Wikipedia:Peer review/Lucius Arruntius the Younger/archive1

Lucius Arruntius the Younger

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'd like to make it better and for it to achieve GA status and to learn more about how to write good articles.

Thanks, Flaviusvulso (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• A few things (not really a full review):

• The article is rather short. What other information is available about this guy? For instance, more about any other offices held, what he did while in various offices, family life, and similar would be nice. During what times was he most popular? Any idea what his reaction was to the Senate's do-nothing attitude regarding the Tiber? (And are those Roman colonies that were objecting to diverting its tributaries?)
• Is there more analysis available from historians' commentaries?
• The alt text checker found that the pictures don't have alt text.

"alt text" added. Flaviusvulso (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Allens (talk | contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have rated the article as initially Start-level, but it may well deserve a higher rating (especially when it's been modified as per the above). I encourage you to submit it to the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject's assessment department for an updated assessment. I would say the same for the Biography WikiProject, except that they ask that any peer review for it be done before an assessment takes place. (I have tried to increase the likelihood of their peer-reviewing this work by making it show up in the listing of articles to be peer reviewed there.) Allens (talk | contribs) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments - predominantly technical issues but other stuff too.

• I would agree it's rather slim. The lead of most GAs that I've ever reviewed is usually more than three sentences.
• There may well be a decent infobox you can use in the lead. I note we have no "image" of Lucius but there may be something in a {{infobox person}} or similar that may embellish the article.
• Look for context specific links, e.g. instead of just linking admiral, perhaps look for a way to link Roman navy?
• "He was appointed consul..." the last person mentioned was his father, but I assume you didn't mean him?
• Per WP:HEAD, things like "Life As A Senator" should be "Life as a senator" i.e. avoid unwarranted overcapitalisation.
• ""a man of stainless virtues",[2], rich, daring, having brilliant accomplishments and corresponding popularity.[1]" no need for the comma after [2] but the "rich, daring, having brilliant accomplishments..." sounds more like another quote and should be in quote marks.
• Don't force image sizes (other than lead images), just use thumb or thumb|upright for images (landscape and portrait respectively).
• "Map showing the course of the Tiber river." isn't a complete sentence so no full stop needed.
• Refs 9 and 10, you have pp. for a single page reference. This is usually caused by the parameter in the citation template saying pages= instead of page=
• Don't think you need the 1st centry deaths category since you have a 37 deaths category which is more specific.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on a new version based on your suggestions.Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have substantially expanded and reworked the article now and updated the changes. Please have another look. Thanks. Flaviusvulso (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)