Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Structural history of the Roman military

Structural history of the Roman military
This is the second of four articles I am working on in Rome's military history, all of which I aim eventually to bring to FA standard. I would like to get some peer reviews of the article, particularly with regard to how it can be improved overall - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Quite nice. A few things that you may want to look at: Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The sectioning structure is rather choppy, with some very short sections interspersed with longer ones. I would suggest coalescing those together to form broader swaths of prose (particularly when the sections overlap in time) rather than trying to necessarily enforce such a rigid structure.  Conversely, introducing sub-sections into some of the longer sections may also be something to consider.
 * Two-column citations may be helpful here; and "Bibliography" should be "References" (or, alternately, both "Citations" and "Bibliography" should be sub-sections of an overall "References" section).
 * The images may look better interspersed along both margins rather than all on the same side.
 * The wikification should be a lot heavier; there are lots of terms of interest (particularly when equipment is discussed) that aren't linked to the corresponding articles.
 * The article switches from AD to CE partway through, for no apparent reason; it really ought to stick with a consistent notation.
 * Thanks Kirill
 * Sectioning structure - I'm aware this is a problem, still thinking about how to solve this!
 * I've merged citations and bibliography into a single refs section
 * 2-column citations set now
 * I have further wikified the article now
 * The AD/CE confusion was due to another editor making edits last night and using CE whereas the rest of the article uses AD, I have standardised this again now
 * Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rmky87

 * Refs need to go after punctuation (I know this is a problem here).--Rmky87 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, corrected now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's still a comma after 85, which comes after a period and...I'm not sure what happened.--Rmky87 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, I've fixed this and a few others now, think they're all sorted now! Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome.--Rmky87 04:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Land
My main concern is that the section on the Etruscan-style army is unclear. I think it assumes too much prior knowledge of the census reforms: could this be rewritten and better wikilinked? Also, are there any indications on the relative manpower provided by the different 'classes': reading it, it strikes me that the numbers of 'first-class' hoplites must have been miniscule. After all those were the days when 100,000 sesterces was a lot of money ;) A couple of stylistic things: Regards, The Land 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is inconsistent use of italics for Latin terms
 * Much reference is made to the 'traditional' views of things wihtout spelling out what those views are.