Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Seminara

Battle of Seminara
I would ask that the article be peer-reviewed by the MH wikiProject to improve it and in preparation for further review. Thanks. Larry Dunn 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Very nice article, overall. A few suggestions, though, in no particular order: Aside from that, this needs some copyediting; but seems largely ready for a featured article candidacy otherwise. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox could probably be expanded to include the strength (and perhaps casualty?) figures, if only as ranges; are there any estimates available in any of the sources? (There aren't any figures given in the body of the article, either; so it may very well be that we simply have no idea.)
 * A tactical map would be helpful, if there's enough information to draw a semi-coherent one.
 * I would suggest a denser level of citation (although that's largely an issue of personal preference); but, at the least, there are several numbers that need to be cited, per WP:MILHIST.
 * The lead might be expanded a bit to two full paragraphs, to provide a slightly more detailed summary.
 * Some more detail on the historiography would be nice. "The battle is notable primarily because it is often cited as the prime reason for the reorganization of the Spanish army" - cited by whom, and where?  A few more details on de Córdoba's reforms might also be useful; the article is quite short, so there's no reason why a few sentences can't be devoted to slightly tangential points.
 * The provenance of the images should be indicated, particularly for the anachronistic ones.
 * I would try to put footnote numbers at the end of sentences, if at all possible; placing them after individual names probably isn't needed in an article as uncontroversial as this one.


 * Thanks Kirill, I will read your suggestions carefully and act on them. I'm kind of stupid on this stuff -- does it need to go up for a GA first, before featured? Larry Dunn 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's not required; and frankly, I wouldn't bother; the GA review isn't particularly rigorous, and GA status isn't all that highly-regarded either. Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan
Not actually much to comment on here, the article is in very good shape and there's none of the stuff I usually find to criticise in a peer review. I would agree with kirill that the infobox should be fleshed out, and the article could do with denser citation. My only real complaint is that I didn't find it very easy to follow what was going on. If anything the prose is too tight, neat and short, with several facts often being covered in a single sentence - it actually makes for slightly more difficult reading. What I mean is you that have to concentrate to keep on top of the narrative. I know this is very subjective etc, but given the article isn't in danger of spilling over any length constraints, I wouldn't be afraid of relaxing and expanding it a little and not worry too much if you repeat yourself slightly occasionally, it all helps reinforce the narrative in the reader's mind. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. I will look at the prose and see if I can loosen it up a bit.  I do tend to write in dense sentences. Larry Dunn 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)