Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Cleomenean War

Cleomenean War

I have wanted to push this article towards FA for a while and I decided before I go I'll see what I can improve on it. All comments are greatly appreciated. The article was last peer review in September 2007 here. Kyriakos (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene

Congratulations on a fascinating, enjoyable article. I've commented in more detail below; because you mentioned FA, I've been quite picky, so I hope you don't take my criticisms too much to heart. Your hard work on this article is very much appreciated!

Prose: this would benefit greatly from the detailed attention of an FA-experienced copyeditor. Some examples of awkward prose flow, grammar and lack of clarity:

"In inner politics, he ordered the killing of the ephors in the meantime."
"Later that year, the ephors sent Cleomenes to seize the Athenaeum, which was near Belbina, one of the entrance points into Laconia, disputed at the time between Sparta and Megalopolis." Too much going on in a single sentence; could be split.
"In response, an Achaean army arrived, relieved the city and inflicted a minor defeat on the part of the Spartan army nearest to the city walls." Remove "..the part of..."
"In 226 BC, the citizens of Mantinea appealed to Cleomenes to expel the Achaean garrison from the city. One night, he and his troops crept into the city and expelled the Achaean garrison before marching off to Tegea." Repetition of "expel"
"Historians Polybius and Sir William Smith claim that Cleomenes seized the city by treachery" Should this be "cities", plural?
Macedonian phalanx image caption uses "weren't"; change to "were not" (also needs a source for the caption)
"The ephors looked after the day to day running of the state and where the arbiters of war and peace." "where"→"were"
"In the Achaean League, the position of strategus was the highest. A strategus was elected annually..." "strategus"→"strategos"?

Completeness: there are a number of places where additional detail would be useful for the reader (even if only an explanatory word or two), especially where relevant wikilinks don't exist. Some examples are below, but it may also be useful to try to re-read the article from the perspective of someone completely unfamiliar with the period (difficult, I know!). This should help to highlight the sections that need further explanation; obviously the article mustn't wander too far off-topic, but neither should it oblige a reader to follow too many wikilinks in order to understand it ;) Some examples:

Why "two royal families" in relation to Sparta?
Why would Cleomenes take Tegea, Mantineia, Caphyae and Orchomenus in Arcadia? What was the Aetolian League?
Why was ravaging the area around a city an important tactic in Greek warfare?
Why was increasing the Spartan citizen count important (and who were the perioeci)?
Who is Pausanias (why is his opinion important)?

Sourcing etc: this looks ok, though I can never predict how well the use of primary sources will go down at FAC ;) I spotted a couple of other points:

Ref 23 (Plutarch, Life of Aratus) seems to be either dead or broken
Inline citations are needed for every controversial statement, statement of opinion, and facts and figures. Although you've sourced most paragraphs, I think more detailed sourcing may be needed in some places - to take one example, it's not clear whether the cite at the end of the "Cleomenes estimated that Argos would be easier to capture..." paragraph refers to just the last sentence or the preceeding ones too (and the claim that "no Spartan king had ever managed to seize Argos" needs its own citation).

Manual of Style compliance looks good - I didn't spot any obvious problems anyway.

Images: these seem to be fine, although I'm not sure about using the infobox map in such a prominent location as it relates more to Aratus than Cleomenes. A more focused map would be good, if possible.

Thank you for submitting this article for peer review - I think it has the makings of an excellent article, and wish you all the best on your road to FA! EyeSerene^talk 21:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring

Remove the map in the header it's misleading. Elis was a Spartan ally as you write and not part of the Achaean League as the map suggests. Another issus is that the legend of the map could be improved to enhace understanding what these colours and symbols mean. You could copy the specific battle symbols and have them as small illustrating images in the legend of the map.

The drawing of the phalanx is misleading because the shields are as big as with the hoplites you show. I know this wrong image gets recycled for every Macedonian phalanx, but you have to write a disclaimer and explain that not only the shields are wrong. Next issue is the length of the sarrissa that did change over time. I judge these sarrissae to be 5m and less, thus an early Macedonian phalanx, while this battle took place in late Hellenistic times. Another issue you have to clarify. Best search for a fitting image on the web like this, this or [1]. You can use Template:External media for linking. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]