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)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice. A few things that you may want to look at:

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.

Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rmky87

Refs need to go after punctuation (I know this is a problem here).--Rmky87 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, corrected now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are most welcome.--Rmky87 04:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.

Regards, The Land 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]