Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Auxiliaries (Roman military)

Auxiliaries (Roman military) edit

I want to submit this article in its yet finished form to see what needs to be improved before submitting it for A-class. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin edit

Let's see:

I don't see any benefit to having the "X redirects here" note at the top unless there's a disambiguation page that needs to be linked. None of those terms have any other meaning that needs to be disambiguated, as far as I can tell.
The text is very heavy with parenthetical dates and numbers; while some of these are unavoidable, I think copyediting could reduce the density somewhat.
Circa is generally only used for dates, not for numbers; "identify c.40 of these units" should be "identify about 40 of these units", for example.
There's a lot of inconsistency with date abbreviations; there are examples of "cX", "c.X", and "c. X". According to the manual of style, the last form is the preferred one.
I'd try and cluster footnotes at the end of sentences, or at least clauses; footnoting individual words doesn't seem necessary for a topic of this sort.
References to other sections should be linked.
The sub-sections of "Relationship with legions", "Unit types and structure", and "Everyday life of auxiliaries" should have proper section headers.
The use of "we" should be avoided.

Overall, though, great work. Kirill 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The credit goes to EraNavigator. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockfall edit

I'd definitely agree with the above on the footnote front. Footnote marks should always been after a piece of punctuation, and preferably at the end of a sentence.
The unresolved issues section - is this necessary for the main article? It represents a historiographical debate rather than facts about the article subject. Perhaps consider putting this in a separate article referenced here.
Much of the body of the article is very text heavy. While this is all very good detail, the text sometimes strays off into a narrative of Roman history. Some editing work to tighten this up could help to reduce the weight of these sections.

Other than that, a very comprehensive article. Rockfall (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is using British English and the British way to put footnotes. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]