Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Theramenes

Theramenes

My first attempt at an FA in a few months; very heavily cited, I wish I had more images. In particular, some feedback about the way I've handled the conflicts between sources would be much appreciated. --Robth^Talk 06:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice article overall; the treatment of sources seems to be quite good. A few miscellaneous suggestions:

An infobox might be helpful here, if a suitable one can be found; I'm not sure which of the existing types fits best here.
"Historical treatments" might be renamed to "Historiography".
I'm surprised that there's only one (very broad) category here; adding some more specific ones may be appropriate.

Kirill Lokshin 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I added a more specific category and renamed the historiography section. As far as infoboxes, {{Infobox biography}} looks fairly appropriate, but I the idea of an infobox with a picture of something other than the article subject in it seems kind of weird to me. Of the three possibilities for this (infobox w/ picture, infobox w/o picture, and picture w/o infobox), which would you recommend? --Robth^Talk 08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Infobox Biography}} isn't particularly useful without a picture, so if one can't be found, I would suggest simply leaving the current layout in place. Kirill Lokshin 12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Palmer

Nice overall. Just some suggestions:

An info box as used in other historical biographies.
Why not make some of the pictures larger ie: ‘The Athenian acropolis’ and the ‘Ancient Greek Trireme’ pictures.
To make the pictures more relevant add a bit more information, or a relevant summation for each eg: Xenophon (420s BC – 350s BC), sculpture by {artists name}. In his Hellenica Xenophon’s hostile portrayal of Theramenes’ early political career contrasts with a more favourble interpretation of his later life.” Anything brief and relevant.
To keep with other articles, ‘Citations’ should be renamed ‘Notes’ and moved above ‘References’
I found a few typos – may need checking

The handling of the conflict in historical sources was fine. Good work overall. Raymond Palmer 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've expanded the captions, replaced the acropolis image with an image of the pnyx, which I made bigger, and renamed the notes section; I kept it at the bottom for now however. I've always preferred it there, since I figure people will scroll down to the references but click footnotes down to the notes, so the references should be above. As far as typos, I just found out how cool the google toolbar spellcheck thing is; very nifty, and hopefully I got 'em all. Thanks again, --Robth^Talk 08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the section is named "Citations" or "Notes"; both titles are acceptable. Maybe in this particular case "Notes" is better, because in the section we have both Notes and citations. It is not a rule that the "Notes" section goes before "References". It is a matter of personal taste.--Yannismarou 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Excellent article as always. Some minor remarks:

Make sure you donot link to disambiguation pages. For instance, Agis links to a disambiguation page and not to the specific Agis you want.
I think it is better to divide your sources in primary and secondary, but this is maybe a personal taste and, definitely, not something very important.
I have made some minor edits based on Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. Make sure you've examined this particular source thoroughly.
If you don't have a picture of Theramenes, then an infobox is not nice.--Yannismarou 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]