them to the standard to be considered for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment below has been copied from MilHist Talk: Dudley Miles (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, Dudley. Are you happy with withdrawing this as an A-class candidate for the timebeing? If so, I will organize for the review to be archived. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, im happy with all the closes he has proposed. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.