Wikipedia:Peer review/Latin kings of Alba Longa/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm confidant I've improved this article beyond start class status. It provides at least enough information with reliable sources to be graded a C-class article. I'm posting this to see if others agree, or if it still needs work. Although I don't see much more information being available for the page.
Thanks, Psychotic Spartan 123 12:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments by MJ94
[edit]- Lede
- I really enjoyed your lede. It is very informative and representative of what your article will be about. My suggestion is that you add references to it, as it currently has none.
- I'll probably add some later tonight.
- Background
- "Its capital was Alba Longa but it included other cities such as Lavinium and Latium." A comma is needed after "Longa", but I would suggest rewriting this sentence as it's a bit confusing as to what you mean by "included". Were they a part of they Kingdom? If so, I don't think "but" is necessary – maybe "and"?
- Fixed. It is accurate in a sense. Alba Longa was a Latin kingdom, but not a kingdom itself. It was simply the seat of the Latin kings for several centuries.
- "Prince" should be capitalized.
- Done.
- Why was Ascansius known as Lulus?
- Done. Added a note explaining this. I'll reference it when I do the lede tonight.
- History
- "Other sources include any of; Janus, Evander, Faunus, or Picus as kings of the Aborigines." The semicolon isn't needed.
- Semicolon removed.
- "After Aeneas arrived he married Latinus' daughter, Lavinia, and joined Latinus in war against the Rutulians." Comma after "arrived".
- Done.
- This is very well-researched and sourced. Great job!
- Yep. Many hours of no life on my end. :)
- Historicity
- This section doesn't seem to be written in a very encyclopedic tone, specifically with "It is very likely".
- I reworded it to sound more encyclopedic. Removed the "It is very likely".
Overall, you did a very good job. I can see this promoted with a little bit of work. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review and your suggestions were helpful. It pointed out a few inaccuracies and facts I'll need to reference, remove, and hopefully expand on. Psychotic Spartan 123 20:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)