Talk:Roman trade with India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Roman trade with India has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on June 22, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 23, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within classical antiquity. WikiProject History     (Rated GA-Class) (Rated Mid-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no WikiProject India (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale by the India project. Saudi Arabia WikiProject (Rated GA-Class) Saudi Arabia Portal This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Ports 2 Needed - more citations 3 Failed "good article" nomination 3.1 Addressing concerns 3.2 Passed "good article" 2nd nomination 4 Thank you!

[edit] Ports

My two cents, If this section is renamed "Ports" and is divided two sub-sections "Roman ports" and "Indian ports" it would add to the overall content of the article.

Also, a section dealing with the decline of trade may do the same as well. Havelock the Dane 17:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented the idea of a main "Ports" section and the mention of Roman ports. I'll look around for how the trade eventually declined. Havelock the Dane 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, Havelock the Dane 15:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needed - more citations

There are still some sentences and paragraphs missing inline citations. I am sure when the GA reviewer comes around, it will be one of the items raised.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has several major areas in which work is needed, and the article as a whole should be reviewed for style. The lead fails to provide a basic definition of the subject, which prevents a clear scope for the article. Defining the subject solely though its period in time is not sufficient. The article in general does a poor job of stating the obvious for the reader. Also, remember to provide clear transitions between sections and topics. This is admittedly a bit subjective, but in my view the article relies too heavily on block quotations. This is essentially a balancing issue related to the expansion needed (as detailed below in section 3).

2. Factually accurate?: The article suffers from a common problem of sourcing, namely that it has a goodly amount of references but an inadequate amount of inline citations to these refs. Citing a section at the end of each paragraph is really the bare minimum, and any fact likely to be challenged should be verified. Several of the formats used in the footnotes are unacceptable. Please see WP:CITE for more info on this, and consider using appropriate citation templates for some of the footnotes, especially numbers four and ten.

3. Broad in coverage?: This is the central area where work is required. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction is far, far too small. It should give an overview of the entire article (i.e. a summary of all major sections, and a basic timeline). Other sections desperately needing expansion are Decline and Roman ports. The article provides a good basic timeline and recounting of the mechanism of trade between Rome and India, but fails to give an adequate recounting of the cultural exchange that took place as a result, and the effect this may have had on modern Europe and India. The Background section does a decent job of connecting the subject to the preceding periods, but then a tie-in to later periods seem to be forgotten. To put it more succinctly, the article suffers from a time bias.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article is certainly neutral.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: Though for the most part, the images are well-used, appropriate and accounted for, there are a few issues. The tag for Image:BegramGladiator.JPG is deprecated and needs fixing. The lead image is a good choice, but it is practically impossible to read the map, which rather defeats the purpose. In the Decline section, the text is sandwiched between the two images. This is discouraged by WP:MOS#Images.

Customarily when an article does not obviously violate any of the quick-fail GA criteria, a hold period is applied to fix any minor problems. However, this hold should not be given if, in estimation, it would take longer than the maximum of seven days to complete the necessary changes. As the issues above, especially in desired expansion, are not minor and would exceed that time limit, I have failed the article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that there has been any error in the assessment. My response in form of editing the article to address these concerns would have been swift but I have been down with Influenza recently and have been slow at recovering. Will edit to address the concerns in a couple of days and hope to ask for your opinion if you can still spare the time.
With Regards,
Havelok 11:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing concerns

I have performed the following tasks in order to address the concerns mentioned above:

1. Reformed lede.
2. Provided in-line citations and sourced the article.
3. Provided newer maps and made the older ones readable.
4. Removed Image:BegramGladiator.JPG
5. Improved sentences and addressed writing concerns.
6. Worked out a tie-in to later periods in the "Background" and "Establishment" sections.
7. Created a Cultural exchanges section.

With Regards,
Havelok 11:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed "good article" 2nd nomination

As you have clearly addressed all the concerns of the previous review, I am happy to promote this article to GA-status. Good work! VanTucky ^Talk 21:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I am interested in this topic, and was delighted to discover that this article and the map exists. Thank you to all concerned. I don't care if it doesn't meet the Good Article criteria; it answers my questions. wikibiohistory 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)