Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Marathon/archive1
Battle of Marathon[edit]
Currently, the article is good in terms of content and citations. However, any other refinements to the article are welcome. Deucalionite 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments by cla68[edit]
- Very subjective words like "wondrous," and "tyrant," should be in quotations.
- The prose is a little choppy, for example, the use of colons, semi-colons, and hyphens. These should be used sparingly.
- Try not to have one sentence paragraphs.
- Put an inline citation at the end of every paragraph so that there's no "dangling," uncited text.
- Background, third paragraph: I'm not really sure who "they" refers to.
- I don't think you necessarily have to mention what each historian said in the text all the time, if you specify the source historian in the footnote. For example, "According to Herodotus, the fleet sent by Darius consisted of 600 triremes,[12] whereas, according to Cornelius Nepos, there were only 500." I would say, "Darius sent a fleet of 500-600 triremes." Then, in the footnote I would say, "Herodotus specifies 600 and Cornelius Nepos 500 triremes." This way the narrative flows without the reader being distracted by which historian said what. If you do this the "Size of opposing forces" section can be greatly reduced or even incorporated into the "background" or "campaign" section. Or you could rename it as a "Prelude" section which is what I do for that type of section in the battle articles I edit. With all the "this historian said this, but this other historian says this," the story becomes a little difficult to follow.
- Since it's the English Wikipedia, I'd probably put the quote only in English in the text and put the original Greek or other language in the footnote.
All in all I think the article contains excellent information, is well laid-out, has excellent images to support the text, and is definitely deserving of its current, A-class status. Nice work. Cla68 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)