Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Auxiliaries (Roman military)

Auxiliaries (Roman military)
I want to submit this article in its yet finished form to see what needs to be improved before submitting it for A-class. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Let's see: Overall, though, great work. Kirill 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any benefit to having the "X redirects here" note at the top unless there's a disambiguation page that needs to be linked. None of those terms have any other meaning that needs to be disambiguated, as far as I can tell.
 * The text is very heavy with parenthetical dates and numbers; while some of these are unavoidable, I think copyediting could reduce the density somewhat.
 * Circa is generally only used for dates, not for numbers; "identify c.40 of these units" should be "identify about 40 of these units", for example.
 * There's a lot of inconsistency with date abbreviations; there are examples of "cX", "c.X", and "c. X". According to the manual of style, the last form is the preferred one.
 * I'd try and cluster footnotes at the end of sentences, or at least clauses; footnoting individual words doesn't seem necessary for a topic of this sort.
 * References to other sections should be linked.
 * The sub-sections of "Relationship with legions", "Unit types and structure", and "Everyday life of auxiliaries" should have proper section headers.
 * The use of "we" should be avoided.


 * The credit goes to EraNavigator. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rockfall
Other than that, a very comprehensive article. Rockfall (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely agree with the above on the footnote front. Footnote marks should always been after a piece of punctuation, and preferably at the end of a sentence.
 * The unresolved issues section - is this necessary for the main article? It represents a historiographical debate rather than facts about the article subject. Perhaps consider putting this in a separate article referenced here.
 * Much of the body of the article is very text heavy. While this is all very good detail, the text sometimes strays off into a narrative of Roman history. Some editing work to tighten this up could help to reduce the weight of these sections.


 * The editor is using British English and the British way to put footnotes. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)