Talk:Barritus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Godtres (talk · contribs) 14:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The prose is clear and concise and the spelling and grammar are mostly correct. I wonder whether "barritus" should be a) capitalised, b) preceded by an article (i.e. "the barritus"). Also, I personally would avoid contractions like "it's", but I do not think this is a requirement for GA status. Godtres (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead: the lead is an appropriate length, defines the term etc.. There is no need for the inline citation: this is redundant. The order of sentences is somewhat confusing. Surely Tacitus should be mentioned along with the Germanic tribes, not after the Roman soldiers? Godtres (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Layout: the layout is standard. I would rename the "spelling and etymology" section to be only "etymology". I would separate the "battle song" section, to be "use by Germanic tribes" and "use by Roman soldiers". Godtres (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Words to watch: the language is precise and unbiased. Godtres (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction: the article is on a non-fictional topic. Godtres (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists: there are no embedded lists. Godtres (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
There is a list of all references, presented in accordance with the style guidelines. I personally wouldn't have a "literature" section with only one item: there is certainly more literature than is presented on the topic. The citation method is slightly inconsistent (e.g. ISBN numbers), but this does not matter. Godtres (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
This sentence lacks an inline citation and could reasonably be challenged. "According to descriptions by Ammianus Marcellinus and Flavius Vegetius Renatus, it seems that in the 4th century, Barritus transformed from a battle cry into a rather simple war chant within the Roman Army." Godtres (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of sources: I've been unable to access many of the resources, since this article has been translated from German, so they are mostly German. I could access citation 2 (Boris Johnson's book): this did not support the statement in the article. Johnson uses the phrase "the baritus", not "barritus" as the article might suggest. Godtres (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another spot check of sources: I've looked at 3. This extract does support the first and second use of the reference. However, it does not support the third usage: "In the 4th century, Ammianus Marcellinus describes Barritus as typical for Germanic auxiliary troops." The source also raises the question of a relationship with the Latin word "barrus" (elephant): I think this should at least be addressed in the article. Godtres (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
There are some inadequately cited claims, as discussed above, which may suggest some original research took place. The claim that "Following the Roman interpretation, "Hercules" can be associated with Donar/Thor." lacks an inline citation and reads like original research. Godtres (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
I have not found any copyright violations, and the article does not appear to copy directly from the sources it cites. Godtres (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It addresses the main aspects of the topic: etymology, use by Germanic tribes, use by Roman soldiers. Godtres (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
It stays focused on the topic. Godtres (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
There is no editorial bias; viewpoints are represented fairly, with due weight given. Godtres (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
It's clearly stable; there are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Godtres (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
It's not illustrated. It would be possible to illustrate the article: perhaps an image of Tacitus. Godtres (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm failing this review outright (as opposed to placing it on hold) because the main contributor to the article does not speak German, so cannot check the sources cited appropriately. Significant work appears to be required to bring the article up to GA status. Godtres (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a final note, thank you to DreamRimmer for creating the article etc.. I'm sorry that this article did not meet GA status, but hope that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Godtres (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Godtres, How did you know whether I know German or not? I have basic knowledge of German, and I lived in Germany for two years. I am well-informed about German and its culture. This is completely unfair; you just failed this nomination without any logical reason. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not mention the fact that you speak German on your user page, but do mention the other languages that you speak: it is reasonable to assume you do not speak German.

That said, the article failed the GA not because you do not speak German, but because the sources I checked did not match up with the article. This is not your fault: the German article has the same errors. Godtres (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I speak many Indic and foreign languages, but I have not listed them on my userpage due to the format I've used. If I add more userboxes, the userpage image I used becomes completely hidden. Paywall sources are accepted in Wikipedia. I don't see any problem with sources; all of the statements are backed up with reliable sources. As the reviewer, you have the authority to fail it, but I believe this decision was unfair. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources I looked at in my review (citation 2 and citation 3) did not support the statements made in the article. Please do look at my comments above, which explain this in more detail. Godtres (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Godtres, I have fixed both concerns. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement 'In the 4th century, Ammianus Marcellinus describes Barritus as typical for Germanic auxiliary troops' is covered in the 12th source I have added. Please check the following excerpt from the source:

So, when both armies, after advancing cautiously, remained unmoved, the opposing warriors stared at each other with savage and sidelong glances. The Romans, in unison, sounded their war cry, as usual, rising from a low to a louder tone, known as the national name 'barritus,' and thus roused themselves to mighty strength. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've edited the excerpt from the source. Adding a comma after "as usual" changes the meaning from "when the Romans sounded a war cry, it typically went from low to loud" to "it was typical for the Romans to sound a war cry". This is not what the original Latin nor the English translation cited says.

I've had a look at another source, to further prove the point that the citations in this article have been misused. Citation 7 does not support the statement it accompanies. Godtres (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of a comma was a mistake because I have a grammar extension installed in my browser. Here is another source that supports The word is likely of Germanic origin and was adopted as a loanword into Latin.^[1]

References

^ Peña, J. (2015). "quam gentilitate appellant: The Philological Evidence for Barbarians in the Late Roman Army. Germanic Loanwords in Roman Military Vocabulary". ResearchGate.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Godtres, I believe I have addressed all your concerns, and all the statements are well sourced. Source 7, to which you were referring, is reliable and covers the statement. I have provided a copy above for your reevaluation. Could you please review and suggest any further improvements? – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 7 does not cover the claim in the article... The source states that the cry itself was of Germanic origin; the article claims that the word was of Germanic origin.

Extract from source:

In the 4th century CE, Roman infantry favored the barritus, a war cry of Germanic origin, apparently imitated from a martial custom prevalent among auxilia palatina from east of the Rhine. It began as low murmuring and gradually crescendoed to a loud roar (Amm. Marc. 16.12.43; 21.13.15; 26.7.17; 31.7.11; Veg. Mil. 3.18.9; Lactant. Plac. 4.394). The etymology of barritus is ambiguous. Tacitus (c.98 CE) used the term barditus to describe the manner in which Germani chanted “songs” (carmina) in the battle line, which amplified and reverberated within the hollows of their shields (Germ. 3.1). The late Latin form most plausibly evolved from a deformation of barditus under the influence of an existing Latin word barritus, a “bellowing” or “trumpeting” (Apul. Flor. 17; Veg. Mil. 3.24.5; Hoffmann, SBND 1.135–7; Beck 1976; Speidel 2004: 111–113). Godtres (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Peña, J. (2015). "quam gentilitate appellant: The Philological Evidence for Barbarians in the Late Roman Army. Germanic Loanwords in Roman Military Vocabulary". ResearchGate.

[1]