Talk:Walls of Constantinople
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Footnotes
Hi - great additions to the article. Would it be possible to add a date to the footnote, currently "J.B. Bury, p.70", perhaps instead "J.B. Bury (1924), p.70" -- this would allow future editors to add other Bury works to the reference section without confusion. -- Stbalbach 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Obselete'
Only the advent of gunpowder siege cannons rendered the fortifications obsolete
This is a bit of an overstatement -- the walls were hardly 'obsolete' during the last siege in 1453.
[edit] GA review
This is generally a good article, but many of the stylistic errors noted in the peer review are still true:
- solo years should be unlinked
- entries shouldn't be linked to more than once in every section (triple '='), including redirects
- "Nonetheless, the restored sections give an imposing image of the walls in their original state." could be phrased more neutrally
I'll be back in a week. Feel free to ask me any questions before then, and good luck. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello again. I see that you've worked to institute the changes I suggested, though there are a few small changes that you should make.
- "Imposing" should be struck and replaced with an objective description, or else you could quote someone making a statement to that effect. The changes you made to that sentence are fine, but I have no preference between the versions, except for a slight favour for "original state".
- Try to add more sourcing to the second half of "The Theodosian Walls" if you can.
I'll be back in a few days, though feel free to drop me a message. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hello! Since work on the article is progressing again, and not just by me (thanks to those who have contributed), I thought to ask a question. Should we include the other fortifications around Constantinople in this article? Constantinople proper is just the historic peninsula, without even Galata, and the current article reflects that. But if we want to understand the whole fortification system that protected the city, we have to include the Anastasian Walls, the walls of Galata, and maybe also the Rumeli and Anadolu fortresses. In this case, the article might have to be renamed to conform with the content (something like "Fortifications of Constantinople"). Or would it be preferable to simply add a small section in the end, briefly mentioning them (instead of the "See also" section). Personally, I prefer the latter, but would like to have any other opinions. Regards, Cplakidas 10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to commend you all on your excellent work on this entry, especially on the difficult research necessary to provide ample, high-quality sourcing. In terms of further walls, unless there is a strong content-based reason for separating them, I would imagine that they could exist here unless/until they grew large enough to warrant a forking, and a change of name might be all that is necessary to alter the scope. Keep up the good work. Cheers, TewfikTalk 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)