dressrest.blogg.se - Macropedia micropedia britannica

Completeness: While I believe the section of the aftermath of the war can stand some expansion - especially by detailing the effects the war had on the Roman approach to the institution of slavery (if there were any) - this is beyond my current research materials, and I believe that the history of the Third Servile War is rigorously detailed in the article as it stands.

Pinning down events to more precise times is simply not possible with the available sources for this war. Consuls were elected at the beginning of the year, for one year, so consular command of the armies would last throughout 72BC. The chronology in the article is already a reconstruction based on what is known about Roman politics and the Roman calender: e.g. While the order of events is explicitly detailed, exact times are not given other than vague comments such as "the war was now in its third year". Given the antiquity of the events and the sources in question this is simply not avoidable.

Weak Time Line: The timing of events in the article is relatively vague for a historical article: there are no precise dates for events and battles.

The casual reader who does not want to expend the time and energy to follow this approach is still served by the article's infoboxes, and the lengthy and detailed summary lead. While this is a less "user friendly" approach, and requires a little more effort on behalf of readers, I think that it is more accurate and neutral than trying to impose a personal point-of-view on the reader. Instead, I have opted for a more detailed " Historian X says A happened, while historian Y writes the B happened, but it is generally agreed that C happened the following spring". To render the article as a simple narrative would require interpretation of the sources, and the imposition of a particular viewpoint on the reader there does not even seem to be an unambiguous consensus as to events among modern historians. Functionalist/Structuralist Style: While many readers and authors prefer a simple narrative style in historical articles ( A happened, then B happened because of C, etc.), the sketchy and sometimes irreconcilable accounts of the war have made this impossible.

I would like to preemptively address them and explain why they have not been "fixed", and why they should stand in the article "as is". Given the feedback of the reviews to date, I understand there are several issues which may raise comment. Thank you - Vedexent 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Reply Potential Issues Even if consensus finds that the article is not yet ready for Featured Article status, I hope this process will find other ways in which the article can be improved. I think the article is ready to be subject to the peer-review and evaluation of a Featured Article Candidate nomination. It has undergone a general peer review, a project peer review under the Military History Wikiproject, two rounds of the A-class status review process under the Military History Wikiproject (see here and here), a call for general comment in the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject, and third party copy editing for grammar, spelling, and style.

Third Servile War has undergone extensive research, editing, and rewriting over the last 6 months.