Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Late Roman army/archive1


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

Late Roman army
I nominate this article for A-class review because EraNavigator and me think it is quite good and want some input. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, tending towards an oppose. While copyediting is excluded from A-class consideration, this requires copyevisceration, which I choose to include. Without much forethought, or a full read-through of the article:
 * 118kB. Hmmm, rather long, isn't it? Even the introduction seems to present a rather wordy comparison of the armies of the 2nd and 4th centuries. A table would present this information more clearly and concisely.
 * That implies that something else (non-tabular) should go into the intro. Quite so. Where is the feeling that I am getting an overview of the topic? Where are the intriguing titbits that make me want to plough through another 117.5kB of dense, convoluted text?
 * With all due respect (a lot), this is not a history PhD where your erudite and astute observations demolish the preconceptions of the unwashed masses who hold all sorts of heathen views regarding the Late Roman army. Example: "There is little evidence to support the theory that the role of cavalry was enhanced in the 4th century army as compared with the army of the Principate." Oh. Were you trying to imply that there is evidence for the contrary view and that I must mentally flip your statement to it's opposite in order to extract the meaning? This is in the introduction.
 * Consider your audience. That's my 2 cents worth. Dhatfield (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, with content this good, can definitely be worked up to FA. Dhatfield (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As the author of this article (Wandalstouring played a substantial role as advisor on historical issues), I would respond as follows to your comments:

In the light of the comments above, could I persuade you to read the whole thing through and review your review, as it were? EraNavigator (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It's disappointing that you (seemingly) base your remarks on just the introduction and the first few paras of the text. As regards, the introduction, I'm sorry I cannot offer exciting "tit-bits". But then again, it's not an airport novel, but an encyclopedia article. The introduction is supposed to contain a summary of the main points made in the article, and it does exactly that. Nor is there any intention to patronise readers by referring to an outdated theory which has been discredited.
 * 2) The majority of readers of this article will be people who are interested in the subject: high school/university students and Roman army enthusiasts. They don't need enticement. What they do need is detailed, accurate and up-to-date information on the topic and a synthesis of the best and most recent general works on the subject. This is what the article provides.
 * 3) I make no apologies for frequent comparisons to the 2nd century army. Actually, this is the best feature of the article. Many works on the late army treat the subject in isolation, making the content virtually incomprehensible.
 * 4) It's amusing to see my prose criticised as "dense and convoluted". The other criticism I've had is that it's too "choppy" i.e. not convoluted enough! The latter is much more accurate, as I deliberately keep my sentences short and simple, with the focus on clarity and precision. I think with prose style, it's best to follow the old Roman proverb: de gustibus non est disputandum i.e. there's no point in arguing about taste. Everyone has different preferences.
 * 5) It is a long article. But then it's very big subject (huge tomes have been written on it). As it is, it's given rise to the spin-offs Battle of Strasbourg, Defence-in-depth (Roman military) and East Roman army. I've also omitted two or three sections that I would have liked to include (e.g. on the late army's enemies) to keep the length down.


 * You're right. I was (probably) being unfairly judgemental. However, if I read through it, I may as well copy-edit it and that will take some time. You can, of course, revert at will subsequently. Dhatfield (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussing the copyedits might also be a solution since prose is a new criteria for A-class.Wandalstouring (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen in other article reviews criticising the work is rarely constructive - work on the article from a third party (me, in this case) is normally required for real progress in terms of style. Not sure if this is the correct protocol, but I have moved discussion of the copyedits to the articles' talk page as it may be relevant to further work outside of the context of this A-class review. Dhatfield (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * EraNavigator has requested that I stop the copyedit process with the reason given as "the "improvements" in style are not sufficient to make the exercise worthwhile", so I cannot contribute further here. Dhatfield (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Work required - repeated refs need to merged still. What makes that amateur enthusiast mock-battle reenactment group a RS?  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.