Talk:Velites

message: According to "Warfare in the Classical World" by John Warry (page 133) the javelin was called "verutum" and had a throwing thong ("amentum").
According to Wikipedia itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parma_%28shield%29 the shield was known as "parma" (although a quite identical Iberian shield was called "caetra"). I suppose this should be added. Lastdingo (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verutum und Parma 

message: I fixed the title to be bold and linked the singular to wikt (instead of the plural title). The reference template used a set number of columns (a minor point about them being deprecated) - fixed.
This has been assessed as A, for both projects. Really? I have my concerns not so much about the size being small, but rather what was wrong makes me  question what I don't know about the content. I suggest a reassessment:
*lede - a quick look doesn't appear to summarise the content (or am I wrong in that?)
*singular titles per MOS (it is plural, with the singular now linking to wikt). A decision on if a singular title is appropriate and the article moved, or if this is an appropriate exception
** another if both singular/plural are bold.
*B5 supporting materials - some, but not much, maybe that's enough?
I personally would have rated a C, so I've compromised for the Classical project at B (instead of A). Hope this questions help. Widefox; talk 14:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, the article underwent a project-wide GAN, so in reality if you disagree with its assessment rating you should be nominating it for a Good Article reassessment, which can be completed either as a community GAR or as an individual GAR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article failed to have the title being just bold while claiming quality A. Both are fixed, assessing Classical Greece and Rome to B (such a departure from MOS should prevent B). This is worth noting to highlight the unchanged Military history WikiProject rating. Yes, if others agree GAR seems prudent. Widefox; talk 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It passed a MILHIST A-class review, you can see the entire thing here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also say that there was another picture, the author gave me permission, and I uploaded it, however when I asked him to send it in to OTRS, he refused, so it was deleted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly don't downgrade it to what you "think it is", when that downgrading puts it below GA, when it passed GAN. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Iazyges hi, I read the MILHIST review etc before commenting. The lede is better than I initially thought, and GA1, 3, 6 may be borderline, e.g. Legacy would benefit being expanded from half a line as there's sources, clearly deficient in a non-core part. Per WP Classical Greece and Rome  Start C, B, GA (outlier) A examples it could be anything from Start to GA but not A, (arguably C) wouldn't you agree? My feedback is as good as the next from someone not involved. Widefox; talk 14:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience A-class can work on a sliding scale. Some articles that are modern and well known, such as if the predator drone article was nominated, would be subjected to much more scrutiny. A-class has standards, but for ancient, niche subjects such as this, it is at the best it can be (as mentioned in the review.) Due to its age, there are more than 2 thousand years of potential corruption of original source, unlike modern sources which can't really be corrupted. I would love to work on fixing any problems you see, to the best of my ability. I am currently on my phone, away from home, so it may be a couple hours until I can work on it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What did they look like?! For an A, this article doesn't yet cover what they wore, either in prose or image. A quick search finds  "wore the lorica (coat of mail)...leathern jacket...drawers, sandals". The lede has "They rarely wore armour", with no details of what/if or their clothes (or range of outfits due to what they got their hands on financially). Core omission. Widefox; talk 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There was previously a much better image, but it was removed when author refused to send in to OTRS, I have added in a lesser quality image to replace it. The they rarely wore armor thing comes from a much more reliable source (Sabin). I am certain that some of the Velites may have had such armor, but the vast majority (RS' say all of them) wore nothing more than shirts to protect themselves. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: A question arose on Swedish wikipedia about why the article name should be in plural? The rule is usually that the article name should be in singular. Regards --AHA (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singularis och plural?