| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I think I have improved it good.
Thanks, Schweiz41 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Schweiz41 I agree (that you have improved it)! Thanks for your edits to that article. It's really interesting article and also a beautiful artefact in its own right. I find the article is well written for the most part, well structured and flows well. I think you covered the ambiguity about its origins particularly well. Some suggestions for improvement would be:
- To improve some of the phrasing (some examples below, also I have made one or two small changes)
- Trim some of the citations, particularly in the 'description' section. You don't need to provide so many citations for something that's generally agreed on, unless there is a dispute. For example:
it is made of gilded bronze[2] and measures 30 centimetres in height[22][9] or 28 centimetres by 30 centimetres[8] for the pectoral.[18]
This is done appropriately sometimes though (eg.Its dating remains relatively uncertain: archaeologists date it from the end of the 2nd century BC, others from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC[6][7][8
) - The lead section should be expanded to include more about the description of the cuirass
- "There is a problem of chronological order " to me is unclear.
- I'm interested as to why "The cuirass, of "exotic provenance" if we take into account the place of discovery" is used. Weren't Ancient Rome and Carthrage in a trading relationship? If that's the case, it doesn't strike me as that exotic to have found it in Tunisia
- Regarding the description - any speculation why those motifs were included, in terms of the meaning of those symbols and why Minerva as compared with other gods or goddesses were included?
The work may have belonged to a Libyphenician of the army of Carthage
suggest link Libyphrenecian and army of Cathrage to relevant articles.- Within the 'interpretation' section, it would be useful for the reader to have an idea of who the mentioned parties are, for example "According to Ben Younès". Suggest link these people if they have articles, and add some sort of descriptor, such as "According to Historian Ben Younes" so that I have some context.
Hope these thoughts help. Overall the article is of excellent standard however and I commend you for your great work. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)