Talk:Letocetum

GA preparation

I arrived intending to do my first GA review, but I hope that I have done more good by making a fairly substantial edit. In particular I have hoped to clarify the history and what is known of the buildings, and to get everything as close as possible to chronological order. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition! I've marked four instances where a sentence/section doesn't appear to be referenced, so if you or the nom can fix that, I see nothing else wrong on the citation front. You may also want to have the article copyedited by someone familiar with British syntax and grammar, and it would be helpful to specify BC/AD or BCE/ACE for the years with under four digits. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Letocetum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ben MacDui 18:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC) An initial look suggests that there is some work to be done here. This may be the nominator's first GAN - if you are willing to do the necessary there is a decent chance of a pass. Let's see how it goes.

Lead: This is too short and needs to refer to each major section of the article. A date or two would be good. (It is a common mistake to think that any kind of repetition is to be avoided - the lead should summarise the main points, not just mention a few choice ones).

Etymology: WP:MOS can be hard to interpret in sections like this, but avoid single quotation marks. I can work it out easily enough but you are not absolutely explicit about the meaning of "Letoceton". (You could put it the lead...).

Natives: Did the Corieltauvi call their tribal centre "Ratae Corieltauvorum" - or is that the Roman name for it? I would expect to see a bit more information about the natives - what languages did they speak, what was their attitude to the Romans? Maybe we know very little, in which case it's quite legitimate to say so.

Posting Station: {convert|20|–|30|acre|ha} - most the others use metric--> imperial. Be consistent.

Early Mansiones:

"Mansio" is an English-language word, but I am not convinced that "mansiones" is.

Links to sandstone, Civitas, Atrium (architecture) and daub pls.

"About the same time the last hilltop fort was abandoned and the town ceased to be a military site." You told us about a hilltop fort built in 50CE - "last" implies others? Do we know why the town ceased to be a military site?

4 feet (1.2 m) thick & 8 and 10 feet (2.4 and 3.0 m)- see above re metric

Late Roman defences - general uprising of the Welsh tribes - which ones? I like the Reno quote in the next section, but a more general point here is that whilst the article seems to cover the archaeology pretty comprehensively I don't have much of a sense of the "strategic city" he refers to - can no more be said about the activities of the Roman legions based there in relation to the wider region? I know a little about the Romans in Scotland/Caledonia but very little about their longer sojourn south of Hadrian's Wall. This may be covered elsewhere but if so, some indication of this would be helpful.

Images:

Watling Street - it's a charming view, but a little incongruous. If you can, find an image that suggests the Romans more than the modern Brits. Alternatively, File:Watling Street route.jpg or similar might be OK. (This one has Letocetum marked on it).

You should use Alternative text for images. Some people find this difficult - let me know if you need assistance.

An image of a coin found at the site (or a similar coin), or pottery etc. would provide some variety if you can find anything.

Notes: This is adequate insofar as it goes, but the treatment of "LETOCETVM Roman Forts and Camps" etc is unacceptable. On-line refs must have, at minimum, a page or article title a publisher and a retrieval date. You should use the "ref name" system rather than repeating the same ref. See Outer Hebrides#References for a few examples if you need them.

References: |authorlink=FR & authorlink=JG link to a dab pages.

I need to break now, but I think that is most of the points covered. Ben MacDui 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review it and your detailed feedback, most of which i agree with and will take action on. I am quite busy with work right now but will try to do some revisions within the next 2 weeks. If anyone else wants to put their input in feel free to do so. User:Bs0u10e01 User talk:Bs0u10e01 12:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made the majority of changes whch were needed. Those which i didn't is because i am in need of guidance how. 1. How to do alternative text for images 2. The citation problem, should i dump all the references to the roman britain website into the one citation with a,b,c,d etc after it.

Other points, The term mansiones is used in the Jim Gould book and English Heritage literature on the site so i am fairly sure its the right term. The site can only be judged from archaeological information sadly as there is little or no mention of it in relation to the roman conquest therefore i have written all that we can possibly know on the subject as we know it and i can't find any more detailed information about it as a strategic city. User:Bs0u10e01 User talk:Bs0u10e01 22:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional and remaining items

There are still some items remaining. A number of editors have helped out and I have used a few examples of their work to illustrate what is needed.

GA review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   WP:MOS would like you to put the non-breaking space code between numbers and "CE" to avoid line breaks per this edit.

   WP:MOS would like you to avoid title case in headings per the first part of this edit. Military Staging Post and Posting Station need to be fixed.

   I don't know what "Old Celtic British" might be. Possibly British language?

   Etymology still needs some minor copy editing.

   I don't know what to do with etymology i am stumped, if any other editor can have a bash at this it would be helpful.

   It may not seem like it but I am trying to avoid being unnecessarily picky. I think you need to change "old British". If it were a language it would be "Old British" but the article doesn't offer that option. I can see that you might find "British" misleading - so use one of the alts mentioned there such as "Brythonic" or "Old Brythonic". As mentioned above, you need to remove the single quotation marks.

   See above comment about the last hilltop fort.

   The last hilltop fort refers to the second one i have noted in the text so it make sense i reckon.

   The fort is mentioned as being built under Military staging post as is the second smaller one. We then move onto "last" and this created some confusion in my mind at least. I amended it.

   Pass

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   Yes, but the remaining inconsistency in the refs needs to be fixed.

   The above is done, but can you explain what the relevance of "Togodumnus" is - the author? I couldn't see the name on the page or index.

   Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   Pass

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Pass

1. It is stable.

   Pass

1. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   The images themselves are fine but you should not set image sizes per WP:MOSIM e.g. per the 2nd part of this edit.

   I have taken the sizing of images off as requested which is ok except i think the image in the lead is far too small now, can i enlarge this one.

   Yes, WP:MOS allows for that if you prefer.

   The statement in the image caption for the coin should be referenced. All you need to do is add <ref name=Gould72/> at the end of the text.

   The alt text should describe the image from the point of view of someone who cannot see it. I will take a look at this asap.

   I have added an example. Whether or not this is a GA requirement is moot, so I will leave you to add a the rest if you wish. It can seem like a nuisance but I find it helps me evaluate the usefulness of the image. Ben MacDui 16:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

   Pass

2. Overall:

   Pass

Ben MacDui 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we are pretty much there. A few points still outstanding. User:Bs0u10e01 User talk:Bs0u10e01 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have kept these discussion points together above and added a couple of extra comments. Ben MacDui 16:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All the edits are now complete. User:Bs0u10e01 User talk:Bs0u10e01 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations - passed. Ben MacDui 18:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad use of CE or AD dates throughout

It is ridiculous to keep using this when there is no need and no ambiguity. They should be removed except for the first one. Rjdeadly (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)