Wikipedia:Peer review/Thirty Years' War/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we here a Spotlight usually do this. We want to get it to GA and any suggestions or contributions would be greatly appreciated.
- Comment I havn't read through the prose yet, but from what I can tell at first glance most of the article is insourced. Almost every statement in an article should be referenced. I know that sounds like a lot, but that's the first step in making a quality article. Good luck, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please try to avoid taking that advice too literally. Most statements should be tracable to a source, but not every single statement needs a separate citation. With the exception of controversial or uncertain casualty figures and the likes, I warmly recommend citing the article by the paragraph, not after every other sentence. It will usually result in more cohesive prose and improved readability. Peter Isotalo 07:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the semi automated peer review as it 1) breaks transclusion of the request to WP:PR (so no one sees it), 2) is against the directions above, and 3) saves space. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
After a quick run-through, I have the following suggestions:
- The lead should not start by flat-out defining the war as religious. It started as a religious conflict, but turned political later on.
- The article needs to handle the term "national" more carefully. The did mark the beginning of the development toward a political system based on sovereign nations, but there were no nation-states or nationalities in the modern sense in the 17th century. The political history should be described in more detail, for example under "Peace of Westphalia".
- "Fiction" is currently just random examples of fictional depictions. Summarize it in prose and use individual examples only sparingly. If possible avoid mentioning obscure online projects like the 1632 series specifically. They're seldom notable enough to merit any detailed attention.
- A section on development of tactics and weaponry might be a good idea.
- The references are pretty substandard. There is tons of general literature on the war, and more than enough to cover every fact in the article without having to reference scattered tidbits in a thousand and one internet sources. Peter Isotalo 07:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)