Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Alesia/archive1
What a lovely article. And a glorious hand-made map. We need a thousand more like this... +sj + 02:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A lot more than a thousand. I won't object, but I'm not going to support either, because I wish it had more info on the actual siege and battle. Everyking 02:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Please elaborate your comment because i think i described the whole thing. muriel@pt 15:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you did. I would just think that such an important battle could have a lot written about it. T.A. Dodge has 26 pages on the siege and battle combined in Caesar (well, there are a few illustrations taking up a few pages), and we should do better than him. And of course, since it's an important battle in military history, assessment from historians throughout the years would be nice. Implications for strategists, siege warfare, that kind of thing. If possible. Everyking 15:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You're not suggesting we write a 26 page article, are you? Adam Bishop 21:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, obviously a page in the book and a page in Wikipedia are not nearly equivalent. But we should be as comprehensive as possible. Everyking 23:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This article is comprehensive enough, for an encyclopedia article. It far exceeds the content on Brittannica, for example. If you check other encyclopedias, I think, you'll find the same thing. You can always write more, that's what books are for. Paul August ☎ 03:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- That's what Wikipedia's for. I still think the article could do with greater detail, if possible, and an assessment of importance to military history/science. Everyking 17:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That's hardly what Wikipedia is for - this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. Adam Bishop 17:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- We should aim to do better than any particular book. Anyway, perhaps I'll see if I can expand the article at all at some point, although it's not a subject I'm particularly well-versed in. Everyking 18:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What? Why should an article be better than a book? Well I suppose this is not the place to discuss it. Adam Bishop 21:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- We should aim to do better than any particular book. Anyway, perhaps I'll see if I can expand the article at all at some point, although it's not a subject I'm particularly well-versed in. Everyking 18:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That's hardly what Wikipedia is for - this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. Adam Bishop 17:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That's what Wikipedia's for. I still think the article could do with greater detail, if possible, and an assessment of importance to military history/science. Everyking 17:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You're not suggesting we write a 26 page article, are you? Adam Bishop 21:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you did. I would just think that such an important battle could have a lot written about it. T.A. Dodge has 26 pages on the siege and battle combined in Caesar (well, there are a few illustrations taking up a few pages), and we should do better than him. And of course, since it's an important battle in military history, assessment from historians throughout the years would be nice. Implications for strategists, siege warfare, that kind of thing. If possible. Everyking 15:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, i'm almost sorry that i asked for elaboration! As for historiography, i'm not an historian and assessment of Alesia seems more like a topic of an MSc. I agree that some things may be added like details on the fortifications design. I can do a drawing of a cross-section through the circum and contravallation lines and expand a bit that part. muriel@pt 15:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The added details and drawing would be great. Paul August ☎ 14:57, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Please elaborate your comment because i think i described the whole thing. muriel@pt 15:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Object. Not bad, but: 1) More context and more links needed. Just take the opening sentence: Gallic, oppidum, Alesia and Mandubii are not even linked, and it should be explained what an oppidum is and where Gaul is. This problem is present throughout the article. 2) References should include more precise information, preferably as suggested in Wikipedia:Cite your sources.Jeronimo 08:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)- The links were already made (not by me) and i'll had the info you suggested. This problem is present throughout the article. Where? muriel@pt 15:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Jeronimo: 1) The article is now well linked. Why should Alesia be linked it is a redirect to this article? Mandubii is not linked, but no articles exist for this, do you think it should be anyway? Personally I don't like red links all that much. The article does say what a "oppidum" is: "a major town centre". Gaul is now explained: "roughly modern France". I don't know what you mean by this "problem is present throughout the article" could you elaborate. 2) I don't understand your "references" objection, can you explain? Paul August ☎ 03:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't know Alesia redirected to this article, but what I meant in general is that terms and names are barely explained. Even if there is a link to an article, the word should be briefly explained. Examples: "proconsul imperium", "triumvirate", various tribe names. As for the references: they should include author, publisher and ISBN, but this has been done now. External link should have a date added when they were retrieved. For more, see the aforementioned link. Jeronimo 07:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'll add the dates as you suggested. As for explaining every concept i'm a bit reluctant because there are already articles about them and i think it would burden this article. Or do you mean a simple sentence between brackets, for instance? muriel@pt 15:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The goal should be that people with little or no knowledge of the subject and related matters can read the article without having to click every link or picking up a dictionary. It is not necessary to explain everything in detail - that's where the links are for. But briefly explaining them is simple. Sometimes it requires just a few words (e.g. Bush => American president Bush) or a by-sentence (or whatever that's called in English) (e.g. Bush, the American president). For most terms/names, little more is required - but it makes the article so much more readable. Jeronimo 21:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with your suggestions and i tweaked the text a bit. Is there anything else you would like to see explained? muriel@pt 11:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I added one word to the text; it looks fine to me now. Support. Jeronimo 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't know Alesia redirected to this article, but what I meant in general is that terms and names are barely explained. Even if there is a link to an article, the word should be briefly explained. Examples: "proconsul imperium", "triumvirate", various tribe names. As for the references: they should include author, publisher and ISBN, but this has been done now. External link should have a date added when they were retrieved. For more, see the aforementioned link. Jeronimo 07:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great article. Paul August ☎ 03:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: the "References and External links section is odd. If the external links are references, then the heading should just be References; if they aren't references, then they should be moved to a separate section so that we know what the references are. Mark1 04:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'll fix that. muriel@pt 15:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain for now. A good article but it could use more pictures. A quick Google Image search found gave me some interesting pics - I added the sites to the External link section I created for that purpose. Can we use any of those images? The reconstruction towers are nice (anybody in that area with a camera? :>) At least one nice pic for the battlebox would be in order. Perpahs we could contact the page owners for pictures licences? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that a picture of the site would be lovely. About the links you provided: the drawing in [1] is wrong and the photos are not very nice. Maybe the ones in [2]. Did you found anything else? muriel@pt 11:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, but that was just a 5-minutes search through 2 Google Images pages search. I am sure a more determined editor of this article would find much more external links/images in 15+ minutes :) But the amount in not the issue, the licence is - otherwise I'd have added the images myself yesterday. Hmmm, what is our policy on post-1935 paintings and similar art forms? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't particularly like any of the photos and drawings given in the links. I would encourage muriel@pt, to go ahead and make the drawing she suggested above, though. Paul August ☎ 14:57, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that a picture of the site would be lovely. About the links you provided: the drawing in [1] is wrong and the photos are not very nice. Maybe the ones in [2]. Did you found anything else? muriel@pt 11:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support Awesome article, a Danny's Contest winner. Squash 04:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A good lead image would make it even better. --Michael Snow 21:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Piotrus managed to get permission to use a photo (thanks!) which is now in the box. However, this photo is not wonderful and for the lead picture i would rather see that gorgeous man instead. muriel@pt 10:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, whichever one gets used when it's on the main page, it's good to have a suitable picture to illustrate the box. Well done everyone. --Michael Snow 17:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Piotrus managed to get permission to use a photo (thanks!) which is now in the box. However, this photo is not wonderful and for the lead picture i would rather see that gorgeous man instead. muriel@pt 10:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Ambi 05:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think my problem with this article is that there is too much on the "prelude" and "aftermath" and not enough on the battle itself and information directly pertaining to it. This article does not need to give a great deal of background—one, at most two paragraphs, is fine. But it seems to me that when you strip away the background, you're left with a pretty short article. I tend to be very reluctant to object to articles being featured, but in this case I feel I must. Everyking 19:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I feel that the "prelude" & "aftermath" are needed in at least close to their current form & size in order to put the battle into its historical context. A significant battle is more than two armies engaging in combat. -- llywrch 21:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The information should of course be available, but in other articles. This article should focus strongly on the siege and battle. A paragraph each on the prelude and aftermath would be adequate. And I just don't think this would be long enough to be featured quality if most of the background was removed. Everyking 21:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The "prelude" and "aftermath" are important parts of this story, a "paragraph each" would not be adequate. In my opinion, they are fine just the way they are. Also, there is no length requirement for FA. Everyking: what information about the battle should be added? Paul August ☎ 04:00, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I feel that the prelude as it is is essential because of it describes events that had a crucial importance to the battle and that do not fit in any other article, unless you suggest the creation of Events previous to the Battle of Alesia. muriel@pt 21:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I mean the long-term prelude. Stuff better suited to an article or articles on the wars in general, and not to the article on this particular battle. Everyking 22:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The information should of course be available, but in other articles. This article should focus strongly on the siege and battle. A paragraph each on the prelude and aftermath would be adequate. And I just don't think this would be long enough to be featured quality if most of the background was removed. Everyking 21:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I feel that the "prelude" & "aftermath" are needed in at least close to their current form & size in order to put the battle into its historical context. A significant battle is more than two armies engaging in combat. -- llywrch 21:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd very much like to support this article, but I noticed a possible error in fact. Towards the end of the article, it states: "Not until the third century, would another rebellion occur"; however, what about the revolt of Vindex in AD 67? From the article, it's not clear whether it is making a claim about all of Gaul, or a specific province (Vindex's area of operations was in Gallia Lugudensis, which Alesia may not have been part of). Or Vindex's revolt could be considered part of the events of the civil war of 68-69; in either case, this later revolt needs to be acknowledged. For the record, I do believe that the general point of the paragraph which I took this sentence from is correct. -- llywrch 21:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As i remember, Vindex rebellion was not aimed at independence of Gaul, but a move against Nero's imperial throne from a local governor that anticipated usual usurpation procedures of the 3rd century. This is why i omitted this event. But if you feel its important, its just a matter of adding a sentence. muriel@pt 21:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, this article implies that Gaul acquiesed to Roman rule for several centuries without any exception, & wannabe pendants like me tend bring up things like that. So please explain Vindex as an event better related to Nero. -- llywrch 21:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As i remember, Vindex rebellion was not aimed at independence of Gaul, but a move against Nero's imperial throne from a local governor that anticipated usual usurpation procedures of the 3rd century. This is why i omitted this event. But if you feel its important, its just a matter of adding a sentence. muriel@pt 21:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. 172 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gosh how boring can u get...