Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/archive1
I've rewritten this article during the past 30 days and I intended to submit it as a candidate for featured article, but I decided first to follow the peer review process in order to get some feedback. I thought that, through this procedure, its featured article candidacy shall be better prepared. Hence, I would you like to tell me:
- If you think that there are any omissions,
- If you believe that this article deserves to be featured,
- If you think that I've done something wrong.Yannismarou 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Images need better captions per WP:CAPTION. Captions such as Pericles (British Museum) are not acceptable in FA.
- Move see also section before references, notes and external links.
I will provide more comments once I read the article in detailJoelito (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)- Weasel words should be removed or citations should be provided. Example: "Of particular importance, he strengthened and fostered the power of democracy, to such an extent that some researchers and historians label him as a populist." Which researchers and historians?
- Html breaks should be avoided within the text. I believe all instance of < br > should be removed.
- The opening of Pericles as an orator needs to be changed. Rhetoric questions or questions altogether should be avoided in a encyclopedia article
- Article needs a slight overall copyedit. Joelito (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Has some big layout issues, looks dodgy at 1024x768 and dies completely at 800x600 - largely because images and etc are just too large, and some left/right floats haven't been thought through. The greek alphabet for the notes is cute, but you really shouldn't use like that, it's not what it's for, the timeline is waaay to big, and {{Template:Ancient Athenian statesmen}} is dire... Also, quotes "should be quoted", not quoted, and some people would say that there are too many sub and sub-sub headings. Also things tend to be somewhat overlinked, you generally only need one link per target per screen. Little things, but featured is fussy. --zippedmartin 14:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll correct the overlinking problem. You're right. According to your opinion, quotes "should just be quoted" or also "quoted"? About the timeline, if it gets smaller I think it's difficult to read it; after all, it can be hidden. How could the template be less dire? Do you think the little photos in the template are needless? I kept the changes you did with the photos inside the text, although I made some of them slightly bigger. As the photos and the floats are, do they continue to constitute a "dodgy look"? Thanks.--Yannismarou 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Somewhere in the rambling and variably opinionated MoS is some stuff about quotes... ah, here we go: WP:MoS#Quotations. Timeline size isn't a how-much-room-it-takes-up issue, it's readability, was far bigger than my screen and useless as an overview - would be okay at higher res, but as it's an image and the font size it uses is rather small, people with very high res displays are stuffed anyway. Template either needs to lose the inline images, or actually have one for each name, and in a proper format, just breaks up the layout having a few inlined images scattered in.
- The problem with making images 'slightly bigger' is you're doing it to fit your display - the web is not desktop publishing, not everyone is viewing a fixed A4 layout. See Wikipedia:Images#Image_preferences - if you set an explicit px size you override the users preferences, so it's discouraged except for diagrams etc where a larger size might be needed to make the image understandable - people wanting to see a photo in detail always have the option of clicking it.
- Floats are always hard to get right, as they change so much with different layouts. The max-width rule I added for the quote boxes should keep them down to a reasonable size (in decent browsers at least), and as long as the images aren't oversized things should stay relatively sensible. --zippedmartin 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted all photos, according to Zippedmartin's suggestions. I worked out something about the timeline and I changed the template. I also "quoted" all quotes and placed all relevant citations after " ". Finally, I tried to group the citations and I added some more additional reading. Open to any further suggestions by anybody interested.--Yannismarou 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, looks quite shiny to me now. The actual content, which I've not said anything about so far, is good, needs someone to go over and copy edit - but seems about ready for FAC in my (uneducated) eyes. --zippedmartin 00:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good. I'll submit it after I take some final looks. As a final step of perfectionism, I would be grateful if a native speaker of English takes a thorough look of the content in order to detect possible linguistic shortcomings.--Yannismarou 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted all photos, according to Zippedmartin's suggestions. I worked out something about the timeline and I changed the template. I also "quoted" all quotes and placed all relevant citations after " ". Finally, I tried to group the citations and I added some more additional reading. Open to any further suggestions by anybody interested.--Yannismarou 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll correct the overlinking problem. You're right. According to your opinion, quotes "should just be quoted" or also "quoted"? About the timeline, if it gets smaller I think it's difficult to read it; after all, it can be hidden. How could the template be less dire? Do you think the little photos in the template are needless? I kept the changes you did with the photos inside the text, although I made some of them slightly bigger. As the photos and the floats are, do they continue to constitute a "dodgy look"? Thanks.--Yannismarou 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)