Wikipedia:Peer review/Suleiman the Magnificent/archive2
I'm hoping to get this article to FA status soon. It reached GA status some months ago but time did not allow me to make the push for featured status. If you look at the version before I embarked on a major rewrite you'll see the article has been transformed substantially. I'd like editors to point out any faults, major or minor, and provide suggestions for improvements. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just some minor points:
- Try to clear the "page needed" tag on footnote 1.
- I'd prefer "King Lewis" in the quote from the Holy Roman ambassador linked.
- Please standardize dates throughout so that they are either month-first or day-first.
- I didn't know what the Damascus affair was, perhaps a short explanatory phrase?
- "(up to today's Austria)" should be re-phrased to something more academic. "up to" shouldn't be used to describe geographical locations.
Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think the first reference refers to the title of the book in question. I dont really think "Suleiman the Magnificent" needs sourcing as a title, it is a commonly accepted name imo. I changed the quote from King Louis to Lewis. As for the dates, from what I see most seem to be in month and day format, are there any I'm missing? With regard to Damascus affair, tbh even I'm not familiar with this and dont know who added it, but your right the explanation does not seem very comprehensive, I'll have to look into it. As for your last point, yes the wording "up to" is quite poor, I'm still thinking how to reword this. Thanks for the comments (and edits), --A.Garnet (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree re: page number, I've removed the tag. I think you misunderstood what I meant about Lewis/Louis, anyway I've made my suggested edit. I think you're right about the dates, my mistake. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Automated review
[edit]