Wikipedia:Peer review/Acra (fortress)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
The editors would like a fresh pair of eyes to look over this article, taking into consideration that we want to move this along to nominate as a FA candidate.
Thanks, • Astynax talk 10:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comments from Esuzu Hello! I will try to help with this peer review but since I am very inexperienced more reviewers would be needed. But I will start with some things I have seen after a quick look.
Make sure every number of measurement is according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). For example, there has to be a non breaking space ( ) between a number and the measurement.Headings normally don't include the article name. For example "Construction of the Acra" should only be "Construction".- Personally I like not to see references in the lead.
- As I understand many of your references (e.g. [1]) is taken from the bible. For me, that is a primary source which should be avoided (Wikipedia:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). The information must be based on reliable second hand sources.
I will return with more comments later. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have implemented some of your suggestions immediately. There seems to be a division between editors who want statements within the lead referenced, and those who do not. I've had experienced editors insist that they don't belong, and then have had equally or more experienced editors insist that they be put back after I have removed them. I think those can stay for now, though I have no problem removing them during the FAC process itself. Maccabees and Josephus are both historical works, even though ancient ones. For referencing what each source says, they should be OK. But I agree that it is usually best to avoid using them alone to support anything which would otherwise be deemed WP:OR. I'll be going over the article to see where backup citations can be provided if there are any such instances. Thank you for your comments! • Astynax talk 07:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- References in the lead are normally avoided. That is, if you have mentioned the thing in the body text already. (Which is what the lead are supposed to do.)
- I have implemented some of your suggestions immediately. There seems to be a division between editors who want statements within the lead referenced, and those who do not. I've had experienced editors insist that they don't belong, and then have had equally or more experienced editors insist that they be put back after I have removed them. I think those can stay for now, though I have no problem removing them during the FAC process itself. Maccabees and Josephus are both historical works, even though ancient ones. For referencing what each source says, they should be OK. But I agree that it is usually best to avoid using them alone to support anything which would otherwise be deemed WP:OR. I'll be going over the article to see where backup citations can be provided if there are any such instances. Thank you for your comments! • Astynax talk 07:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- As you say, those sources can be used to support but they can not stand alone. For example, second paragraph under "Background" almost only contains Maccabees refs.
Ref 29 is from Encyclopædia Britannica. It would be good to replace it.The books you are referencing to should be in a "Bibliography" section. Take a look at Gustav Mahler#Sources for an example of how to cite your sources.- There are a lot of sources in Hebrew. Sources in other languages is usually not preferred. Is there no English sources you could replace them with?
One dab link to Gymnasium.- Make sure it has gone through a thorough copyediting. Sentences like "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Baris, home to the Egyptian garrison of Jerusalem, and was rewarded with a charter affirming Jewish religious autonomy, including the barring of foreigners and impure animals from the Temple in Jerusalem, and allocating official funds for religious practices in the Temple." are way too long, for example.
- "Antiochus III's victory over Ptolemaic Egypt in the Battle of Panium brought Judea under Seleucid control." Who is Antiochus III? Readers should not have to click on the wikilinks all the time to understand the text.(Look through the text and make sure of this)
- The beginning of "Background" section need a bit more context. Where are we? When are we?
- Still does not say "when".
- I've added backup sources for material taken from Maccabees where the article isn't just providing quotations. Poliocretes provided an alternative citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica article. There is now a bibliography section linked to the citation footnotes. Backup citations in English are provided for most of the non-English references. The non-English refs are left intact to make it easier for editors in non-EN Wikipedias to adapt the article and for those who prefer to look at the original researchers' work. I've inserted a bit of text at the start of the Background section to try to introduce the context that this was a region contested between the Seleucid Empire and Egypt. • Astynax talk 05:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- By the way. I would appreciate if you could respond under each problem I find. That way it will be easier for me to see what you have done etc. :) And I can easily strike what has been done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've added backup sources for material taken from Maccabees where the article isn't just providing quotations. Poliocretes provided an alternative citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica article. There is now a bibliography section linked to the citation footnotes. Backup citations in English are provided for most of the non-English references. The non-English refs are left intact to make it easier for editors in non-EN Wikipedias to adapt the article and for those who prefer to look at the original researchers' work. I've inserted a bit of text at the start of the Background section to try to introduce the context that this was a region contested between the Seleucid Empire and Egypt. • Astynax talk 05:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)