Talk:Switzerland in the Roman era/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Okay, I've had a look at the article, and there are only a few things that need to be addressed before the article can be passed.

The article appears to have outgrown its lead.

I've expanded the lead to cover the scope of the article more thoroughly. Sandstein 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of bits and pieces aren't referenced: the last paragraph; "but were forced to return to their old territory after the Roman victory at Aquae Sextiae in 102 BC."; a few other small things.

That sentence is now cited and has been made more precise. Sandstein 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A campaign between 25 and 7 BC also subjugated the Celtic tribes of the Valais and opened the Great St Bernard Pass" makes it sounds as if a 19 year long campaign was fought to subjugate them. Presumably from the next sentence, the intended meaning is that the exact date is unknown; maybe merging the two sentences would help to clarify?

Yes, that's what was meant. Fixed. Sandstein 19:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts about relying on a single source, in German. Okay, so it isn't ideal. Personally, I don't mind it at GA level, but I'm sure even a handful of other sources could be found to make the article more easily verifiable, surely?

I've added a couple of new references to online sources, notably the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. Unfortunately, the material available in English (a Swiss Foreign Department website) is rather superficial, but it's at least something. The principal source now used (Ducrey) is the standard university-level general history textbook, probably one of the best and most comprehensive references for our purposes. Sandstein 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that the article is consistent in its use of US English?

The Firefox spellchecker found only one Briticism. My written English tends to be a mixture of Commonwealth and US usage, so I can't guarantee that there are no more inconsistencies. Sandstein 19:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, the article is very well written and would make an ideal good article. Well done.

- Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! I've attempted to address the issues you identified above. Sandstein 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to list this as a good article now, congratulations. Per tradition, it is my duty to recommend to you that you now go onto review someone else's nomination. But anyhow, enjoy. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your time! Sandstein 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]