I think the article coverage is decent and I found the topic interesting, but I have concerns about its writing style and the lack of diversity in references. It certainly has potential to reach GA status but in my opinion it needs more work. I added more detailed feedback below:
They were almost given away by the city's watchdogs, but the guards failed to recognise the danger: This seems very vague, how does one get "almost" given away and what "the guards failed to recognize the danger" means?
civil war threatened: the use of "to threaten" without object is unusual
Ptolemy had just won Corinth from the Macedonian empire: "won" seems too vague. Did you mean "conquered"?
Some more awkward phrasings:
.. was the younger man's elevated connections.
decided to attach Sicyon to the Achaean League
But Sicyon had become economically unstable. (avoid starting a sentence with "But" in formal writing)
Aratus could now no longer rely for help on an alliance with Macedon's Antigonus
It seems that there are many of these (other than those I highlighted above). I'm not a native speaker myself so I couldn't help you as effectively as I wish, but I suggest asking help from
WP:GOCER or someone you know who is a native speaker to sort these out.
Also, avoid sentences that are too short/simple: "Each was barefoot to minimise noise." "The impact was immediately felt." "This peace did not last" I think they're fine when used sparingly but if there are too many of them, it feels like reading a children's book. Consider merging with related sentences, or elaborating them more.
Some sentences are too informal/conversational. E.g. "in a victory owing partly to luck but also to good planning and nerve", "Very few achieved the feat"
By the way, you can use this script
User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB to ensure American vs British English consistency. I already ran it for this article (I assume you want British English), but mentioning it here so that it can be useful for you in the future.
Re sourcing, other than Plutarch who is an ancient source (and used sparingly, as it should), nearly all references are from Roberts & Bennett. We should try to increase the diversity of sources and point of views. Do we have nothing more from recent scholars?
Also for the ancient sources, please include the approximate year of the original source, as well as more details (year, publisher, translator) about the specific translation/edition that you used.
Given that the prose still need a lot of work and no improvement have been made, unfortunately I will close the nomination for now. I still believe the article has a lot of potential. I hope the nominator can work on improving the diversity of sources as well as improving the prose (possibly with help from someone).
HaEr48 (
talk)
15:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I think the article coverage is decent and I found the topic interesting, but I have concerns about its writing style and the lack of diversity in references. It certainly has potential to reach GA status but in my opinion it needs more work. I added more detailed feedback below:
They were almost given away by the city's watchdogs, but the guards failed to recognise the danger: This seems very vague, how does one get "almost" given away and what "the guards failed to recognize the danger" means?
civil war threatened: the use of "to threaten" without object is unusual
Ptolemy had just won Corinth from the Macedonian empire: "won" seems too vague. Did you mean "conquered"?
Some more awkward phrasings:
.. was the younger man's elevated connections.
decided to attach Sicyon to the Achaean League
But Sicyon had become economically unstable. (avoid starting a sentence with "But" in formal writing)
Aratus could now no longer rely for help on an alliance with Macedon's Antigonus
It seems that there are many of these (other than those I highlighted above). I'm not a native speaker myself so I couldn't help you as effectively as I wish, but I suggest asking help from
WP:GOCER or someone you know who is a native speaker to sort these out.
Also, avoid sentences that are too short/simple: "Each was barefoot to minimise noise." "The impact was immediately felt." "This peace did not last" I think they're fine when used sparingly but if there are too many of them, it feels like reading a children's book. Consider merging with related sentences, or elaborating them more.
Some sentences are too informal/conversational. E.g. "in a victory owing partly to luck but also to good planning and nerve", "Very few achieved the feat"
By the way, you can use this script
User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB to ensure American vs British English consistency. I already ran it for this article (I assume you want British English), but mentioning it here so that it can be useful for you in the future.
Re sourcing, other than Plutarch who is an ancient source (and used sparingly, as it should), nearly all references are from Roberts & Bennett. We should try to increase the diversity of sources and point of views. Do we have nothing more from recent scholars?
Also for the ancient sources, please include the approximate year of the original source, as well as more details (year, publisher, translator) about the specific translation/edition that you used.
Given that the prose still need a lot of work and no improvement have been made, unfortunately I will close the nomination for now. I still believe the article has a lot of potential. I hope the nominator can work on improving the diversity of sources as well as improving the prose (possibly with help from someone).
HaEr48 (
talk)
15:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply