Wikipedia:Peer review/Hannibal/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hannibal[edit]

This article is very informative and manages to detail the life of one of the most interesting tacticians on Earth in less than 50 Kb. So I was thinking it might be ready for FAC, but before that I would like to hear your comments, is it a tad too long? Does it need anything else? Feel free to express your opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very informative and comprehensive, with great use of images (although personally, I'd alternate the alignment of the images when there are that many, but that's just a personal stylistic point). The prose is a little dense at times, though - there are a lot of long sentences broken up with commas where it's easy to lose the sense a bit, and I think a fresh pair of eyes could do with coming in and trimming a lot of it. At the moment, lots of the paragraphs look interminable and unappealing to the eye. I also found, with a cursory glance, a few sentences that didn't really make sense and where a bit of word substitution is needed - for example, "The only alternate route to central Italy laid at the mouth" (should that be "lay at the mouth"?) and "he cut it to pieces by a surprise attack" ("with a surprise attack"?). I really think it needs a careful eye to get that prose sorted.
The worst problem, though, is references - there are a lot of quotes that just don't state where they come from, and a lot of statements ("considered to be one of the finest military generals in history") that desperately need backing up with some form of citation. It can't possibly get anywhere near FA without at least three or four times the amount of citation it's currently got. I do think, though, that it's a good enough article (in terms of the information contained within) that it's worth spending the time and effort sorting those out. But if there are any quotes that you can't find citation for, you'll have to drop them. Seb Patrick 09:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • This article does not have any categories. Please categorize it with relevant [[Category:Categories]].
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • allege
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations(if they already do, please strike this comment).
Done. I removed all the weasel words and replaced them as best I could. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Considering how well-written and detailed the sub-articles about the individual battles are, I feel the amount of information given in the biographical article is a bit over the top. Please consider condensing the information in these sections and leaving the brunt of the battle details to the already existing, high-quality sub-article structure. / Peter Isotalo 10:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind if I strike out some comments as we move along. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take another look, I've tried to source all the unsourced quotes. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure. The battles were noteable, but a biography does not consist of three battles, even more so when the Second Punic War is almost identical in its main content. We should integrate more biographic material from Livy about his childhood and teenage years and from Appian and Polybius about his time as an old man. Additional info may be provided by highlightening his family connections (brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law) and the experience he faced during his lifetime such as Carthage's defeat and the trial on his father, the Mercenary War and death of his father and (what is disputed to be his uncle or brother-in-law; most scholars tend towards the later) assassination of Hasdrubal the Fair(We may mention his fear of assassination and his disguise during the time in Gallia cisalpina, noted by Polybius and Livy). the conflicts between Maharbal and Hannibal should be included, such as the famous Maharbal quote (Livy) and the dispute of authority for surrender terms (Polybius). For the pro-dictator Fabius and Hannibal there is an exchange of POW mentioned in Livy, this may help to highlight their relationship. Furthermore we definetly should reflect the ongoing debate about the Iberus treaty (most scholars today agree that it was definetly not the Ebro, the Segura is one of the disputed candidates) and we should reflect the dispute in what way this treaty was binding for Hannibal as research has pointed out that it was likely a berit(A legal form that is basically a declaration of intent that could become binding if officially sanctioned by the state but otherwise expired with the end of the declarers term of office). We may make Hannibal and his attitude towards the Romans an own chapter, quoting the oath story and Frontinus, Livy and Polybius on the later encounters of Hannibal and Roman emabssies. A list of towns founded or reestablished by Hannibal (such as Barcelona and the Armenian capital) might also be of interest. Wandalstouring 21:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]