Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/John Kourkouas
I have expanded this article using all the sources I could find, and believe that it is complete in terms of content. Before nominating it for GA or A class however, I'd like the opinions of fellow-editors on style & clarity of prose, comprehensiveness of content or whatever else hits your eye. Any suggestions are welcome! Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Ryan4314
[edit]Wow looks good, am just wondering though, can the 1st paragraph of the lead be that short, anyone? Ryan4314 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Kirk
[edit]- The images are all on the right - you should alternate them so some are on the left.
- Its common to have something other than prose in the lead for GA/A, such as an info box or image. (Maybe the coin?) Kirk (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good points, I'll see to it. Thanks, Constantine ✍ 06:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ian Rose
[edit]This period is not my area of expertise but generally it looks good - well done. A few points:
- An infobox should be used.
- The first (short) paragraph is okay, I think - main thing is that the lead as a whole is of decent size (as it is).
- You should add alt text to the images.
- "The Rus' raid of 941" section heading shouldn't begin with the definite article, per MOS.
- "Certainly" in the first sentence of the last section is probably not necessary.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- To be clear, the opening of the lead section is rather short because otherwise I'd have to go into (IMO) unnecessary detail on the operations. I preferred to leave it at a general resume, albeit somewhat short. Thanks for the suggestions, they will be adopted. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, to be clear ;-), I think the lead section is fine as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, anyone else? Any comments as to the content? Constantine ✍ 08:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)