Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Sicily/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because
- Its content was increased from 12k to 30k
- It covers the issues of the subject
- It is fully referenced
Thanks, Alarichus (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good work! Reads well, and looks like a good overview to me.
- I'd recommend expanding the "history" section, not necessarily by going into more detail, but by stating the obvious. See WP:OBVIOUS. For example, you know (and I know) who Innocent II was. But a teenager from the far side of the world probably wouldn't, so say "Pope Innocent II" rather than just "Innocent II". (I know there's a wikilink to follow so this might seem unnecessary, but the principle is that each article should be able to stand alone: the reader should emerge with a good understanding without having to click the link.) Lots more stating the obvious throughout the "history" section would make it considerably clearer to someone who doesn't know anything about Sicilian Normans.
- This next one is a fair bit of work, I'm afraid. References to printed material should cite the page number as well as the book. Sorry.
- As an accessibility feature, it's usual to add alt-text to the images; see WP:ALT. (Mandatory for featured article candidates).
Hope this helps.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Anything else? --Alarichus (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's looking good to me now, I must say. Nice work, and very prompt.
I reviewed this because I'm interested in the subject. Unfortunately this means I know a bit about it, so I think it would be best if you received another review from someone who's new to the subject (and ideally someone who understands the manual of style better than me!)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thnx. OK, I'll wait until the article is reviewed again. --Alarichus (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's looking good to me now, I must say. Nice work, and very prompt.