Wikipedia:Peer review/Samnites/archive1

Samnites

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have tried to improve this article a lot, and I have succeeded in making the article C-class and adding a lot more content. Despite this, it is only C-class which means that although it contains a lot of content, it is written poorly. I would like some help in improving the quality of the article's writing.

Thanks, Ewf9h-bg (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AirshipJungleman29

Hi @Ewf9h-bg:, a few notes:

At the moment, the lead section is extremely long. Per MOS:LS, a helpful rule of thumb is that the lead should be no more than four paragraphs long - at the moment, there are eight. You do not need to summarise every single section in the article; a general summary will do.

@AirshipJungleman29: I have shortened the lead to 4 paragraphsEwf9h-bg (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of sections, there are just too many subsections, especially in the culture section, but also in the society section (there is absolutely no need for "Loom Weights" and "Amphorae and Pottery" to be separate sections. I generally try to avoid single-paragraph subsections; the article is currently overflowing with them.

@AirshipJungleman29: I have combined many of the subsectionsEwf9h-bg (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If need be, such as with the culture section, you could apply WP:SS and spin off the contents into a new article.

@AirshipJungleman29: I have created a new draft for a separate article on Samnite culture. However, I don't know what to do in the meantime. Do I remove a lot of the content from the current religion section? Do I just have two articles which have content that is almost exactly the same for now?Ewf9h-bg (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you may wish to use the {{main}}, {{see also}} and {{further}} templates, instead of plaintext as is currently used in several subsections.

Punctuation is wobbly throughout the article; I'll go through & fix as much as I can find.
In terms of citations, quite a few locations can be said to breach WP:CITEKILL. See for example the first sentence of the second lead paragraph — the sentence "The Samnites had [an] economy focused upon livestock and agriculture" does not need six citations. Many paragraphs also just dump the citations at the end in a big mass (see the sections on the Samnite Wars, for example), which is extremely unhelpful for readers, especially considering they just provide a whole book. Citations need to be full identifiers of the source of a Wikipedia claim — putting "Polybius, The Histories" in the middle of a citation blob at the end of a paragraph is maddeningly unhelpful for readers.
A good standard to work for is the criteria WP:GA? — I found that it helps me focus on immediate article issues.

@AirshipJungleman29: I have moved many of the sources, hopefully now no source blob is larger than 3 citations.Ewf9h-bg (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ewf9h-bg:, please ping me if you want. The article has potential; it just needs a lot of focused attention. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ewf9h-bg:, good to see you've made a start. Please try to sign your talk page replies — it minimises confusion.

For the Samnite culture section, you need to remove a lot of content from the current page, and replace it with a summary. A good summary will look quite similar to a good lead section of Draft:Samnite Religion. See the introduction of WP:SS for details.

I have shortened the religion section. Now all I need is for this draft to get published.

As for the citations, try not to have citations in the lead. As the lead section summarises the article's contents, which should all be referenced, there is no need to have duplicate citations in the lead.

I have removed all citations from the lead. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The next big task is to start specifying page numbers in the citations — most lack them. You may find that one article/book has many different pages that you need to cite at different times; if so, have a look at WP:INCITE. I do not have access to most of these books, so you will have to learn the editing style yourself.

I will go through the article to indicate where citations are still needed. Good luck! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have went through all your notices and fixed them Ewf9h-bg (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ewf9h-bg:, I have combined some of the sections which I felt were unneccessary; I have done the same for the draft. I have added more citation templates, which need to be fixed, including the {{full citations needed}} article template. After we have sorted out organisation, references and layout, I can do a thorough copyedit for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and general clarity. Good work so far. Also note that reference 30 needs a journal reference. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are still adding incomplete sources. Please make sure that when you add sources, the page is referenced. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I have added pages and links to many of the citations and fixed some of the errors you have noted.