Wikipedia:Peer review/Seleucus I Nicator/archive1

Seleucus I Nicator

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I improved the article based on the Finnish version (FA) and want now to receive feedback. Perhaps the article can be further improved to GA status?

Thanks, Mvaldemar (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope these brief comments help you. -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * llywrch comments:
 * First sentence of the second paragraph in the section "The Satrap of Babylon" reads: "At Triparadisos the soldiers the mutinous and close of murdering Antipatros." What are you trying to say here?
 * The chief problem I have with this article is that instead of presenting a biography of Seleucus, it reads like an account of the wars of the Diadochi, with long sections devoted to the activities of his contemporaries -- often with no sense of relevance -- rather than to Seleucus himself. Obviously you need to provide background information at various points, but when I reach the section "The Second War of the Diadochi", & encounter "the Satrap of Media", I am not certain if this is Seleucus -- & if not, why I should care about him.
 * At times the style becomes a bit too purple. An example is the ending of the same section: "The events of the Second War of the Diadochi showed how Seleucus had the ability to wait for the right moment. Blazing into battle was not his style." While once or twice helps to break the usually grey Wikipedia style, it feels that the end of each section ends with a pointed comment like this -- which I feel hurts the article & weakens their impact.