| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has seen some work lately and could benefit from a critical eye. Looking forward to hearing opinions on how to improve it. Hopefully this will set it on its way to GA status soon enough. I am looking for general hints and tips, as well as people spotting major flaws that are not apparent to me.
Thanks, Anothroskon (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Peer review by Monsieurdl
edit- The first thing that I noticed is the superlative use of referencing through inline citations, as well as a varied amount of sources. That to me shows a lot of care and pride in getting it right. My only criticism in the area of references is that there are too many in certain paragraphs that reference the same page, such as in the Women section. If you can, use the reference for a couple of sentences, and not every single sentence if the page is the same.
- Your reference number 57 in the Greco-Roman heritage section is extremely clunky. The inline citation tags really aren't meant for lists, so I would suggest splitting up your two best references and retaining them under a [57] and a [58] after the sentence.
- The lead is well written and concise, but the information presented doesn't appear in the article at all, and it is unreferenced. If you are going to make statements in the lead, them must either be referenced or the information must appear in the article and referenced there. I have no idea where I could find that historiography defines the meaning of Byzantine/Byzantine Greek, or that Sir George Finlay introduced the terms to the world.
- The Clergy section needs more information- it seems sparse as compared to the other sections.
- The descriptions of almost all of the images are stilted and don't flow right- I would improve upon them, and make them one sentence if possible. Image size may also be an issue as some are a bit small. Also, placing a couple on the left would help the look of it (just my opinion there).
- Overall, your article is outstanding! With a few minor tweaks, it could very well be a highly-rated article. I was very impressed- great work! Monsieurdl mon talk 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and make recommendations for improvement. It is much appreciated. I will begin implementing your suggestions immediately. Once again thank you.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)