Talk:Aratus of Sicyon/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking at this. HaEr48 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the article coverage is decent and I found the topic interesting, but I have concerns about its writing style and the lack of diversity in references. It certainly has potential to reach GA status but in my opinion it needs more work. I added more detailed feedback below:
- They were almost given away by the city's watchdogs, but the guards failed to recognise the danger: This seems very vague, how does one get "almost" given away and what "the guards failed to recognize the danger" means?
- civil war threatened: the use of "to threaten" without object is unusual
- Ptolemy had just won Corinth from the Macedonian empire: "won" seems too vague. Did you mean "conquered"?
- Some more awkward phrasings:
- .. was the younger man's elevated connections.
- decided to attach Sicyon to the Achaean League
- But Sicyon had become economically unstable. (avoid starting a sentence with "But" in formal writing)
- Aratus could now no longer rely for help on an alliance with Macedon's Antigonus
- It seems that there are many of these (other than those I highlighted above). I'm not a native speaker myself so I couldn't help you as effectively as I wish, but I suggest asking help from WP:GOCER or someone you know who is a native speaker to sort these out.
- Also, avoid sentences that are too short/simple: "Each was barefoot to minimise noise." "The impact was immediately felt." "This peace did not last" I think they're fine when used sparingly but if there are too many of them, it feels like reading a children's book. Consider merging with related sentences, or elaborating them more.
- Some sentences are too informal/conversational. E.g. "in a victory owing partly to luck but also to good planning and nerve", "Very few achieved the feat"
- By the way, you can use this script User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB to ensure American vs British English consistency. I already ran it for this article (I assume you want British English), but mentioning it here so that it can be useful for you in the future.
- Re sourcing, other than Plutarch who is an ancient source (and used sparingly, as it should), nearly all references are from Roberts & Bennett. We should try to increase the diversity of sources and point of views. Do we have nothing more from recent scholars?
- Also for the ancient sources, please include the approximate year of the original source, as well as more details (year, publisher, translator) about the specific translation/edition that you used.
I will put it on hold now and see where it goes after 1 week. --HaEr48 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Given that the prose still need a lot of work and no improvement have been made, unfortunately I will close the nomination for now. I still believe the article has a lot of potential. I hope the nominator can work on improving the diversity of sources as well as improving the prose (possibly with help from someone). HaEr48 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)