Wikipedia:Peer review/Siege of Syracuse (397 BC)/archive1

Siege of Syracuse (397 BC)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I came across this article a while ago and I've made some minor contributions, but I decided to list it for peer review to find out what else can be done to it. Any comments would be appreciated. In time, I'd like to make it a GA.

Thanks, —ems 2 4 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start to work on this article but it will take some time as the article is extensive. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off thanks for your work on this article. It's refreshing to review articles of this nature. I understand you wish to take this article to WP:GAC, which is a very worthwhile effort.

Lead

See WP:LEAD for thoughts on writing the lead. The lead should be a summary of every point in the article. After reading it the reader should have a skeletal idea of the topic, the article then fills in all the details. An article of this length should probably have between three and four paragraphs for the lead. GA reviewers will expect that lead to be in compliance with MOS guidelines.
This sentence in the lead was confusing to me:

"The Carthaginians followed which the Athenians had used in 415 BC, and were successful in isolating Syracuse."

Is there something missing? The Carthaginians followed what?

Fixed —ems 2 4 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing forces

I see a couple of words that I've never heard before: triremes and Quinqueremes. Please either link them or add an explanation of what they are. It's important to not assume too much knowledge on the part of your readers.

Fixed . Those terms were already linked in the infobox, but I added links for their first appearance in the prose also. —ems 2 4 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After the defeat of his navy and the desertion of his allies..."

When was his navy defeated? I don't remember reading that. Is it yet to come? If so this information should follow a chronological order so as not to confuse the reader.

I think you could add more wikilinks, to names like: Campanian, Sardinian and Gallic for example.
I think there's a missing word or two here but I can't figure out where:

"Carthage at this time did not use elephants, but Libyans provided bulk of the heavy, four horse war chariots for Carthage."

Specifically, "...but Libyans provided bulk of the heavy, four horse war chariots...."

"The Syracuse navy was built around the Quinquereme, an invention attributed to Dionysius, and the trireme. Dionysius also transport ships available, but the number is unknown. Citizen rowers manned the fleet."

This information should go in the section about Syracuse rather than in the section about the opposing forces. Doesn't seem to fit.

The main issue with this section is a lack of references. I count three in-line citations, which isn't enough considering the amount of detail here. You have a paragraph on the Punic navy with specific numbers of ships that is unreferenced.

This sentence: "Sicels and other native Sicilians also served in the army as hoplites and also supplied peltasts, and a number of Campanians, probably equipped like Samnite or Etruscan warriors, were present as well." Sounds speculative, "probably equipped like Samnite or Etruscan warriors...." This should have a reference or it should be removed as speculation.

The war begins

Not sure about this sentence: "The Greeks scattered to the fortresses in the countryside, which Himilco spent unsuccessfully tried to reduce."

What was Himilco trying to reduce? The fortresses or the Greeks. The context isn't clear. Consider rewording.

Prelude to the Siege

I'm noticing a few terms that you may want to reword. Phrases like "make a break for it" and "Lady Luck" are not very "encyclopedic". I changed "make a break for it" to "retreat". I'll leave Lady Luck to you, don't want to touch it for fear of reprisal from the fickle lady :). I'm off for a bit more to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:UNIT when you have a unit of measurement, in this case 110 km you want to also convert it to imperical format (miles). You can do this by adding a {{convert}} template. It will look like this: 110 kilometres (68 mi).
I wikilinked some terms in this section. Usually the articles I encounter have too many wikilinks. This article I feel does not have enough, especially Greek terms and names.
I also added a ^{[citation needed]} template at the end of the "Preparations for the siege" section. It's a paragraph with very specific information and numbers and no reference.
I see another couple of measurement conversions needed in the "Fortifications of Syracuse" section.
There is another instance of speculation with no reference in the "Carthaginian camp" section, "The main camp was probably situated on the marshy ground east of the temple of Zeus, and adjacent to the Dascon bay and the Lysimeleia marsh." It's ok to say "probably" if you have a credible source to back it up.

Carthaginian preparations

"...Himilco seemed to have spared no expense to look after his soldiers needs." Nice comment, no reference.
Why is straddle italicized twice? Seems a bit odd.
I've made some spelling and grammatical error fixes in this section. You may want to read through the article looking for tense agreement, singular vs. plural agreement, and spelling errors. A common error I'm seeing in this article is misspelling the word "plateau". More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 397 BC: Carthage commences operations

References should not go in the titles of sections, put them in the paragraph. If an in-line cite is intended to cover the entire paragraph then put it at the end of the para. You'll have to add it to each paragraph if you wish it to apply to the entire section.
There are a couple things I'd like to mention with this sentence:

"In the medieval and modern age, Western invaders of Russia had often been thwarted by General Winter after defeating anything Russian citizens could muster against their enemy, with only the Mongols, coming from the east had managed to conquer both General Winter and Russian kingdoms."

Given the context of the paragraph it seems to have no real relevance. The sentence claims the harsh winters have been Russia's best friend in war. The very next sentence says, Sicillian winters haven't helped Syracuse though. What's the connection? I know the intent is to show that winters to Russia are the same as disease to the Syracusans but this is tenuous at best. There are a myriad of examples of fighting forces being saved from certain doom by a disease that runs rampant through the enemy camps. I suggest using one of those stories rather than a tie-in that just doesn't really seem to fit.
From a writing stand point the sentence is also a run-on sentence and should be cut up so as to better define the subject of each sentence.

There's no reference for the "Dionysius strikes" sub-section.
Usually in-line citations are placed at the end of sentences or paragraphs rather than in the middle of a sentence as is done in the "Attack on the Punic forts" sub-section.

Strange political bedfellows

Another speculative unreferenced sentence: "The Greek navy now probably outnumbered the Carthaginian one, which was devastated by the Greek raid and unable to man available ships due to crew shortage."
Usually it's a good idea to avoid lists in the body of a section. I would recommend reformatting the list in this section into prose and incorporating it into the paragraph.

Aftermath

Is Messena and Messana two different cities or the same city? Just want to be sure because they appear very close to each other in this section and have very similar spellings.
"Although the council of 104...." What is the council of 104?

References

The key with referencing is to maintain a consistent format. See WP:CITE for the various formats available.
I see 8 books used in the Bibliography. Probably a good idea to put them in alphabetical order by author's last name.
I also see that you then put specific references to these books w/ page numbers in the "Notes" section. This is great. Watch consistency though. You use pp. for a range of pages and p. for one page. Sometimes (ref 7) you have pp. for one page and other times (ref 9) you have p. for a range of pages.
It appears as though other books are found in the "Notes" section. I'm referring to refs 8 and 9. Why are these not listed in the "Bibliography" section?
What is "Diod" in ref 11? Is this the same as "Diodorus Siculus"? If so it should be spelled out. Also is this a book? If so why is it not in the Bibliography? Same for Polyanios and Plutarch. See suggestions in the Citation guidelines referred to above for thoughts on how to cite various forms of media including primary sources.
I see that you have Diodorus Siculus listed in the "External links" secton, since you make specific reference to this book in the article it should go along with all the other books in the Bibliography.

Overall

You've done a lot of work and an amazing job on this article.
It is a long article, perhaps a little too long. There are some sections that stray a bit from the main topic. See WP:SUMMARY for thoughts on writing in a summary style. I think you could combine some of the smaller sections into larger ones. I think for example in the "Opposing forces" section, the "Greek forces" sub-section could be combined with the "Dionysius makes ready" sub-section in the "Background" section.
Try to look for information that doesn't really seem to move the subject along and trim it out. Also any unreferenced information (and there is a bit of that in the article) either needs a reference or needs to be removed.
I like the maps but are there paintings or images of some of the battles or major political figures? What about images of one of the ships you refer to? This would be good and informative.

The two maps in the body of the article have the same caption. You should change the captions to better define what the map is showing the reader.

I think you're off to a good start, I don't feel it is up to GA quality at this point but with some work could certainly breeze through that review. I wish you well and if you have any specific questions or concerns regarding the review please give me a poke on my talk page. I don't usually watch the review page. Thanks and best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]