Talk:Equites/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I would recommend eliminating the use of the ca. abbreviation used with non-dates. When talking about round numbers, like 300 or 600, there's an implied lack of precision, since there's only one significant figure. For example, using "ca. 300" for the size of the senate (section "Transformation of state and army (338-290)") may at best be redundant, but at worst may be ambiguous, because it might easily be confused with a date (particularly given the era being discussed). You can always add qualifiers, like "typically", "around", etc., if you feel the need.
 * What are drachmae? The term is introduced without a link or explanation.
 * Can the back-to-back parentheticals be eliminated in the section "Military officer role"?
 * There are several places where a spaced hyphen is used rather than a spaced en-dash (or an unspaced em-dash). Some examples:
 * The sentence beginning "By the time of the Second Punic War…" in the section "Cavalry role"
 * first sentence of "Business activities"
 * Several date ranges use hyphens rather than the en-dash specified by the Manual of Style
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are whole and partial paragraphs that are uncited. Some examples:
 * The second paragraph of "Equestrian public careers" is uncited
 * In the second paragraph of "Business activities", the first sentence is cited, but none following are.
 * The final two sentences of "The idle aristocracy (4th century)" are without citation and, as a result, lean in an OR direction.
 * The References are not in alphabetical order.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Many images, particularly in the first part of the article, seem to have hard-coded image sizes. It's better to leave out the size specifications so that users' individual image-size preferences, if any, are respected
 * The captions for some of the images are quite lengthy (which is compounded by the small image sizes specified). In the lead image, the detailed explanation of Pliny the Elder is not necessary since, presumably, his Wikipedia article contains all the relevant information.
 * All the images are on the right side of the article; MOS:IMAGE suggests alternating the placement the images, as appropriate
 * I would recommend against the numbered figures, since it creates problems if someone adds another image, and, frankly, tends to discourage the addition of newer images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is a very well-written and informative article. Many of the issues are relatively minor or easily remedied, but the lack of references for some parts is more problematic for me. As a result, I'm placing this on hold for seven days for the issues I've mentioned to be addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The captions for some of the images are quite lengthy (which is compounded by the small image sizes specified). In the lead image, the detailed explanation of Pliny the Elder is not necessary since, presumably, his Wikipedia article contains all the relevant information.
 * All the images are on the right side of the article; MOS:IMAGE suggests alternating the placement the images, as appropriate
 * I would recommend against the numbered figures, since it creates problems if someone adds another image, and, frankly, tends to discourage the addition of newer images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is a very well-written and informative article. Many of the issues are relatively minor or easily remedied, but the lack of references for some parts is more problematic for me. As a result, I'm placing this on hold for seven days for the issues I've mentioned to be addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very well-written and informative article. Many of the issues are relatively minor or easily remedied, but the lack of references for some parts is more problematic for me. As a result, I'm placing this on hold for seven days for the issues I've mentioned to be addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to most of the points above. But surely this article should be a candidate for A-class, not just GA? I intend to submit it for A-review shortly EraNavigator (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing the referencing concerns. The article could easily be promoted to A-Class or Featured Article class. Good luck. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)