My first attempt at an FA in a few months; very heavily cited, I wish I had more images. In particular, some feedback about the way I've handled the conflicts between sources would be much appreciated. --
RobthTalk06:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestions. I added a more specific category and renamed the historiography section. As far as infoboxes, {{Infobox biography}} looks fairly appropriate, but I the idea of an infobox with a picture of something other than the article subject in it seems kind of weird to me. Of the three possibilities for this (infobox w/ picture, infobox w/o picture, and picture w/o infobox), which would you recommend? --
RobthTalk08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
An info box as used in other historical biographies.
Why not make some of the pictures larger ie: ‘The Athenian acropolis’ and the ‘Ancient Greek Trireme’ pictures.
To make the pictures more relevant add a bit more information, or a relevant summation for each eg: Xenophon (420s BC – 350s BC), sculpture by {artists name}. In his Hellenica Xenophon’s hostile portrayal of Theramenes’ early political career contrasts with a more favourble interpretation of his later life.” Anything brief and relevant.
To keep with other articles, ‘Citations’ should be renamed ‘Notes’ and moved above ‘References’
Thanks for the feedback. I've expanded the captions, replaced the acropolis image with an image of the pnyx, which I made bigger, and renamed the notes section; I kept it at the bottom for now however. I've always preferred it there, since I figure people will scroll down to the references but click footnotes down to the notes, so the references should be above. As far as typos, I just found out how cool the google toolbar spellcheck thing is; very nifty, and hopefully I got 'em all. Thanks again, --
RobthTalk08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
It does not matter if the section is named "Citations" or "Notes"; both titles are acceptable. Maybe in this particular case "Notes" is better, because in the section we have both Notes and citations. It is not a rule that the "Notes" section goes before "References". It is a matter of personal taste.--
Yannismarou14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Make sure you donot link to disambiguation pages. For instance,
Agis links to a disambiguation page and not to the specific Agis you want.
I think it is better to divide your sources in primary and secondary, but this is maybe a personal taste and, definitely, not something very important.
I have made some minor edits based on Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. Make sure you've examined this particular source thoroughly.
My first attempt at an FA in a few months; very heavily cited, I wish I had more images. In particular, some feedback about the way I've handled the conflicts between sources would be much appreciated. --
RobthTalk06:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestions. I added a more specific category and renamed the historiography section. As far as infoboxes, {{Infobox biography}} looks fairly appropriate, but I the idea of an infobox with a picture of something other than the article subject in it seems kind of weird to me. Of the three possibilities for this (infobox w/ picture, infobox w/o picture, and picture w/o infobox), which would you recommend? --
RobthTalk08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
An info box as used in other historical biographies.
Why not make some of the pictures larger ie: ‘The Athenian acropolis’ and the ‘Ancient Greek Trireme’ pictures.
To make the pictures more relevant add a bit more information, or a relevant summation for each eg: Xenophon (420s BC – 350s BC), sculpture by {artists name}. In his Hellenica Xenophon’s hostile portrayal of Theramenes’ early political career contrasts with a more favourble interpretation of his later life.” Anything brief and relevant.
To keep with other articles, ‘Citations’ should be renamed ‘Notes’ and moved above ‘References’
Thanks for the feedback. I've expanded the captions, replaced the acropolis image with an image of the pnyx, which I made bigger, and renamed the notes section; I kept it at the bottom for now however. I've always preferred it there, since I figure people will scroll down to the references but click footnotes down to the notes, so the references should be above. As far as typos, I just found out how cool the google toolbar spellcheck thing is; very nifty, and hopefully I got 'em all. Thanks again, --
RobthTalk08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)reply
It does not matter if the section is named "Citations" or "Notes"; both titles are acceptable. Maybe in this particular case "Notes" is better, because in the section we have both Notes and citations. It is not a rule that the "Notes" section goes before "References". It is a matter of personal taste.--
Yannismarou14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Make sure you donot link to disambiguation pages. For instance,
Agis links to a disambiguation page and not to the specific Agis you want.
I think it is better to divide your sources in primary and secondary, but this is maybe a personal taste and, definitely, not something very important.
I have made some minor edits based on Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. Make sure you've examined this particular source thoroughly.