Wikipedia:Peer review/Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/archive2
Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to develop it into a FA. I think especially its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be reviewed by editors who have not so far been involved in the development of the article.
Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Some points: Dear Borsoka, the article is well written. However I think you'd better consider the following:
- The structure would better be changed so that we have the "Sources" section after the "Consequences" section. I think the information on the sources, although are necessary, are not more important than the incident itself.
- Get sure that all the citations are consistent. This item may involve correcting some minor issues such as what we have for foot note #58, where multiple pages are cited while, "p" parameter is used. Also, take care of more serious inconsistency issues such as #69, 70, 76, 90, 94, 110 and etc.
These are what I suggest by now. Mhhossein (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments above. Sincerely, I am not sure that the "Sources" section should be changed, because there are not many sources. Maybe its contents should restructured. I mean some sentences/parts of the section should be integrated into the subsequent sections. What do you think? Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. However It think sections such as background should come first. Regrading the very "sources" section, I think the subsections shall either have their own sections or be incorporated in other sections; "Written sources" would better move the last parts of the article. As I said before, readers are not willing to read this part as the very first part and they will be seeking to know 'what it is' rather than 'what sources do exist for it'. Same argument may be used for "archaeology" and "Etymology" (although "Etymology" can some time come first). Anyway, these were just some suggestions by me. Mhhossein (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Borsoka: You can also check featured articles such as Spanish conquest of Petén and Norman conquest of England to see where the "Historical sources", "Historiography" and "Archaeology" sections are located. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I see, but I am convinced it is not a good solution: one who do not know the sources of a subject cannot understand any information of the subject. Consequently, I think we should begin with the "Sources" section, but I understand it should be shortened or restructured a bit. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- However, I think otherwise. The sources would better go to the end because nearly no one seeks to know what sources do exist for studying the subject unless as the very first point. It was a suggestion as I said and I just wanted to increase your chance of promoting the article. Good luck. Mhhossein (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I see, but I am convinced it is not a good solution: one who do not know the sources of a subject cannot understand any information of the subject. Consequently, I think we should begin with the "Sources" section, but I understand it should be shortened or restructured a bit. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments above. Sincerely, I am not sure that the "Sources" section should be changed, because there are not many sources. Maybe its contents should restructured. I mean some sentences/parts of the section should be integrated into the subsequent sections. What do you think? Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)