Wikipedia:Peer review/Hasmonean/archive1
This article concerns the history of the Hasmonean Dynasty, in a period that includes the aftermath of Alexander the Great's Empire, the conflict between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire; significant events in Jewish history such as the festival of Hannukah and the achievement of Jewish national self-determination; the rise of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, and wars involving among others: Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and Mark Antony. Not to mention a period of time encompassing early Christianity. I have been unable to attract any interest at WikiProject Jewish History, or WP:Requests for feedback. Since I have been staring at my own prose for about two weeks I can't even see the spelling errors anymore, and I'm not sure that the narrative flow of the article is all that good. Thus, I thought some Peer Review would be useful.
I realize better sourcing is needed. I am not sure if the timeline really adds to the article. I would welcome any other suggestions or contributions. Kaisershatner 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As you say, sourcing is an issue - there need to be more. Focusing on prose though:
- The first sentence is quite complex and dives straight into the detail. I think the main clause should be "The Hasmonean Kingdom was a..." to clearly define it before going into detail about its establishment.
- There's inconsistent linking of dates: 165BCE is linked, 576 isn't (if there is a reason for this, then fine)
- Sentence beginning "Antiochus had successfully invaded Egypt..." has 6 commas and subsequently is hard to follow. I suggests splitting it (or using semicolons, or removing a couple of the commas).
- The last paragraph of the lead also has a lot of commas making it hard to follow. It is also ambiguous in parts: in 139 BCE, did the Maccabbee Revolt establish an independent Jewish Kingdom, or did the Senate recognise it then?
In my opinion, the lead should be a bit simpler and written in more straightforward English, perhaps sacrificing some of the less important details for clarity. Sentences with lots of sub-clauses and asides become very difficult to follow. Skimming the rest of the article (I can look at it in more detail if you want):
- Some of the paragraphs in "Founding" are very short, linking them would be better (there are also a few in other sections).
- The timeline seems alright to me (the font seems a little small, but it might just be my computer).
On the whole, it seems very good. Just need to sort out the rest of the referencing and give it a copyedit, and it'll be excellent. Trebor 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)