Wikipedia:Peer review/Demosthenes/archive1

Demosthenes[edit]

I just finished rewriting the article and I am looking forward to further improving it (in terms of prose, content, style, image etc.). My ultimate goal is to submit it for GA status and eventually FAT. Any suggestions welcomed.--Yannismarou 14:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- allege
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
And just curious, what does FAT stand for? Thanks, Andy _t 15:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA I was meaning (Featured article)--Yannismarou 19:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to do that in User:Yannismarou/monobook.js, but I'm afraid I did something wrong! I have never used a tool like that. Or I just did not understand how the monobook works! I'd be grateful, if you could check what I did wrong and tell me!--Yannismarou 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting suggestions[edit]

I'm going through and making various minor copyedits. If you don't agree with a particular edit, or don't understand why I made the change, just ask. I'm beginning to lose focus after a few sections, so there's plenty of copyediting left to do, but this should give you some idea of things to look for.

A few things I'm noticing:

It's really long. Although it's not a hard and fast rule, I get the impression that anything over 50 KB will raise eyebrows at FA evaluation. I'm tightening the copy a little; see if you can do even more. Consider directing the reader to daughter articles with more in-depth information on some topics, which will allow you to include only the information most salient to Demosthenes in this article.

There is some flowery language that's uncomfortably close to POV. For example:

"His policy resulted in Macedon's rage and, thereby, Demosthenes took his life hunted by Antipater's spies.

" and was a wealthy sword-maker of rank and opulence." (Does "opulence" add anything that "wealthy" didn't, except POV language?)

"the guardians had abused their trust and pilfered his estate"

"Noteworthy, Demosthenes is also said to have been an admirer of the historian Thucydides." ("Noteworthy" isn't an adverb... but why is it noteworthy? Show us, don't tell us.)

"In terms of style, the influence of both Lysias and Isaeus is obvious in these initial judicial orations, which however have a stamp of their own as marked as it is original." (You've given a citation, so these aren't technically "weasel words," but they also don't really tell me anything. Maybe this whole sentence should be relocated to the separate discussion of Demosthenes' oratorical style?)

"Fortunately for him, some sharp-eyed Athenians discerned his talent and consoled him. (I have other concerns about this sentence; see below.)

"When he forsook the assembly"

"'Eunomus, the Thriasian, then a very old man, seeing him, upbraided him, saying that his diction was very much like that of Pericles, and that he was wanting to himself through cowardice and meanness of spirit, neither bearing up with courage against popular outcry, nor fitting his body for action, but suffering it to languish through mere sloth and negligence.' 'Another time, when the assembly had refused to hear him, and he was going home with his head muffled up, taking it very heavily, they relate that Satyrus, the actor, followed him, and being his familiar acquaintance, entered into conversation with him.'" (This is very flowery, and takes a couple of readings to parse. The two quotations in a row also interrupts the flow. Maybe you could paraphrase these quotations in regular English? If you really want to use the quotes, put the full quotes in the footnote instead of the main body of the text, or put the quotes in an inset.)

"Therefore, the orator decided to fight against his nature and to discipline it."

"The army of Macedon was more menacing than ever for Athens"

You use a number of terms which are unexplained. Assume that your reader is intelligent but uninformed: she doesn't know anything about the topic until you tell her, but you only have to tell her once. Especially since your lede (lead) is FAR too short, given the length of the article, be sure to tell us readers enough to grasp the basics. The clickable link is there for MORE information; the reader shouldn't have to click to figure out what you're talking about. For example:

"His policy resulted in Macedon's rage and, thereby, Demosthenes took his life hunted by Antipater's spies." (Who is Antipater? What is his connection to Macedon?)

"His father, who was also named Demosthenes, belonged to the deme of Paeania" (What's a deme? Who or what is Paeania? How does one "belong" to a deme? Even something as simple as "His father, also named Demosthenes, lived in the deme of Paeania in the Athenian countryside" would be clearer.)

"Although his father left at his death an estate of nearly fourteen talents" (Is that a lot? Can you give some frame of reference like "enough to maintain a household with many slaves" or "more money than the average senator made in a year" or some such?)

Same goes for "thirty silver minae."

"He delivered himself five orations in all:" (Was this unusual? Don't assume your reader knows how lawsuits involved logographers instead of lawyers, at least not until you've mentioned it.)

"In 363 BC, 359 BC and 357 BC he undertook the function of the trierarch, the last time voluntarily. In 350 BC, he became a choregos ("grantor")." (What does a trierarch do? Is it normally involuntary? What does a "grantor" grant? Here, even the translation isn't informative.)

Some statements are illogical.

"he undertook the function of the trierarch, the last time voluntarily. In 350 BC, he became a choregos ("grantor"). All these functions and offices indicate Demosthenes' will to involve himself more actively in the Athenian politics." (How does involuntarily service (part of "all of these functions and offices") demostrate Demosthenes' will?)

"it still remains unclear when and if Demosthenes abandoned" (Did he or didn't he? "It still remains unclear whether Demosthenes abandoned" might be better, but it implies that he did.)

"Fortunately for him, some sharp-eyed Athenians discerned his talent and consoled him." (What do "sharp eyes" have to do with hearing him speak? What good is consolation? Did you mean "counseled him"?)

"When he forsook the assembly, being disheartened, 'Eunomus, the Thriasian, then a very old man, seeing him, upbraided him'" (This dangling modifier makes it sound like Eunomus forsook the assembly disheartened; is that what you meant?)

Section header: "Case of Harpalus and his death" (Sounds like Harpalus' death. Also, Wikipedia style says to avoid mentioning the subject of the article in the headers; instead of "his death," use "death," but "Case of Harpalus and death" is still awkward. How about just "Case of Harpalus" or "Final case"?)

Some subheaders aren't informative. I've renamed a few. Can you find a better subheader than "Transitional period," like "Increased political activity"?

Verb tense is inconsistent: "Demosthenes and his guardians engaged in a tough parley," but "He [Aeschines] attacks his opponent, raising the following rhetorical queries". Pick one and stick to it.

The lede is much too short for an article this long. Check WP:LEAD. Your lede ought to summarize all the important information in the article. If the various sieges are important enough to merit section headers, they're important enough to be mentioned in the lede. Alternatively - and this might be a better but more painful suggestion - if the lede feels like a pretty good summary as it is, you might consider eliminating parts of the article that you didn't think were important enough to mention in the lede. Ideally, you could take those sections, such as the Olynthiacs and the Third Philippic, write or expand separate daughter articles on those specific topics, and substantially shorten the sections on those topics in the Demosthenes articles, referring the reader to the daughter articles and their more detailed information using the "main" template.

Some FA reviewers want captions to be complete sentences. Take advantage of this to relocate or reinforce some information from the article into the captions, especially for an image like Alexander's bust which is really just a picture for the sake of having a picture, rather than something that genuinely adds to the content of the article. By the way, I really like your use of insets; those are quite well done.

I hope this doesn't come across as overly critical. There's quite a lot to like about this article. Everything I'm suggesting is just that - suggestions - and they are meant only to improve what is already a good article. And please forgive me if I've introduced any typos, or been unclear; I've stayed up quite late working on this. Good luck! Peirigill 11:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things done, according to Peirigili suggestions (-there are things still left to do).

I tried to tighten the copy. I still have the last sections to do and I'll then try to improve the prose even more.
I'm trying to improve the cases of flowery language Peirigilli pointed out.
I tried to reduce the unexplained terms. Grantor and trierarch still to do (I forgot them!).
I changed the illogical statements.
I introduced a more consistent verb tense.
I also tried to do the sub-headers more informative, according to Peririgilli suggestions.
I created sub-pages, referring the reader to the daughter articles. Still have to improve the lede section.

I still have to do the lede section, a further tightenig of the copy-editing and the captions. But I would really like to have an assessment of what is already done and further suggestions.--Yannismarou 18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More changes:

I clarified grantor and trierarch.
I expanded the lede section.
I tried to tigthen even more the copy.
I thihk I imporved even more the verb consistency.
I rewrote most of the photo captions.
I rewrote the "works" (former "orations") paragraph.
I merged and renamed certain sections.
I think I reduced even more the flowery language. --Yannismarou 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]