Swabian War edit
Now that this article has finally gotten a map (thanks, Sidonius!), I think it is ready for a peer review. The article was written as a summary of the listed main references; individual facts taken from other references are directly sourced. The German version (Schwabenkrieg) has been greatly expanded using material from this article, and since then, some of the extra bits added in the German version have again been cross-transferred into this English article. How can we improve this article further? Lupo 16:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Great map -- WP:FPC, even? Comments on the article:
- The parentheses in the first sentence are uneven.
- Common grammatical errors, some of which I may have missed:
- "Interest to" (instead of "interest in")
- "Succeeded to" (instead of "succeeded in")
- Run-on sentences
- There are many red links, especially of the battles. If they're significant (which they seem to be), you might want to consider creating stubs for them. Otherwise I would include some of the battles' details.
- Seems to be well-referenced. But, if you're thinking about WP:FAC, you'll need more than four inline citations.
- Overall, I think this is a good article: comprehensive, well-structured, and fairly well-written. Also consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review. -- bcasterline • talk 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for these useful comments; I'll go over the grammar (run-on sentences and the like) again, but it'd certainly help if a native English speaker checked it thoroughly, too. As to inline refs: I know that FAC has this obsession. Personally, I employ a different approach in cases where I use a few main sources that give an overview. I consider any sentence implicitly referenced to the main sources; only specific facts taken from elsewhere or especially contentious statements need direct inline sources. For instance, the "Background" section is essentially a summary of the Schwabe & Co reference. If I wanted to use inline sources for every sentence (or every second sentence), I'd just get a slew of references all going to the same source. It seems to me that just giving this source once and stating that it gives the broad overview is cleaner: no info is lost, but the flow of reading isn't hampered by having little blue numbers at every period. (I can and do use the "source every other sentence" method, too. I employ it in cases where I need to use many different sources, or in cases that have a high controversy potential. See e.g. Shrimp farm for an example.) Lupo 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems like the nature of Wikipedia (being a wiki) requires verifiability to a very small scale -- so I can understand the FAC obsession. An article like this is less likely to attract cranks, though, so maybe inline citations aren't as necessary. And if you're not concerned about getting through FAC, it doesn't matter either way. :) -- bcasterline • talk 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for these useful comments; I'll go over the grammar (run-on sentences and the like) again, but it'd certainly help if a native English speaker checked it thoroughly, too. As to inline refs: I know that FAC has this obsession. Personally, I employ a different approach in cases where I use a few main sources that give an overview. I consider any sentence implicitly referenced to the main sources; only specific facts taken from elsewhere or especially contentious statements need direct inline sources. For instance, the "Background" section is essentially a summary of the Schwabe & Co reference. If I wanted to use inline sources for every sentence (or every second sentence), I'd just get a slew of references all going to the same source. It seems to me that just giving this source once and stating that it gives the broad overview is cleaner: no info is lost, but the flow of reading isn't hampered by having little blue numbers at every period. (I can and do use the "source every other sentence" method, too. I employ it in cases where I need to use many different sources, or in cases that have a high controversy potential. See e.g. Shrimp farm for an example.) Lupo 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)