Talk:Samnites

Sannites

Why does Sannites redirect to this article, but the term "Sannites" is mentioned nowhere in the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Likely "Sannites" may be a common misspelling for "Samnites", influenced by the Italian term "Sanniti".--3knolls (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I propose merging Samnium into Samnites. The article Samnium contains information which is already presented in the article Samnites, except the article Samnites has more information about every subject presented in both articles. With the exception of a geography section. Since both articles are essentially the same, but with Samnium being a less developed version of Samnites, I suggest merging Samnium into Samnites. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Most regions of Italy during Roman times have their own articles, and readers would expect there to be one on Samnium, which was fairly large and important, although its borders (like many regions and countries) varied over time. To the extent that there's considerable overlap between the two articles, it may be worth moving some material from "Samnites" here. The fact that a better-developed article mostly overlaps a lesser-developed one is sometimes a reason for merger, but not when the topics really do deserve separate articles; if all of the material were thoroughly covered in "Samnites" and there were no article on Samnium, it would be a good candidate for splitting in order to create this, so merging them together doesn't seem like the optimal solution. P Aculeius (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, per P Aculeius. Samnium contains some information, if not much, on later periods too. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samnites/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be taking on this review of what is a very important article which is critical to the encyclopedia, so thank you for your work on it. This is my first Good Article Review, but I'm somewhat familiar with the process as I've been through a review myself. My apologies if I'm overly critical or verbose, but I'm going to try to err on the side of being overzealous with the review rather than lacking since it's my first one. I've completed the Illustrations portion of the review already and will post that here. I'll post the other sections piecemeal as I complete them and will do my best to complete the review in the next seven days, though it may take just a bit longer than that if my schedule decides to hate me.

Illustrations

1. Tagging: Overall, the images are properly tagged and there is no copyvio on the article's part. Just a few small issues on the Commons end that need to be sorted out to ensure proper attribution and that all images are free use.
   1. "Loom weights with a fibula and a tweezers design.jpg" has an incorrect link to its source which needs to be corrected
      1. I think I might have fixed that problem Ewf9h-bg (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
   2. "Bronze Bull.png" has a very vague source, no link to where it was found, and questionable authorship which need to be addressed
      1. I have no idea where I got this image from and can find no information on its source or copyright status. It should probably just be removed Ewf9h-bg (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Relevancy: The images improve the article greatly and are appropriate in almost all situations. However, I question the use of "Bronze Bull.png"; it is a very poor quality image and I have to believe there are better images on Commons which could better illustrate Samnite religion. Compounded with its tagging issues and the best option in my opinion is probably to find a replacement.
   1. I have replaced the image Ewf9h-bg (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
   2. As a note (and this is not required for GA, just my personal opinion), I think the article would benefit from an image of Samnite pottery in the latter part of the "Economy" section, as well as an image of one of the notable Samnites (perhaps the coin of Gaius Papius Mutilus) in that section.
      1. I added an image of Gaius Papius Mutilus. Although there is no image of Samnite pottery on Wikimedia Commons, yet. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Captions: Most of the captions are good, but there are a few that I feel could be just a tad more specific; they don't give me as the reader a precise idea of what the image actually is. The ones that I might expand were "Oscan inscription", "Capua", "Colline Gates", "Samnite loom weight.", and "Samnite art".
   1. Expanded all of the mentioned captions Ewf9h-bg (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Gallery review

• 
  Public domainY
• 
  Public domainY
• 
  Public domainY (derivative of Ancient Samnium.jpg)
• 
  Properly licensedY
• 
  Public domainY
• 
  Public domainY
• 
  Public domainY (could use a crop though)
• 
  NImage is licensed under CC-BY-4.0 according to Commons, which would be fine because of the Met's open access policy, but the link in the description does not go to the image's page on the Met's website, so it can't be verified to have been published by them just from the Commons page. A quick search didn't lend me results but I'd bet it was just a typo in the link or a moved web page
• 
  Ineligible for copyrightY
• 
  Properly licensedY
• 
  NLicensed as CC-BY-4.0, but no specific links to where the image was found, who actually made it (not an own work). Its free use needs to be verified
• 
  Properly licensedY
• 
  Properly licensedY
• 
  Public domainY
• 
  Properly licensedY
• 
  Properly licensedY

Stability

YThere has been no content dispute, edit warring, or article instability in the last three months, and all edits in recent times have been constructive and good space. The Article is stable and passes this criterion.

Prose

N The prose of this article has numerous issues. As noted in another failed GAN for Ancient furniture, the prose is choppy inconsistent, often has poor flow, and is difficult to read. Liam2520 very clearly articulated why this style of prose does not meet the Good Article criteria, so I will not restate all of his arguments directly.

It is full of vague words which are not explained like "incredibly", "sometimes", "often", "many", "some", "eventually", and so on. The statements in which these words are used, such as time periods or usage of certain practices or objects, are thus not specific enough and do not provide any concrete information. If reliable sources only have vague information on a topic or point, that should at least be pointed out and clarified as much as possible in the article.

1. I have done my best to purge those words from the article Ewf9h-bg (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, large sections of the text are also vague and not explained. One paragraph which is particularly rough is that on the amphorae, which leaves the reader with more questions than answers.

• "pottery and amphorae were varnished with black" - What is "black"? Why was it used as varnish? What kinds of pottery and amphorae?

1. I rewrote that sentence

• "Amphorae was often used to store wine" - Grammatically incorrect. Again, why? Is this unique to the Samnites?

1. I removed that sentence

• "Pottery in Ancient Samnium came from many different places. Adriatic amphorae are rare, instead Rhodian amphorae are more common. Small of amounts of North African amphorae are also present." - The first sentence is unnecessary. What are Adriatic, Rhodian, and North African amphorae? Are they types, or simply amphorae which come from those regions? What do "rare", "common", and "small amounts" mean? Are we talking a few here and there or a single example? Where were these found, where were North African amphorae present?

1. I rewrote that sentence

• "After the urbanization of Samnite society during the Late Samnite Period Greco-Italic amphorae became more popular" - Again, what does "popular" mean? Were they used more, or do we just have more surviving examples of them? How much more popular? Did urbanization cause this increase in popularity, or is that just the time period that this increase in popularity occurred? Yet again, does "Greco-Italic amphorae" refer to a style or place of origin?

1. I rewrote that sentence

• "Other kinds of amphorae existed. Such as North African Punic or Tripolitanian amphorae." - Improper grammar, sentence fragment. Again with the issue of what do these kinds of amphorae mean. Also the use of "or" is incorrect.

1. I removed that sentence

• "Samnite amphorae, along with other pottery and ceramics, often had patterns on them. Sometimes they had stamps. Usually of Rhodes." - I'm legitimately intrigued by this. As a reader I want to know what kinds of patterns they had on them. Simply saying they had patterns feels rather obvious. What is Rhodes? How is it stamped? How is a stamp different from a pattern? I'll say it again, I'm stumped by what "Rhodes" refers to.

1. I rewrote that sentence

• "Some pots from Samnium, were used to make the resin which would then be used to make people's skin smooth." - I have no idea what this means. What is this mysterious resin? Disregarding the poor grammar of this sentence, this claim seems dubious at best and without explanation it is very strange.

1. I have removed this sentence. And also it was dubious.

• "One example of Samnite pottery was a bell krater painted by an Amykos Painter. On it, is a depiction of a man and a woman." - The Amykos Painter was a person, not a group as this sentence suggests. Beyond that, kraters are not amphorae, so this sentence is out of place in the amphorae paragraph. The description of the decoration on the vase does not read well, nor does it seem to have any particular relevance. Why is this particular example, which is not elaborated upon, pictured, or even described, worthy of mention?

1. I removed this sentence

While this may seem harsh, the entire article is filled with similar paragraphs which confuse the reader, provide minimal or dubious information, or are simply poorly written. I would go through the entire article, and will if anyone wishes to dispute the quick fail, but that would take a large time commitment that I simply don't have the mental preparation to undertake at the moment.

1. I have looked through much of the article and rewrote it. Although I highly doubt it would suffice for good article qualifications now. I am sure it is better.

Comments

I believe that the failing of the prose criterion to this degree is enough to warrant a quick fail. If anyone requests it, I will elaborate on the failing of the verifiability criterion as well, though I'd like to do some more digging on that first, as well as the coverage and neutrality.

Summary

✗ Fail The article does not meet the prose or verifiability criteria and is questionable on the neutrality and coverage. It fails for many of the same reasons that the previous nomination of Ancient furniture failed. The prose is clunky and vague, and there are numerous incomplete sentences and grammatical inconsistencies. There appears to be extensive original research throughout the article, and upon inspection several statements in the article are borderline close paraphrasing (though because almost all sources are scanned books, more digging will have to be done on copyvio). Additionally, the nominator is currently under a CCI and was blocked for copyright violations less than a month ago, which does not give me much faith in the verifiability of this article. In regards to neutrality, several statements, while not openly biased, do not seem to present the material in an entirely balanced, historical perspective. Many points in the article are written "around" the Romans, and while from my cursory knowledge of this subject a lot of our information does come from the Romans, this article is on the Samnites and should be written as such; or, where not possible, should point out the one-sidedness of historical sources. Finally, the article's coverage is not complete. In my opinion, the most apparent omission was the abrupt cutting-off of the history section. The Samnites did disappear, yes, but the article even mentions that several Samnite families held important positions in Rome even after the degradation of Samnite identity. Certainly this information would fall into the scope of the article. Additionally, there are numerous statements which are made but not explained or elaborated upon, which leaves the reader with more questions than answers. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a possibility that this article will be fixed within the seven day period. I highly recommend reading the links that Liam2520 provided in the last review before continuing to work on this article or others, and would dissuade the nominator against immediately submitting another Good Article Nomination before they are certain that they understand the criteria and requirements of the process. Fritzmann (message me) 01:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)