Wikipedia:Peer review/Classis Germanica/archive1

Classis Germanica

I've listed this article for peer review because the classis germanica were historically important, it is a long article, and even though long doesn't necessarily mean good, has a lot of potential.

Thanks, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I can't attest to any of the content, but I've tried to re-write as much as possible into readable English. Some is still a bit mangled by translation, but I've gone a bit goggle eyed from looking at it. It was interesting though. I've had to remove a bit of content that was total gibberish when it was imported, but I've tried to mark as much as possible in the summaries which edits removed something substantive. You're welcome to use those to verify what was originally in the German text. Still lots of work to do on it though... Scribolt (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, nice work so far, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• in the References, I think that you will need to provide more details to meet the verifiability requirement as currently there probably isn't enough information to allow the casual reader to find the sources. E.g. details like the date of publication, title, publisher etc should be included if known.
• to take the article up towards B class/GA, at a minimum each paragraph probably needs to have a citation at the end of it, which fully references the content contained in the paragraph (if need be multiple references/citations can also be provided);
• is there a link that could be provided for "equestrian order"?
• in terms of structure, I think that the Role section would probably work better if it was presented before the Fleet operations section.

@Iazyges: G'day, just wondering if you would like this review to be archived, given that it appears to have been several months with no further comments? The bot that usually does most of the work is currently down, but I believe I can do the work manually. Please let me know your intentions. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Yes please do, I forgot this PR was open to be honest. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)