Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kalavrye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted -MBK004 07:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Constantine ✍
| Toolbox |
|---|
This battle, although rather unknown, is one of the few in Byzantine history where we have a thorough description of its course and the tactics used. It is an excellent example of flexibility and resilience on both sides. The article is quite complete, and passed GA without any problems, and I think it meets the A-class criteria. Constantine ✍ 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: mainly just nitpicky style/tech comments from me as I don't know enough about the content to comment, sorry:
- no dab links, no issues with external links (no action required);
- images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
- images lack alt text, you might consider adding it but it is not a requirement (suggestion only);
in the Sources section, you have slightly different presentation styles due to the use of different templates: {{cite book}} and {{citation}}. I suggest using the same template for consistency (either would be fine), as using two creates subtle differences (e.g. commas instead of full stops);the hyphenation of the ISBNs are slightly different, these should be consistent (I suggest just removing the hyphens, but so long as you are consistent I don't mind);the Advisor script reports a possible ISBN error for the Treadgold work. Can you please check that it is correct?AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Hello! I fixed the isbn and cite template issues. They are not entirely consistent, but that's because I have written them exactly as they appear on the books themselves. For the images' alt text, that will be easy for the portrait of Nikephoros III, but I have really no idea how to make it work for the battle diagrams. Any suggestions or helpful links? Constantine ✍ 09:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion would be to keep it relatively simple. Perhaps something like: "A graphic illustrating the movement of various military forces around the battlefield." Otherwise I think it would be very difficult to use words to convey what is going on. After all, that is why the images are there in the first place, to make it easier for the reader to understand the complex movements. Not sure if this helps, though. Apologies if it didn't. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! I fixed the isbn and cite template issues. They are not entirely consistent, but that's because I have written them exactly as they appear on the books themselves. For the images' alt text, that will be easy for the portrait of Nikephoros III, but I have really no idea how to make it work for the battle diagrams. Any suggestions or helpful links? Constantine ✍ 09:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there appears to be a mixture of the English variation with some US and some British English spelling, e.g "realize" (US) and "defenseless" (US), but "honoured" (British). These should be consistent;I think typically use of a heading starting with "The" as in "The battle" is discouraged. Normally I think it would just be "Battle". (I've certainly seen this in other reviews, but now I look I can't find the policy link - so it is just a suggestion.)AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- OK, I fixed the spelling inconsistency (BTW, I think -ize was acceptable in British English too) and added alt text descriptions to images. Constantine ✍ 08:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: excellent article, in my opinion. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - other than the outstanding issues above I could find little to fault it. Very well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.