Talk:Roman-Spartan War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
More information... This article has passed an A-Class review.
Related task forces... Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject History of Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ..
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the WikiProject History of Greece.

Roman-Spartan War is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 14 December 2006

[edit] GA review

I'm not sure how relevant this is, as it's already A-class, a judgement I largely agree with. However, there a

• In the lead, the paragraph beginning "Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta, had signed a treaty with Rome in 205 BC." is rather choppy; the paragraph after it opens with a monster of a sentence, and so on. As the part of the article that will be seen first, it could stand to be a little better. It's by no means awful, though, but it'd be a good start towards the likely FA objections.

• Comma use is very poor. A lot of necessary commas are missing, and in many cases where a comma is there it's set in a place where you could either have a comma there and at another place in the sentence or neither comma at all, but not just one of the two. For instance, All of the Greek leaders except Aristaenos, thought that they should attack the city, as capturing it was their purpose in going to war. - you can set off "except Aristaenos" with commas either side or leave out both commas, but can't just have the one. I'll put this on my watch list and lend a hand later.

• The Prelude section could be expanded a bit, or the relevant section in the lead shortened: There's very little new information in it, so it seems repititious.

• In short, the whole thing rather needs a couple more copyedits. Factually, it's fine and strong, but the language is poor. It's ... borderline GA, but as it's currently A-class and, I presume, you want it to reach FA, I'm putting it On Hold, to try and help out with copyediting. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been nine days, but not much copyediting seems to of occured, should this be failed or what? Homestarmy 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 14, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No

2. Factually accurate?: Range of references is too poor.

3. Broad in coverage?: No. Needs more context for users unfamilliar with the war, period and combatants.

4. Neutral point of view?: No. "Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta, gained the Spartan throne in 207 BC after he disposed the rightful king." for example is biased.

5. Article stability? Yes - somewhat

6. Images?: 2 maps are appropriately tagged, but given the topic, needs more images of battlefields, weaponary, notable figures etc.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

This article fails 1. a), b), c), d), 2. a), 3. a), & 4. a), of WP:WIAGA.

For example, per WP:LEAD, the introduction is way too lengthy. (See World War II for a better approach).

Statements such as "That city held out for a while", and "Nabis therefore betrayed his alliance" are not phrased with an encyclopedic frame of language, and need re-phrasing.

The range of references is way too low. Consider using other sources for a more balanced perpective.

Other sections are too lengthy as one large section, and need sub-sections.

Consider visiting Wikipedia:Peer review for more ideas and in-depth/high quality feedback on this article. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)