Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Pericles

Pericles[edit]

A general Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/archive2 is still under way, but the response was not the adequate. The article re-written by me is an A-class article and a failed FA and GA nominee. Since these failures huge improvements have been made by me and two fellow users (Druworos and Konstable). I think this article is too close to be FA, but I need your support!--Yannismarou 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikm_fr[edit]

Fascinating article, well worth a FA star!!! Some work should be put in before though, mostly format and style-related:

The bottom of the article needs to be reworked: Ref_label templates should be converted into inline citations, external links and further reading go below refs, and so on.
I'm not sure what to do with the timeline. Maybe there is a way to put it horizontally rather than vertically and ditch his birth date to gain some place? And put it somewhere else in the article?
inline refs formatting needs some work: the ref goes after punctuation, with no space in between, like this.^[1]
There are some one-sentence paragraphs that should be merged.
The References section could be put under a navframe to gain some place, as they're basically redundant with inline quotes. Some editors even don't put that section (although I disagree with them).

Overall, this is an awesome article! Keep up the work! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedback, the suggestions and the encouragement. Now, point by point:

I've reworked (as much as I could for now!) the bottom of the article. I removed the external links as well the further reading, the timeline and certain templates. I'm not sure I want to merge Ref_label templates (the notes) with the citations. In my mind, notes and citations are distinctive. In this case, I followed the pattern of FA article Rabindranath Tagore, which I liked. After all, notes are also inline. Anyway, I may be wrong ...
I'm also not sure what to do with the timeline! For the time being, I changed its position. I think is better with the citation. If I find a way to do it horizontally and if this is nice stylistically I'll try it.
I think I corrected all the inline refs formatting wherever it was wrong. In the very few occasions, I kept the inline ref within a sentence and not after the punctuation I did it on purpose, in order to emphasize something within the sentence.
I merged all one-sentence paragraphs.
I use a naframe. I donot know if it is nice, but it works! Thanks for the idea by the way. I also disagree with those who donot put the Ref section.--Yannismarou 14:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

The article is much better than when it last went up for FAC. A few further suggestions for improvement:

Hiding the references but not the further reading is somewhat counterintuitive. I actually don't like the navbar for these; but if it stays, you should at least use a colored bar there. Otherwise, the "show" link is almost impossible to notice unless you're looking for it.
Not sure that hiding the timeline is worthwhile, as the column of citations running alongside it is longer anyways. One option might be to move the timeline to the previous section and have the citations in a two-column format.
In the "Skill of oratory" section: "Thucydides' contemporary commentators are still trying to unriddle..." doesn't make any sense. Perhaps "Thucydides' modern commentators..." is what's meant here?
The "See also" section should be trimmed as much as possible by intergrating links into the body of the text. I'm not sure how difficult this will be in this case, though.

Kirill Lokshin 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Point by point:

I tried to find a less counterintuitive solution through the navbars. I'm open to something even better.
The idea about the two columns in the citation is good, but I donot know how to do it! If anybody has a clue ...
Yes, I meant "modern". I made the correction.
I trimmed the "See also" section as much as I could. But I donot think is counter-productive to have some extra links in this section.--Yannismarou 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the citations over to a two-column format and moved the timeline bar up to the "see also" section; does that seem cleaner? The use of navbars isn't something that's very common in FAs, so I suspect that there may be some further discussion during the FAC about how to arrange these things; maybe someone there will have better ideas. Personally, I don't really see anything wrong with simply having both the references and the further reading listed out completely; but this might be a question of personal preference more than anything else. Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems cleaner. Thanks. I agree that someone might have better ideas about the navbars. Hence, I have the Ref section as it was previously.--Yannismarou 12:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UberCryxic[edit]

Kirill and Grafikm got most of the "major" problems, but I just wanted to say this article should fly through FAC. Very very good article.UberCryxic 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Cornelius[edit]

What a great read! I have no real expertise in this area, I just wanted to say how very much I enjoyed it. Gaius Cornelius 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring[edit]

Close to FAC, some minor critics concerning content, I wrote them on the articles talk page. The role of Aspia and her appearance in Perikles life should be clearer (one-two sentences). The legal issue of giving citizenship to his third son, Perikles the Younger (mother not Athenian) could be mentioned. Efficiency is a disputable word to describe the rule of Perikles in the header. Wandalstouring 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken care of these issues as well.--Yannismarou 14:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We had a long dispute and have everything fine and sourced now. No more objections. Wandalstouring 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]