Wikipedia:Peer review/Walls of Constantinople/archive1

Walls of Constantinople

Hello, I have during the past two weeks expanded the article on the Walls of Constantinople, ultimately aiming at advancing it to A-class or FA, and hope to get your input on it. Although there is information I still want to add, I would like to have your opinions, especially on:

General comments about the structure and readability of the article. Have I left anything important out? Does the article give a fairly complete treatment on the subject?
I don't know whether I should include the Yedikule Fortress with the Golden Gate in the present article, or create a separate page for them. Likewise, the walls of the suburb of Galata could be included, although they can be considered a separate fortification.

Regards, Cplakidas 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the article in detail, because I don't have time today. But I'll hopefully come back tomorrow with more content- and prose-related remarks and a more detailed review. This initial and incomplete review is limited in just some technical issues:

The lead could be a bit more expanded per WP:LEAD.
Needs more citations. For instance, in "The Land Walls" some paragraphs are not at all referenced.
Don't wikilink more than once the same link. I think Constantinople is linked more than once.
Try to get rid of "See also". Do you regard this section as really necessary? Such sections are not so "trendy" nowadays. You could try to incorporate any links there in the main prose if possible.
Definitely get rid of "Trivia". It is stubby and, in general, trivia sections are not esteemed. Again, try to incorporate its content in the main prose.
"This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article "Constantinople", a publication now in the public domain." Sice the article is expanded I don't think that this "special" note is necessary. Treat Britannica like one of your other sources.
Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 10:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply! I have already changed a few things, expanded the lead and removed the Trivia section. The "See also" section I regard as a necessary evil, since it incorporates fortifications in the immediate area which otherwise would require a separate section, and I think it would be stretching the article too much. As for the sieges, I originally intended to write a short summary for every one of them as far as the walls were concerned, but since a separate article linking to each of them exists, I let it drop. However, I moved the link from the "See also" to the lead. Regards, Cplakidas 15:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but at last I found some time to review in detail this article. These are my remarks:

Be careful with some minor details. For instance, in the lead, within 5 lines you wikilinked twice Constantine the Great! And you also link more than once Constantinople. Minor things, but ...
"many parts of the walls survived are still standing today". Is an "and" missing here or I just did not understand it well?
"The original walls of the city were built in the 8th century BC, when Byzantium was founded by Greek colonists from Megara, led by the eponymous Byzas". I think you should add a citation in this sentence.
I think that you should not wikilink single years (e.g. 408). Only year-date-month (e.g. September 25, 408). I'm almost certain about that.
"It was architecturally splendid". POV! Rephrase and cite.
For the red links you have, it'd be nice to create some stub articles and not let them red.
Three paragraphs towards the end of "The Theodosian Walls" are uncited.
Again: How many times do you link the Fall of Constantinople?!
"Nonetheless, the restored sections give an imposing image of the walls in their original state." Says who? No citation.
The "The Yediküle Fortress" has no citations.
"After the final capture of Constantinople, in 1457". 1457 or 1453?! Was that a mistake or you meant something else?
Look what is my problem: I start reading the "Land Walls" and then I go to the "Theodosian Walls" and follow the story until today. Then I learn the The Yediküle Fortress and the The Walls of Blachernae. Until then I had the wrong impression that the Theodosian Walls were the only Land Walls. Maybe, you should introduce the reader in the begining of the "Land Walls" section and say that we have these and these walls.
Two paragraphs in the "The Walls of Blachernae" are uncited.
"Despite all this, the defences of the Blachernae section remained weaker than at the Theodosian Walls, and it was here the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade managed to penetrate them and first enter the city." Citation needed.
These two one -sentence paragraphs in "The Sea Walls" are not so nice. I'd suggest that you merge or expand.
I suggest you provide at least one citation for each of the sub-sections in "The Sea Walls".

In general, the article is well-written and informative, but it needs more citations. And, although the prose flow looks not bad, I'd strongly recommend a copy-edit by a native English-speaker. I think you could submit such a request in the Military History project or politely ask an editor you know and trust to copy-edit the text.--Yannismarou 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]