Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/John Kourkouas

John Kourkouas
I have expanded this article using all the sources I could find, and believe that it is complete in terms of content. Before nominating it for GA or A class however, I'd like the opinions of fellow-editors on style & clarity of prose, comprehensiveness of content or whatever else hits your eye. Any suggestions are welcome! Thanks in advance, Constantine  ✍  17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryan4314
Wow looks good, am just wondering though, can the 1st paragraph of the lead be that short, anyone? Ryan 4314  (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirk

 * The images are all on the right - you should alternate them so some are on the left.
 * Its common to have something other than prose in the lead for GA/A, such as an info box or image. (Maybe the coin?) Kirk (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points, I'll see to it. Thanks, Constantine  ✍  06:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose
This period is not my area of expertise but generally it looks good - well done. A few points: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An infobox should be used.
 * The first (short) paragraph is okay, I think - main thing is that the lead as a whole is of decent size (as it is).
 * You should add alt text to the images.
 * "The Rus' raid of 941" section heading shouldn't begin with the definite article, per MOS.
 * "Certainly" in the first sentence of the last section is probably not necessary.


 * To be clear, the opening of the lead section is rather short because otherwise I'd have to go into (IMO) unnecessary detail on the operations. I preferred to leave it at a general resume, albeit somewhat short. Thanks for the suggestions, they will be adopted. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, to be clear ;-), I think the lead section is fine as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, anyone else? Any comments as to the content? Constantine  ✍  08:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)