Talk:Galatian War

Untitled

A couple points

1. I think you may want eventually to rename the article and we might start thinking about it now. At least as Livy presents it, it wasn't so much a war as a vandalistic tear across Anatolia, and even if that is exaggerated, I don't think "Galatian War" is what anyone calls this campaign. (A page move later is an easy thing, so there's obviously no rush.)
2. Some bibliography. A couple articles might be useful as you work on this.

• Grainger, John D. - The campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso in Asia Minor. AS 1995 45 : 23-42
• Baronowski Donald W. - The status of the Greek cities of Asia Minor after 190 B. C. Hermes 1991 CXIX : 450-463.

I can get both in the library tomorrow, if they'll be of use. semper fictilis 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

Hi! I've taken on this article to review for Good Article status, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Kyriakos. Following an initial read through you'll be pleased to know that the article does not meet any of the quick-fail criteria. Therefore, over the next day or two, I will conduct a thorough review and post my feedback here.

Where a Good Article candidate is almost-but-not-quite up to GA standard, I will often put it on hold, meaning that the editors concerned have up to a week to address any issues raised (before the nomination fails by default). If editors are likely to be unavailable during the next ten days or so, you might like to leave me a note on my talk page so that we can arrange a more convenient time to conduct the GA review.

Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC on hold

I have now reviewed the article based on the Good Article criteria, and as a result have placed it on hold. This was done because I believe it can be brought up to GA status fairly quickly. Detailed comments follow:

1. Well-written FAIL

a) Prose

This is where most of the problems lie - the article would benefit from a careful proof-read and copyedit for spelling, grammar and clarity. I have picked out a few examples below (from the lead section only; there are many more in the article body!):

• "The Galatian War was a war between the Galatians Gauls..." I assume this should read "Galation Gauls"?
• "The Romans turned then turned their attention the Galatian Gauls." This sentence is all over the place (I'm guessing due to moving chunks of text about): "The Romans then turned their attention towards the Gallic tribes of Galatia." might read better.
• "They defeated the Galatians in a battle of on Mt Olympus..." Grammar; remove of
• "...followed up the victory by defeated a larger army near Ankara." Grammar again; change defeated to defeating
• "These defeats forced the Galatians to sue for peace and the Romans returned back to the coast." Remove back; if the Romans are returning to the coast, then by definition they are going back to it. Also, this should be more specific - the coast of what?

b) Manual of Style  Done

The article complies with the MoS in its section order, and is well wikilinked. References and citations follow the proper format, and once copyedited the lead section will be a fair summary of the article as a whole. A couple of points though:

• Is Galation campaign (note: decapitalise campaign per WP:HEAD) a suitable title for a single section? Really the entire article is about the Romans' Galation campaign.
• At least half of this section relates to the Roman advance (ie it belongs with the previous March inland section)
• I'm not convinced that the Campaign against the Tectosagi needs to be a separate section.

Personally, I think the article would be more logically organised if it was sectioned as follows (bolded = alterations to the current layout):

• Prelude
• March inland (containing the first two paragraphs of 'Galation Campaign')
• Battle of Mount Olympus (last 2 paras of 'Galation Campaign')
• Battle of XXXX (replacing 'Campaign against the Tectosagi' - you know better than I do what to call the battle)

the rest is then the same:

• Aftermath
• Citations
• References

• Primary Sources
• On-line sources

As a final point, a See also section would help to add depth to the article (maybe linking to WP articles on relevant Roman campaigns, the Gauls etc).

2. Factual accuracy PASS

This looks good, although generally it's best not to over-rely on a single source (even Livy - I'm sure he has his POV!). The text is well-cited, and every statement that could be challenged is backed up with a reference. There is no evidence of original research.

3. Coverage PASS

The subject is well-covered with sufficient background to give the article context, but without going off-topic.

4. Stability PASS

The article is stable, and the history shows no evidence of an ongoing edit war.

5. Images PASS

Both images used have appropriate captioning and copyright information.

To summarise, basically this interesting article requires a thorough copyedit and very little else. I'll be happy to pass it after the points above have been addressed. When you are ready for a re-review, or if you have any questions or comments, drop me a note on my talk page. If I haven't heard anything I'll check back here around the 25th of July. All the best EyeSerene^TALK 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

I noticed some copyediting was taking place and gave an additional 24 hours for this to be completed, but work seems to have stalled, so I have reluctantly failed the current nomination. Both Arvand and Kyriakos have worked hard and produced an interesting article that is close to GA status - when the copyedit is complete, please feel free to re-nominate the article, or contact me on my talk page for a re-review.

If you believe that I have applied the GA criteria inappropriately, or have any other concerns about the conduct of this review, you can list Galatian War on the Good article review page for discussion by other GA reviewers. Please also feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 07:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy-Edit

I have gladly began the process of copy-editing, I have made some edits tonight, and more will come in the next few days. Hopefully this shall be a GA very soon.--Arsenous Commodore 07:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review comments

Another good piece of work by Kyriakos et al. Some comments:

1. I think you rethink the title, probably ditching "war" in favour of "campaign", and include Vulso's name, since most sources make this very much his operation.
2. In addition to the Livy (who has been well-exploited), there's an important section in Polyb. 21.33-39.
3. Secondary literature will need to be improved before this reaches Featured status (which is the long-range goal)

More to come (probably), semper fictilis 13:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Vulso's Galatian campaign? Kyriakos 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, though "Vulso" seems a little stark. Perhaps Manlius Vulso's Galatian campaign? or maybe Roman campaign in Galatia (189 BC)? I'd like to hear what some others say. semper fictilis 02:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good but I would like to put forward that Sir William Smith calls this the Galatian War and that another historian calls it the Gallic War. Kyriakos 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In defence of its current title, I believe that the standard practice amongst Classicists is to call any military action a "War" -- even though most Wars consisted of years of feuding, saber-rattling, diplomatic maneuvering, which ended in a single summer's campaign where two armies marched out & met in a single battle. The First & Second Punic Wars are an exception to this rule, while the Third (which consisted of little more than the siege of Carthage) was a more common example. -- llywrch 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article. I have cleaned up quite a lot of spelling and grammar issues and removed a rather uninformative picture credited to the Comic History of Rome, which struck me as not useful. Richard Keatinge 09:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Keatinge (talk • contribs)

The article was very neutral, and did not show signs of any bias views. Nathangooi (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review, September 16 2007

Good article criteria

1. It is well written – FAIL (1b, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines") PASS
   1. In the Prelude section, Scipio Asiaticus is wikilinked the second time, not the first. A bit confusing for me, as I initially thought I'd overlooked a previous wikilink. I can't see any other misplaced wikilinks offhand, but I recommend a copyedit to double-check. Done
   2. I had to look up "sue for peace" in Google to confirm my guesswork, and it turns out there's an ideal article to wikilink to. I'd prefer to see a lot more wikilinking; everything from infantry to talent, to make the article more accessible to casual readers. Done
   3. In the March Inland section, the MoS recommends against italicizing quotations.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable – PASS, but...
   1. ...I think the references section needs tweaked. Do online and primary sources need differentiating on the basis of whether they can be Googled? Also, how about using the {{reflist}} template instead of <references />, given the number of inline citations? Or do you prefer not to shrink the citation text?  Done
3. It is broad in its coverage – PASS
4. It is neutral – PASS
5. It is stable – PASS
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic – PASS

Hope this helps. Regards, --DeLarge 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone over the article and fix the Scipio link and I also have add some more links. Kyriakos 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have completed all of your suggestions and I hope this article can pass. Kyriakos 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a couple more wikilinks myself, especially in the opening. I know that a lot of readers and editors (myself included) treat the lead like a summary of the whole article, and could stand alone even if everything else was removed, hence the additions. Also, because the text for each citation is so short (using the refs and sources style), I split them into two columns to just sorten the Citations a little bit. That's a personal preference so you can revert that if you want, although I think it's aesthetically tidier since there's less whitespace.

Finally, at the top of this talk page I removed the old "failed GA" template. This is my first GA review where an article had been previously delisted, and I couldn't see at the various GA help pages whether or not it should stay, so I went with my gut instinct.

Otherwise, I'll pass this. Well done, and sorry about the delay, as I've been absent from WP all week. --DeLarge 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)