# Talk:Battle of Krasos

The tone of this article does not seem encyclopedic. However, I am not an expert in this area of article-writing, but my impressions would be that this would need to be written in clear sections, without being so, wordy! Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of it is a verbatim copy of the section in Byzantine–Arab Wars (780–1180). Constantine   ✍  17:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Then that begs the question why is this not part of that article?. Also, it is not actually copied verbatim - that would mean word-for-word, and much of this article is not there. What is the source of the information on this page? I'm specifically thinking about the two quotations given, which I couldn't find in a quite search. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
They come from Gibbon. The user who created this and a couple of other articles copied verbatim from such old books (Gibbon or Finlay). I left him a note concerning that, especially on the issue of tone and NPOV, where these sources are rather deficient, but he hasn't answered. I intend to overhaul them at some point, hopefully sooner rather than later. Constantine   ✍  18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I presume you mean A history of Greece, from its conquest by the Romans to the present time, B. C. 146 to 1864 (Oxford, Clarendon press, 1877) by George Finlay and Henry Fanshawe Tozer? Should you need to, the full text of that is here. Finlay quotes from Gibbon, I'm guessing The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (by Edward Gibbon and David Womersley). But, as I say, I'm not an expert in this field, so I'll leave it to those who know more than I do! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Krasos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 09:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Another pleasant Battle article! AGF on the source. Material looks fine; good flow & neutral coverage of the topic. As before very short, but neat and informative. Rather than laboriously list copyediting issues here I went through and made some incremental tweaks to the prose - just check those work. Also:
The lead needs one sentence summarising Background and one summarising Aftermath. Just to top and tail it
That's the only issue I could see --Errant (chat!) 09:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the copyedits. I've rewritten and expanded the lede to better summarize the article. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  14:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Great; promoted :) --Errant (chat!) 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)