List of Roman Emperors edit
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to see if its ready for a FL nomination. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: Wouldn't it be better to ask for the review when the current "major revamp", as indicated by the banner, is completed? Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Doncram: Ditto to question above.
Copyediting of the first paragraph would help. It currently reads "... of the Roman Empire, until the final demise of the Western Empire in 476 or to the death of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I in 565." I think "AND" would work better than "OR". And why not give a "from" date, it would be more descriptive. Essentially construct as "this is a list from ___ to ___ in the west and ___ in the east." 
Done
Also, the intro does not conform to the guidelines of wp:LEDE. It should provide an overview of the entire article, which in fact consists of several sections and lists, that should all be mentioned in the lead. The 2nd or 3rd paragraph is providing a "Note" about who is NOT in the list; the lead should be describing what the list is, in positive terms. The note belongs somewhere later.
Hope this helps. Done doncram (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Sillyfolkboy:
- What do you think about the suggestion of putting "AD" on the end of the years? Call me stupid but I personally am not very used to seeing year dates with less than 4 numbers. This is only a matter of style though and ultimately it's up to you.
Done - I would suggest putting the eastern empire/Byzantium links into a "See also" section as opposed to just tacking them onto the end of the article - perhaps put a short sentence in the lead explaining how Byzantium and the eastern empire are related and also the reason for not including them in this list.Those emperors should actually be on the list, but cause they have their own list i'm redirecting it
- Change the heading "Year of the three emperors". I know that the heading seems to make more sense given that there are only three entries in the section but it's also factually inconsistent with the article about the four emperors. Were there in fact four in that year? Was Galba murdered by Otho or did Otho merely command others kill him? Why do Vespasian's and Vitellius' reigns coincide with each other? This should be explained by concise footnotes. Done
- Why are the dates sometimes stated this way: e.g. "early 251" What meaning do the italics signify that plain text wouldn't? If this is unconfirmed or argued about between historians then perhaps just the year would suffice.Its unconfirmed, and i might as well be their
- Whilst the reference material is clearly stated in the "references" section, I'm a little concerned about the lack of inline citations. This may be a problem at Featured Lists, though I'm not too familiar with the process myself.
- The article should carry a short explanation of the Tetrachy Done
- Change description of first external link to "[link] - Biographies of Roman Emperors Done
- The lead is a little messy at the moment but i suspect that is why the under construction sign is present. Please be aware that the article won't be eligible for a second peer review instantly and will have to wait a short period if improvements follow the closure of this review. Perhaps see WP:Requests for comment or WP:Request for feedback if you're not currently working on a lead or want help writing one. I'm not over familiar with lists as such but the lead should be a brief overview and description of the scope of the list and the key should be listed outside of the lead but before the list itself. Done
Try engaging with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome to get the article looked over by someone with more knowledge of the subject. I'm not oblivious to the history of Rome but with my current understanding I can't really comment on the content of the list.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Update: I just read about previous concerns regarding the quality of the articles you have brought to FLC. I seriously recommend a second peer review following an improvement to the lead and prose (amongst other things). Be sure that you yourself are very familiar and informed about the subject matter before you make improvements on the article and take it to FLC. If this topic is not your forte then consider working on something else that is. Kind regards. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)