Talk:Battle of Mycale/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References needed:
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

In the background it's totally missing how Darios rose to power through a putsch of six Persian nobles against the Median priest Gaumata who himself had killed the regent and become king after Cambyses II death. After Darios had secured his legacy, he subdued again most of the people of the Persian Empire because they had risen in revolt. This achievement was inscribed on the Stele of Bisutum/Bistum. The Greek revolt thus challenged his hold of the complete empire because if they could others could as well. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but is that directly relevant for this battle? The main cause of the second Persian invasion was the defeat of the first invasion. Darius's history would seem (to me) to be more appropriate in the "Background" section of Greco-Persian Wars and Ionian Revolt (definitely), First Persian invasion of Greece (probably), and the battles of the first invasion (possibly). This battle was quite a long time afterwards, and since Darius was dead, I'm not sure it's directly relevant. Plus the background section already directs the reader towards those articles, if they want more information. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be enough if you mention that there were problems with uprisings throughout the empire and the Persians had to keep them in check in order to preserve their empire because they had established a precedence by taking power via a revolt. Without this it doesn't make sense why the Persian king should bother fighting these dangerous foreigners. They had quite an experience since Marathon. Of course, this needs also to be mentioned in all the other articles about this war, however, without the Persian background you mispresent them as driven by revenge and thus take a Greek POV. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've inserted a concise mention of this at the start of the background of this and the other battles of the second invasion. A longer section can go in the "earlier" articles, which were nearer to the Ionian revolt. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a POV issue. Lazenby says that Xerxes retreated with little forces and even out of these most went back to the fight at Plataea. Holland may say otherwise, but these are your two most important secondary sources and you have to accomodate in case they conflict. I rewrote the lead to say that a substantial army was left behind, totally omitting what numbers Xerxes took with him. I advice you to discuss this in detail or find a phrase that suits both versions. Else, I have no beef with the current version and I think you did a good job presenting the Persian disposition. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "bulk of the army" phrase was based directly on Herodotus. Holland avoids making any guesses, and as you say, Lazenby estimates that the bulk of the army stayed on. I've edited the sentence to make it clear that it is Herodotus who says that the majority of the army retreated. I'm happy for it to be discussed further in the intro, but since it's in the introduction, and not directly relevant to this battle, I don't think it needs to be. However, it might well be relevant for the Platea article - I will take a look.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate that effort since we should keep our articles up to science. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]