Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Roman and Byzantine domes/archive1

History of Roman and Byzantine domes[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been split off from the dome parent article and I am not sure what else it needs as a stand-alone article. It was rated as ~~B class~~ start class shortly after it was created but I would like some specific guidance on how it should be improved. Any and all feedback is welcome! (UPDATE: It was the parent article that had been rated B class, not this daughter article. My mistake.)

Thanks, AmateurEditor (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: The first thing which stands out is the lengthy paras which can possibly affect the readability (for more information, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And good point. I have split up the paragraphs into more bite-sized pieces. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rate it as B class because of the quality of writing and sourcing. And if I can add, many thanks to the editors responsible, this is the sort of article that makes one enthusiastic about WP... a fascinating and well-written article about a topic I was not expecting to read about when I woke up this morning. Well done. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On checking it further, I see that some sections could be split into subsections; mainly these two: Sixth century and Second century. Usually when a section is too large we split it into subsections or in some cases even into a subarticle, giving a shorter summary of it in the parent article. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those two sections are particularly long, mainly due to the details for the Pantheon and Hagia Sophia. Both of those landmark buildings have had an enormous amount written about them and it seemed wrong not to focus on them a bit more. Those two buildings could easily have their own subsections, but I don't see a good way of labeling the parts immediately before and after them in the sections they are in. As I understand it, the sentences immediately before, for example, the Pantheon paragraphs will just fall under the "Second century" section header if a "Pantheon" subsection was created, but the sentences afterward will have to get their own subsection header or they will be included in the Pantheon's subsection. AmateurEditor (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Tom (LT)! I'll see if someone from Wikiproject Architecture can reevaluate that Start class rating. AmateurEditor (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All WikiProject ratings lower than B class can be done by anyone, so maybe you might be interested in nominating it as a GA for a formal review? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely interested. Should I close this peer review and just paste the GA nomination template in the talk page, or keep them both open? I see there is a big backlog there and it could take a while to get noticed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just nominate it. Then per PR instructions this should be closed; I'll do that. Yes, there is big backlog so I would say you work on something else. Good luck, -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your help, Joel. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]