Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Roman-Spartan War/Archive 1

Roman-Spartan War
The article has just failed it's GA nom (not however without some contreversy:). I am planning of taking this article to FA in the near future and I want to know want I can do to improve this article further. Kyriakos 04:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
A quite good article; most of the issues I see are minor stylistic ones: Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the lead is quite choppy, and not particularly informative, while the end of it drops down into too much detail. I would reform the lead into about three paragraphs (per WP:MILHIST):
 * First paragraph: name, dates, participants, causes.
 * Second paragraph: very brief summary of the overall military narrative.
 * Third paragraph: conclusion, results, impact.
 * The article needs thorough copyediting; there are occasional errors in grammar and word choice throughout. Beyond that, I would comment (although this is more of a subjective personal opinion) that the prose is too simplistic; most of the sentences are simple in construction (if not necessarily short), leading to a choppy narrative.  (Take this with a grain of salt, though; my own prose style tends more towards the ponderous and turgid, which may not be something you want to pursue.)
 * Is the external link all that useful? It doesn't seem to add anything that's not already in the article.

Balloonman
The article is a good one, but needs some clean up to reach FA status. There are some wording issues---namely I felt that some sentences could be combined. I also felt that some sentences were too complex. These are just my thoughts, take them for what they are worth. I agree that the article would also benefit from a more structured intro... I didn't care for it too much. I liked the suggestions for opening sections for War/battles.Balloonman 07:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the wording here, "who obtained the Spartan throne in 207 BC after he disposed Sparta's ruling king."
 * "The allies" Is that how they were known as "the allies?" If so, should it be capitalized?  If not, I found it kind of awkward as the allies mentioned in the previous section didn't stand out as "the allies."
 * There is something I don't like about the wording of the paragraph that begins with "by 2005."
 * "Nabis seized the Spartan throne in 207 BC by overthrowing the reigning king with the support of a mercenary army and by also claiming he was a descendant of the Eurypontid Spartan King, Demaratus, who had been disposed in 491 BC." Very wordy. How about, "By claiming to be a descendeant of the Eurypontid Spartan King, Demaratus; Nabis used a mercenary army to overthrow the reigning king in 207BC."  I wouldn't put Demaratus disposition date---unless perhaps "Demaratus (515-491 B.C.)"
 * Who is Polybius and why should I care what he says?
 * Would it be possible to use more dates in parenthesis? I keep seeing the phrase "In" followed by a date.  I'd rather see more prose with the dates added in ... EG: "Despite signing a peace treaty with Rome (205 B.C.), the Spartans attacked their mutual ally Messene (201 B.C.)."
 * I kept thinking "Nabis" attacked Messene? Nabis DID X?  No, he lead the Spartans who under his direction may have done certain things.  In other words, watch the word "HE" when discussing what the Spartans did.
 * Who is the Achean League? There should be a short note or somethign in the article.  The article should stand on its own without having to follow other links for key pieces of information.  Especially when they are such an important entity in the article.
 * "For his service in the war, the Romans allowed Nabis to keep Argos. Satisfied with his gains, Nabis concentrated on turning the city of Gythium into a major port and naval arsenal"
 * How about: "At the urging of the Achean League, the Roman commander in Greece, Titus Quinctius Flaminius, declared war on Sparta to free Argos from Spartan rule."
 * "When Flaminius reached Cleonae he was joined by Aristaenos, the Achean commander, who brought with him 10,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. They joined forces and advanced towards Argos" This is redundant. How about, "Flaminius joined the Achean commander, Aristaenos, who had 10,000 infantry and 1000 calvary in Cleonae.  Together they advanced towards Argos."
 * Pythagoras---the one from the theorem? If so, this should be linked to him.  If not, is there a way to indicate that its a different Pathagoras?
 * Damocles... same question... if this isn't the Damocles of the "sword of Damocles" fame, then it should be explained.
 * watch the spelling... I'm not an expert here, but I saw several misspelled words. Try cutting and pasting the article into a word processor.


 * How is the article looking now? Kyriakos 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)