Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Byzantine navy

Byzantine navy
I have just finished a major overhaul and expansion of this article, and think it is now quite comprehensive and factually correct. I would like some input from other editors prior to considering nominating it for GA. Any improvements or suggestions on stylistic issues or content would be greatly appreciated. Cplakidas (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Carom
A good article. A few comments:


 * I would perhaps expand the lead. While it seems comprehensive, it is also fairly short. I think at least two paragraphs are warranted here.✅


 * Although the article seems well cited, there are places where it is not clear what information comes from what source. I would personally consider end-or-sentence as opposed to end-of-paragraph notes, but that is admittedly a personal preference.


 * I'm not sold on your "notes" section - it seems like this information would be better incorporated into the main body of the article. If it's important enough to say, it's too important for a note, I think.✅

Hopefully these are helpful comments; well done so far. Carom (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Very nice, overall. Some suggestions: Keep up the good work! Kirill 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Infobox Military Unit might work here; there's no particular need to have the Byzantine navigation box in the top right, I think.✅
 * The lead could stand to be a little longer; two or three paragraphs would be about right.✅
 * Personally, I find details to produce neater output than main.✅
 * The citations seem a bit sparse; there are paragraphs (and entire sections—e.g. "Decline") with nary a footnote in sight. You might pass GA like that, but it's certainly something that'll be complained about in any of the higher reviews.✅
 * "Notable events"—which is really a timeline—might be better off in a format other than a bulleted list. The best option, in my view, would be to integrate the whole thing into the prose of the "History" section; but that'll take quite a bit of work.✅
 * I'd avoid splitting the list in "References", particularly as some of the works in the top (e.g. Treadgold) aren't specifically naval histories.✅
 * The "See also" section should be eliminated as much as possible; these links shouldn't be too difficult to integrate into the text and/or an infobox.✅


 * I am trying to address most of your and Carom's points, but as for the Infobox Military Unit, I really don't know what to put in there. Only the title, the nation, and perhaps some notable commanders would come to mind. I don't think the standard infobox is suitable to cover an entire naval force that spanned 1000 years and evolved continuously... I'll try to come up with something though, most likely a dedicated template, because I too feel the upper right corner is a bit empty... Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring
All in all, good work. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * please add information how many of the rowers and sailors participated in the fighting (were in the top row)
 * provide footnotes for all Greek terms that can't be linked with articles of their own.✅
 * More citations are needed.✅
 * A information about the influence of Byzantine shipconstruction on the European seapowers could be expanded. Very good is the section about the arab navy.
 * How the Byzantine Navy adopted firearms could be expanded.✅
 * A section about the changes of equipment of the marines and armed rowers would be good.✅


 * Very good comments regarding the content. I want to point out two things: 1) I intend that the stuff about Byzantine ship construction, manning etc to be added in the "dromon" article, as the article on the navy is already too big, and, either way, that's where it belongs (cf. the trireme article). I intend to deal with it, (hopefully) soon. More stuff about the Arab ships will go there too. 2) I don't really understand what you mean about the footnotes on all Greek names - they are covered by the references at the end of the sentences or paragraphs where they occur. Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rockfall
Very comprehensive article, and well laid out. Few quick points. Otherwise a very good article, with excellent written style. Rockfall (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Struggle against the Arabs" section is perhaps a little long. While there is nothing there that I would get rid of, perhaps some subheadings would break up what is otherwise a screen-long block of text.✅
 * For the existing subheadings, eg. "Early period", some dates would make the overall structure clearer, even if they are approximate.✅
 * The "Ships" section: perhaps arrange the list of ship types into bullet points? This is purely a personal preference for lists of non-English words. Also, in the final paragraph, "chelandia" is neither translated or referenced.✅
 * References: you rely heavily on John Julius Norwich and Treadgold. I appreciate that these are the two leading experts on Byzantium, but my inner historian doesn't like seeing footnote blocks full of one or two authors.


 * Thank you, I appreciate your remarks and will try to address them. Regarding the sources, I agree with you, however there is one big problem: the Byzantine navy is, if anything, under-researched. Norwich was used not so much by me as by an anonymous user who had written most of the "Notable events" list. I merely incorporated the events into the main history section following the suggestion of other users above. Either way, as a reference for events, he can be relied upon. My primary source for the navy per se is the "Age of the Galley" book, which is very comprehensive, and written by several authors who are experts on ancient and medieval ships. I used Treadgold and, to a lesser degree, Haldon and Bartusis, where they have something new or more concrete to add, since their works deal with the Empire and its institutions as a whole, and only mention the navy in passing. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the "Age of the Dromon", the premier source on the subject, however I am confident that the article doesn't miss anything essential. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless any more comments are forthcoming, I am going to close the review in the next few days, and go on to GAR. Thanks to all who have reviewed the article! Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)