Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)

Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
I have rewritten this article and I would like to have it promoted to a higher class in the fututre and I would like to see how I can improve it. Kyriakos 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Very nice, as usual. A few suggestions: Overall, though, this looks good to go. Kirill 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An article on the Byzantine-Norman Wars would be nice, even if it's a stub to start off.
 * Any chance of getting a tactical map of the battle? Or is there not enough information for that?
 * Staggering the images along both margins will clean up the layout, I think.

Thanks for the review, Kirill. At the moment I am trying to get a tactical map of the battle or maybe make one myself. I have moved a few images around and I will create an article for the Byzantine-Norman Wars. Kyriakos 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou
In general, the prose is nice (it could be further improved), the structure is rational, the referencing satisfying, and the article seems to cover its topic quite thoroughly. IMO, it is already in FA level (though, I must point out again that a map would add to the article), and I think this is the best job you've done up to now Kyriako.--Yannismarou 10:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Robert had no intentions for peace; he sent his son Bohemond with an advance force towards Greece, then followed shortly after." Robert was the one who followed shortly after?
 * "Modern historians put the army's size between 18,000 to 20,000 men." Source? Otherwise, it is weasel. Even if it is the same source you have at the end of the paragraphs, the use of "modern historians" expression not only justifies but demands the addition of a citation here IMO.
 * "Near Dyrrhachium on 15 October." "The Battle of Dyrrhachium or Siege of Durazzo took place on October 18, 1081 between the Byzantine Empire." MoS issues with the inconsistency in the way you write dates. Check the whole text and fix these inconsistencies.
 * "The Normans immediately set the church on fire, and all Varangians perished in the blaze.[6][22][23][21]" When I have more than one citations in a row I use to merge them (see El Greco and also see Sandy's "patent" in Tourette syndrome. But again I don't think this is a prerequisite for FA status. I have seen articles passing without doing what I advised them to on this particular issue!
 * In "Aftermath" I see only Haldon's assessment of the battle. I would like to have a more thorough analysis of the outcome of the battle. Haldon is an important modern historian, but what other modern historians say? Again neither is this a prerequisite for FA status. It is just an advice for the article's thoroughness, leaving aside FA criteria. Now, if you add more modern assessments, you may reconsider the necessity of having a box where only Haldon's views are exposed.
 * Instead, the lack of a a tactical map of the battle, as Kirill pointed out, could be a problem during the article's FAC.