Talk:Alexander the Great/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  SilkTork  *YES! 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a major topic, and a significant article, so I expect this review will take some time. I will look over it over the next few days, and then start to leave comments.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be leaving some initial comments in the next couple of days.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'd prefer an in-depth GA review. Just as a forward warning, I might take a few days to respond to feedback due to the Christmas period. Thanks for undertaking this review; I know it's a big topic! Aeonx (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will get to this soon. Just been busy with Christmas/New Years. Aeonx (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Check list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * Some high quality images. The images meet GA criteria, though layout will need to be looked into as some are sandwiching text, and there may be more images than are neccessary.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does the first sentence assert that Alexander was a Greek king of Macedonia? I understand that there has been dispute over the Greekness of the Macedonians for thousands of years, and I am expecting that to be dealt with within the article, however it seems confrontational to make such a formal statement in the first sentence, as well as being grammatically and logically unsound. It makes it appear as though Macedonia was a country of ethnic Macedonians conquered and ruled by a Greek. The simple statement is that he was a king of Macedonia. A short statement regarding the connection of Macedonia to the rest of the Greek states would be appropriate - such as "...was a king of Macedonia, a northern Greek kingdom."  SilkTork  *YES! 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "He is the most celebrated member of the Argead dynasty", doesn't seem the most notable of his achievements.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * *The consensus in Academia is that Alexander was Greek*. I know it might seem superfluous to state, just as stating that 'Plato' was a greek person might be. The difference here is that modern-day nationalists from RoM (Republic of Macedonia) attempt to discount the Greekness of Alexander and the Ancient Macedonians due to some attempts to trace their lineage back to these peoples, which is of course, an impossible task, as any attempt to make such a statement is patently false.  Over 350 classical scholars support this view. See http://macedonia-evidence.org/... This article has stated that alexander was a Greek King in the lead for months (or years).  It must be changed back as soon as possible.  SilkTork's own opinions, or any other editor here for that matter, do not supersede those of Academia, and legitimate sources.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Athenean (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Prose is clear and readable.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is very good, though - inevitably, given the size and complexity of the topic and article - it doesn't quite cover all the contents. The lead is the most common initial failing in a GA review as many editors feel that the lead is an introduction, though WP:Lead indicates that it should be a short, standalone article which summarises all the main points of the article.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On glancing through the article it appears that it has been decided not to deal with the Greekness of Alexander/Macedonia. Is there a reason for this - or have I missed where it is discussed?  SilkTork  *YES! 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm reading through to check broad coverage, and the article seems well organised, with an intelligent selection of detail which matches other sources I'm using for comparison, such as Encyclopedia Britannica. I have some minor questions though - why is Alexander's visit to Troy not mentioned? why no mention of how Alexander set up the governance of Asia Minor (other than saying Caria was governed by Ada)? why no mention of his treatment of Greek mercenaries he captured? These are aspects of his career that are frequently mentioned. I understand there is limited space, and so choices need to be made as to what to include. I just like to hear the rationale for those choices. If it's a question of space, I'd like to hear why the decision was made to have two large quotes from Plutarch, much of which is already contained in the main body. I haven't finished working through the article, though my feeling is that the article is likely to meet broad coverage and focus with minor (or no) work - quite impressive considering the size and complexity of the topic.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Diodorus Siculus, Library XVIII, 4 is a dead link.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This useful tool shows a few other problematic links.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been various minor layout issues, though I've been dealing with a few as I've been reading. The article was (still is) a bit cluttered, with sometimes too many images and quote boxes squeezing the text, and that is combined with some sub-sections being rather small. The choice of where to create sections, the names of the sections, and then the decision as to when to sub-section, and the most appropriate way of doing that, is worth discussing. The use of the ; wikicode to create a definition list for sections such as Possible causes, is worth considering. Also, if the subsections are to be hidden from the table of contents, one must question part of their value.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've used ; in Possible causes as an example.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There sometimes appears to be an authorial voice in the article - "it is scarcely surprising that allegations of foul play have been made about the death of Alexander"; "Alexander's personality is well described by the ancient sources"; "This was no doubt in part due to his tutelage by Aristotle"; "Alexander's most obvious legacy was the introduction of Macedonian rule to huge new swathes of Asia". These are examples - there are others. Where a statement appears to be making an opinion, it should be supported by the reliable source voicing such an opinion.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "the resistance was useless, as the city was razed to the ground amid great bloodshed" - a little dramatic for an encyclopedic entry.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The coverage is mostly first class - very well judged amount of detail in most places. I am wondering, though, if a little too much space is given to the death, and the possible causes. Good for a book on the man, but too much for an entry in a general encyclopaedia.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Most sources on Alexander mention his skills and reputation as a commander. His strategies are still taught. As such, it would be appropriate to mention that prominently and early in the lead, and to have a section explaining why he is regarded as such a good general. From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
 * "As a general Alexander is among the greatest the world has known. He showed unusual versatility both in the combination of different arms and in adapting his tactics to the challenge of enemies who commanded novel forms of warfare—the Saka nomads, the Indian hill tribes, or Porus with his elephants. His strategy was skillful and imaginative, and he knew how to exploit the chances that arise in every battle and may be decisive for victory or defeat; he also drew the last advantage from victory by relentless pursuit. His use of cavalry was so effective that he rarely had to fall back upon his infantry to deliver the crushing blow."  SilkTork  *YES! 23:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done as far as the lede is concerned. I had added something to that effect a while back, but it was removed without any explanation. Athenean (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On hold 14 days
This is a very impressive and admirable article, which has managed to convey the central facts of Alexander the Great in a lucid and readable manner. The details have, on the whole, been very well selected and presented, and all those involved have to be commended on achieving that. There are, of course, areas which can be tidied up or at least talked about.


 * Build lead per WP:Lead to cover more fully then contents of the article. Present the information in a slightly different way, so Alexander's main achievements are foregrounded, and more questionable information is removed or presented later.


 * Check prose for statements that appear to convey some form of opinion or dramatic writing.


 * Tighten section on death.


 * Tidy the short sub-sections, and smooth out layout issues


 * Introduce section on generalship.


 * Check and update links


 * Consider providing more detail on the Asia Minor conquest


 * Consider dealing with the controversy regarding Alexander's Greekness.

I'll put this on hold for an initial 14 days to allow the above matters to be addressed, and to allow me to finish my background reading. If everything gets sorted before the 14 days then I'll close this before then and list as a GA. While there may be some little niggles to be sorted, in general this is a very decent article and should get listed. I'll inform related WikiProject and significant contributors.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A few additional comments
I didn't pass thoroughly through all aspects, but, taking advantage of SilkTork gentle invitation I decided to drop bye. In my opinion there are at the moments some difficulties. To begin with the very start the footnote galore at "Greek" is just horrible; not only 17 footnotes, but most don't even have the needed page number. My advice is to reduce the footnotes there to no more than five selecting the most high quality ones. Much more important, this article seems to have forgot some key rules regarding WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Frankly, I'm a bit shocked by the amount of paragraphs that are supported only by primary sources, which in an article like this, where the amount of scholarly literature is utterly immense, should not happen. This is also because it's only through a secondary source we will know if the specific passage from an ancient author is notable and how much it is reliable (in particular, it's quite well known that Plutarch isn't very trustworthy). Also, some secondary sources may have difficulties passing the RS threshold here, at least certainly Will Durrant (and his work is 1939, not 1966), Greece.org, britannica, and to a lesser degree, Livius.org; on a topic like this scholarly sources or well known biographies should be preferred, IMO. A possibly acritical view of the sources can emerge if we take for example see "At Persepolis, Alexander stared at the crumbled statue of Xerxes and decided to leave it on the ground." this passge is cited by Plutarch and Hammond it is said, but Hammond's interpretation is at the very least skeptical of its historic truth. Another point worth noticing is how weak the "sources" section is; it should at least try to briefly define the chain of the transmission of sources (in this context, it is sort of surprising that the name of Cleitarchus is absent).Aldux (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I must agree; the ancient sources on Alexander the Great are unusually poor. Most of them (which survive) were written three or four centuries after his death; and none of them (except arguably Arrian) ever intended to be what we consider history. (Other sources did exist once, and it is an academic exercise to trace where surviving source X may be drawn from the lost memoirs of Y.)
 * There are an innumerable quantity of modern secondary sources; they tend to represent points of view (was Alexander working for World Peace? was he an adolescent homicidal maniac?), but that can best be dealt with by extruding the conjectural claims. They are generally fairly close on what actually happened, which should be the chief focus of this article.
 * The whole entry on Alexander as a Greek (and the spelling of Chalcidike) are symptoms of a Demotic Greek nationalist at work; they are not marks of a good article, and should be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some comments about the GA nomination (or an attempt for a peer-review)
Although mainly retired from Wikipedia, I was attracted by this GA nomination. Alexander is a personally always captured me, and I would love to see this article upgraded. Reading the article, and reading some of the comments above, these are my remarks:
 * The lead is not bad, although sometimes it seems a bit repetitive and slightly confusing. His virtues as a general are treated in the first paragraph of the lede ("Alexander was known to be undefeated in battle and is considered one of the most successful commanders of all time"), and then again at the last paragraph ("He became the measure against which generals, even to this day, compare themselves and military academies throughout the world still teach his tactical exploits"). Why? Two sentences saying the same thing in two different paragraphs of the same unit (the lede).
 * Again the lede: "Although he is mostly remembered for his vast conquests, Alexander's lasting legacy was not his reign, but the cultural diffusion his conquests engendered." "Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and culture in the east resulted in a new Hellenistic culture, aspects of which were still evident in the traditions of the Byzantine Empire until the mid-15th century." Two sentences treating the same issue (cultural aspects of Alexander's campaigns) one after the other, but in two different paragraphs, as if they do not belong to the same unit in terms of meaning and sructure. Wrong structure IMO.
 * "was a Greeki[›] king of Macedonia": I will agree with Sept that this is bad prose! Very bad prose! Alexander was the king of Macedonia. Full stop! The Greekness of Macedonians is another issue not belonging to this article (this is an answer to a previous question by SilkTork: This article is not the right to place in order to deal with the "Greekness" of Alexander, because the issue is not the Greekness of one person but of a nation, of the ancient Macedonians, and the article which [already] treats this issue is the ancient Macedonians article). This is bad English, and an outrageously long list of 21 (?!) citations. What for? To prove what?! The lede is full of Greekness! When we say that he was the leader of the Greek forces, and that he spread Greek civilization what else is needed? An alternative I could regard as acceptable is to right "[bla bla] was king of Macedonia and Hegemon of the Hellenic Lead". This is true and informs the reader about Alexander's will (like his father) to present himself as the leader of all Greeks (and not only of one of their kingdoms), and as such to lead the Greek forces against the Persians.
 * "Alexander was born on 20 (or 21) July 356 BC,[4][5]". Just an example with the verification problems sometimes the notes present: Note 4 is a primary source with no secondary one, and Note 5 is web site (Livius), well respected of course, but can't we find any nice scholarly printed source? And why don't we "fuse" these two related notes into one? And, in any case, which is the source for the alterative date in parenthesis (21)?
 * Note's 4 link links to Plutarch's Ceasar and not Alexander.
 * "Alexander was a second cousin of the celebrated general Pyrrhus of Epirus, who was ranked by Hannibal as, depending on the source, either the best[9] or second-best (after Alexander)[10] commander the world had ever seen." I want to remind to the editors that this article is about Alexander and not Pyrrhus! The ranking of Pyrrhus generalship belongs to his own article; not here.
 * "in exile.[18][19][20][21]". This long strings of citations are &mdash; for me at least &mdash; annoying and spread like a plague throughout the article. I don't want to advertize my work in other articles, but there are ways to avoid this problem (if you regard it as a problem, of course!).
 * I think that Alexander's major role in the Battle of Chaeronea is not adequately emphasized. After all, it was one of the first times he demonstrated his strategic and tactical brillance. I believe that further analysis and more secondary sources are needed on this point.
 * "Philip was then named Hegemon (often translated as 'Supreme Commander') of this league (known by modern historians as the League of Corinth). He then announced [...]" Prose problems, and not only here.
 * "During the wedding banquet, a drunken Attalus made a speech praying to the gods that the union would produce a legitimate heir to the Macedonian throne. Alexander shouted to Attalus, "What am I then, a bastard?" and he threw his goblet at him. Philip, who was also drunk, drew his sword and advanced towards Alexander before collapsing, leading Alexander to say, "See there, the man who makes preparations to pass out of Europe into Asia, overturned in passing from one seat to another."" Too much detail! And especially when you have the whole text of Plutarch again next to the main prose in a box! Why do you feel the need to repeat it word by word?
 * "Philip had four of Alexander's friends, Harpalus, Nearchus, Ptolemy and Erigyius exiled, and had the Corinthians bring Thessalus to him in chains." Ok with Thessalus, but what was the involvement of his other friends who were arrested to this case?
 * "Alexander was proclaimed king by the Macedonian army and by the Macedonian noblemen at the age of 20." No mention to the rumors that Alexander may have played a role to his father's death. Not the most plausible version, but historians do deal with this explanation as well.
 * "At the ancient Phrygian capital of Gordium, Alexander 'undid' the hitherto unsolvable Gordian Knot, a feat said to await the future "king of Asia"." You presented as an historical event, although it may well be a legend. At least, this is what prominent historians argue (see Apostolidis' comments in Droysen's History). Only later in the article, it is clarified that this is probably a "tale".
 * The section "Assyria and Babylonia" is IMO too stubby. Ok with WP:SS but three lines for Gaugamela in Alexander's article is IMO completely inadequate. This is what I also believe for Tyre's siege. You say it was "famous", and the reader does not get an answer to their question: "Why?" One of the most brilliant achievements of Alexander and a monumental siege in the history of warfare needs some further analysis. In the article, you write more for Bucephalus and less for Gaugamela and Tyre! This is not logical.
 * "A plot against his life was revealed, and one of his officers, Philotas, was executed for failing to bring the plot to his attention." Wasn't there also an accusation against Philotas that he was involved in the plot or am I mistaken?
 * "After Alexander traveled to Ecbatana to retrieve the bulk of the Persian treasure, his closest friend and possibly lover[125] Hephaestion died of an illness, or possibly of poisoning.[126]" What do secondary sources say about the poisoning version?
 * "After Aornos, Alexander crossed the Indus and fought and won an epic battle against a local ruler Porus, who ruled a region in the Punjab, in the Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC." Some reference to Alexander's tactical brillance is again desperately needed. For instance, how he crossed the river, and how he faced the elephants.
 * The "Possible causes" section is IMO too long. All versions could easily be summarized in one paragraph, and that's enough.
 * "Testament": Do secondary sources agree about its existence? No italics needed at the end of the section per MoS.
 * Personally, I would incororate "Megalomania" into "Personality". And don't you think that on this and other issues you may over-rely on Green?
 * "It is possible that Alexander was simply not a highly sexed person." Do you have a source or it is OR?
 * "Aspects of the Hellenistic culture were still evident in the traditions of the Byzantine Empire up until the mid-15th century." This is a repetition of the same sentence of the lead. Anything more to add?
 * "In ancient and modern culture" seems stubby, and, in general, not well-worked. There is also a "citation needed" template there.
 * And last but not least: Where is the section analyzing his strategic and tactical brilliance? Nowhere! And this is a major major major major problem of the article. You trim the details of his battles (and you often overdo it as I indicated); you don't have a special section on that; and then the reader does not understand reading and rereading the article why he was a great general, as you say in the lead. And this is a problem with the lead as well, which should reflect and summarize the main article. You devote in the lead two sentences on his strategic abilities; where is then the corresponding analysis in the main article?
 * To summarize in one word, the main problem of the article is called "balance"; it is unbalanced (and on that I disagree with SilkTork that "very well judged amount of detail in most places"). I learn many details about his quarrel with his father and his horse but not about his great battles, some of the greatest in military history; I learn a lot (maybe more than what I need!) about his sex preference, but not about why he was a great general.

Good luck to the editors of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Yannismarou - you have made some intelligent, erudite and useful comments. Everyone involved in the article will be very grateful for your excellent input. I think we agree that the article needs to be cut back in certain areas and built up in others. I do feel though, that on the whole, for a general encyclopaedia, the article deals mostly quite decently with the overview of of Alexander's life and campaigns. This is a fairly big topic - it's a level 3 Vital article, one of the 1,000 most important topics. Such topics are difficult to do well, and - while there are flaws which people will attend to as part of the ongoing development of the article - it's important to recognise what has been achieved, and to give people a pat on the back. This article rivals the Encyclopaedia Britannica's online article in terms of selection and presentation of information. That said, though, I think all your comments and suggestions should be attended to. They are not all needed for the article to meet GA standards, as the criteria is not as exacting as for FA, but they are all useful.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, excellent peer-review. It's good to see you back, Yanni. I will try to help over the next few days in the limited ways that I can... Athenean (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia - Macedon
...One quick question to everyone: Since most English speakers associate the term "Macedonia" with the new country, would "...was a king of the ancient kingdom of Macedon" be ok? After all, the article begins with "Alexander of Macedon...". Athenean (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, what matters is to stick to whatever choice you make. Because now I read in the lede about "Alexander king of Macedonia", and somewhere in the article about "Philip of Macedon". Consistency is what matters IMO.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Changed it to "Macedon" per the consistency argument. I will try to implement some of your other suggestions in the coming days. Athenean (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I like consistency. Where I'm curious is that Macedon redirects to Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Which name should it be? It's useful to have consistency between as well as within articles. Or is this leading to some long-standing name dispute? Also, as there is some question of confusion, might it be appropriate to briefly identify where Macedon is, or what it was.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been previous discussions about the use of the name - this one appears the most helpful. I agree it's good to have one name and stick with it, though if there are going to be queries and questions and possible edit wars, it might be worth having a discussion before deciding on which name to use - particularly when there has been a previous discussion which decided the other way round! Added to this, is a list of Alexander's wives which use places as part of the name - Roxana of Bactria, Stateira II of Persia, Parysatis II of Persia, but which link to articles in which the places are not given as part of their names. I don't want to get bogged down in this, and I don't fully understand all the issues - I just don't want there to be hasty decisions made on this article which conflict with considered decisions made on another article. Having looked at GoogleBooks, I see that Macedon is sometimes used and Macedonia is sometimes used. Would it be awkward or inelegant to use an initial wording which made readers aware there are two alternative names for the same place? "...was a king of Macedon or Macedonia, a state in the north eastern region of Greece [or Ancient Greece]"  SilkTork  *YES! 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Both names are correct; Macedon is the Greek, Macedonia the Latin, form; as often, English tends to Latinize, as being closer to English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I had a feeling both would be acceptable.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Greekness
I noted above that I felt a section on the controversy regarding Alexander's Greekness might be appropriate. I am wondering now if the Lineage and childhood section would deal adequately enough with his nationality to cover the question. I hope it might, though I have doubts as when I have read about Alexander previously, there has been issues surrounding his attitude toward the Greeks, especially as they often fought against him as mercenaries, and there seemed to be a difference in attitude toward Macedonians and Greeks. Two books I have just picked up from my local library both deal with the "Greek question". Paul Cartledge devotes a chapter to it, while Ian Worthington opens with it, but more in relation to the question of Macedonians as a whole, rather than specifically Alexander. However, as two source books mention it, I am wondering if this article could deal with it a little more boldly. I have read Yannismarou's view that "the issue is not the Greekness of one person but of a nation", and would welcome other opinions.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, I repeat that I disagree with the addition of a section concerning Alexander's "Greekness". As I said, the issue is not the "nationality" of a person, but of a whole people, the ancient Macedonians, and their relation with the rest of the Greeks. And, when we speak about "Greekness", what do we mean exactly in an era, when national identity did not have the meaning it has today? If we mean the relations of ancient Macedonians with the other ancient Greeks, then the article treats the issue, when it speaks about Alexander's will (like his father) to become leader of the Amphictyonic League, and to lead an army against the Persians as hegemon of all Greeks. The article also treats the issue in the section "Hellenization", when it explains how Alexander (intentionally or unintentionally is another issue) spread the Greek culture. Or when it explains Macedonia's complex relations with the other Greek kingdoms or city-states, which led to the destruction of Thebes, the Battle of Chaeronea, the creation of the Hellenic League etc. All these issues are treated and analyzed in the article. Do some of these topics need reorganization and expansion? I said yes, and I repeat that. Do we need a section about his "Greekness"? I believe no, since we do not even know what this means! We need no theoritical and fruitless analyses about modern terms we created, in order to describe some things we do not fully understand. We need of course to speak about his volatile relations with the other Greeks, his education, his contribution to the creation of the Hellenistic Era etc. etc. But all the material is already there, and just needs some "professional" tweaks here and there. I personally feel more fruitful to discuss about sections that the article really lucks, such as why he was a great general. Additionally, based on my experience in such areas, I am afraid that such a section will inevitably open the doors for POV-pushing and edit-wars by various sides. A "Greekness" section is by definition controversial, and we'll get controversy with no parallel substantial gains for the article. I am afraid that we'll trap once again ourselves in an endless debate around a term ("Greekness"), which did not exist at Alexander's time, when "nationality" was understood in a different way, which we do not fully understand, and which fails to describe the complexity of the relations of Alexander's era. Finally, I admit I have a difficulty to fully understand the term "boldly". What's not treated right now "boldly" as regards the "Greekness" question? What is missing exactly, that makes such a section so necessary? As I said, I believe basically everything is there concerning the topic "Alexander and the Greeks" (if we mean how he felt himself about his nationality, unfortunately we have no written words of his saying "I feel" or "I feel not Greek"!). In two words, I thing the best way to deal with Alexander's "Greekness" is to let his life speak for itself, presented comprehensively and nicely written, and let each reader make their conclusions for themselves. I may be wrong, but honestly that is how I would approach the article if I decided to re-write it in order to upgrade it, trying to be "objective" during this effort (as objective can a Greek be, when writing about Alexander!).--Yannismarou (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yannismarou here, a "Greekness" section would open a whole can of worms and would cause more problems that it would solve. Moreover, the issue is best discussed in Ancient Macedonians, not in this article. Athenean (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am inclined toward the view that there is already discussion about Alexander's "Greekness" in the Lineage and childhood section, and that other aspects of Alexander's relationship to matters Greek is present in the article. However, as I am aware that reliable sources do specifically comment on the issue, and I suspect that some general readers may come to Wikipedia to get a summary of the views on that matter (not about the Greekness of Macedonia, but about Alexander himself), having a brief section on the matter, perhaps under the title "Relationship with the Greeks", might be more appropriate than not having one. I understand the argument that such a section might be a target for edit warring; and while Wikipedia doesn't censor itself, or shy away from controversy, there is no need to go around waving red flags if it can be avoided. I can see both sides of the arguement - a)It's all already there, so no need to be provocative and b)A specific summary of the issue would be useful for those who don't wish to spend an hour or more reading and analying the whole article - and it's an aspect of reliable sources on Alexander. I'd like to hear more views.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two contesting fringe theories: that Alexander was Greek (whatever that means); that he was not Greek (whatever that means). Both involve an analysis of the foundation legend of the ancient Macedonian state, about the youngest of three brothers and a sunbeam - and other equally dubious evidence. Reliable modern sources will tend to avoid both, except to note in passing that the ancient sources divide Alexander's armies and generals into "Greeks" (Hellenes) and "Macedonians" (Makedones), and that contemporary evidence (such as there is) is colored - in both directions - by the campaign of Alexander's father to be accepted as Greek.  Since both fringe views happen to be of political importance this decade in the Southern Balkans, we have editors who insist on putting one or the other in anywhere it can be jammed into place. Let's have as little as possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although we do agree on the conclusion, I don't think I fully agree with Sept as regards the term "fringe" and its use. I may have not read on the issue as many books as Sept does, but I do watch tv, and History Channel! Well, in a recent documentary about Alexander's campaign in India (in "BATTLES BC"), all the historians who spoke (I think they were 5 of them; all of them Americans) only used the term "Greek" for both Alexander and his army. I heard the word "Greek" about 20 times, and the word "Macedonian" only one! Were they all of them fringe and politically motivated? And they are not in the Balkans by the way ...--Yannismarou (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's 99-1 that they don't edit Wikipedia; it is also somewhere close to 99-1 that they are more careful in writing than in the non-peer-reviewed and extremely brief medium of TV - with a side bet to cover the possibility that they are not classicists at all, but sociologists, "military historians" or Surveyors of the Universe like the unfortunate Edward Luttwak. Simply explaining "Macedon" would be five minutes of time spent off-topic, presuming the program began with the descent from the Hindu Kush; whereas the audience thinks they know what "Greece" is.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 370 classical scholars from around the world can clarify things a bit... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that these BATTLES BC historians do not edit Wikipedia is maybe something positive for them;for sure, their abstention from Wikipedia makes them more credible in my eyes! Anyway, even if I accept that all of them were Luttwak-like historians, I still disagree strongly with your opinion that the scholars who believe that Alexander (and the ancient Macedonians in general) was Greek constitute a "fringe" theory. The bibliography speaks for itself. But I do intend to keep my disagreement with you on the talk page, insisting on the opinion I expressed in the beginning of this thread. When I re-wrote the article about Pericles, I did not feel the need to "prove" that he was ancient Greek or to explicitely mention it in the lead. The history and, in our "Wikipedian" case, the history "confined" into an encyclopedic article speaks for itself. This (should) happen with Alexander's (and any other) article as well. The facts are there, and the reader who is inquisitive will get the incentives he/she needs to make her/his own research. And the job of a good article is to give him these incentives. After all, you said, Sept, that Alexander's father organized a campaign in order to be accepted as Greek. This is enough for me! If somebody wants to be regarded as Greek and even organizes a whole campaign to achieve it, I don't need to add anything else in Philip's article. I'll just refer to the fact, and that's it ...--Yannismarou (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexander's father organized a campaign in order to be accepted as Greek. So did Nero. Was he Greek? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An unlucky comparison; Philip was Greek, while Nero wanted to be Greek. N. G. L. Hammond, expert on Macedon: "Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine, descent... Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian"... (Philip of Macedon, Duckworth Publishing, February 1998) A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still interested in Yannis's opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to answer anything to your question. Nero is simply irrelevant. But, I really feel the need to repeat what I said earlier: We trie to explain situations of the past with tools of the present, which is wrong. The meaning of "Greek" was different from today's meaning of the same word. Because there was no coherent Greek conscience in the ancient Greek world. It is not strange that Demosthenes called the Macedonians barbarians, and the same did Thucydides for other Greeks (beyond the slightest doubt!), the Aetolians, who resided just a few kilometres from Corinth! But what does this mean? What is the final conclusion of this series of thoughts (if we accept this rationale)? That true ancient Greeks were only the Athenians? Following this rationale, I declare that the Dorians were no Greeks! They had significant differences in terms of culture, language (a different dialect), social organisation etc. etc. from the Ionians, and I thus believe now that we should not accept them as real Greeks. Of course no discussion for the Macedonians, the Thessalians, the Molossians etc. etc. I told you: only the Athenians were true Greeks!
 * It's clear that I do not actually espouse the above conclusion, and that this line of thoughts is wrong. Because we cannot exclude from what we call "ancient Greek World" people, like the Macedonians who definitely constituted a part of the ancient Greek civilization, culture etc. Of course, there were differences between the various tribes, people, states etc. etc. But this does not mean that I'll accept a restrictive approach which is clearly wrong. Anyway, I don't feel that I have to prove anything. The scholars' community has in its majority a quite clear approach. As a matter of fact, I was impressed when I read some comments from archaelogists of the Louvre Museum, who said, on the occasion of an exhibition about Alexander, that most people in France know that Alexander was a Greek; but not that he was a Macedonian as well!
 * In any case, all these discussions with Sept and the other editors (which I really enjoy, despite our obvious differences) are theoritical, and a bit irrelevant. And they cannot obscure the main problem here: that some weeks after the nomination of the article I see nobody interested in seriously working on it; neither the nominator nor anybody else. Only Silk Tork shows a sincere willingness to help, and he is the reviewer! What do other users do? As I see in the article's edit history, they continue (at least, some of them) to care only about the word "Greek" in the lead. This is what they regard as the main issue in the article! And this is IMO a clear indication of their limited knowledge about the article they decide to edit. Moreover, this is a clear indication that there is no user with the eagerness, background and writing skills, who intends to seriously work on the article. Until then, we'll watch the word "Greek" leave and come back numerous times &mdash; and the real drama is that these users, focusing on this (nonsentic) issue, believe that they are occupied with something serious and important! The do not realize that this is not the essence! Unfortunately, until the moment that the editors (occasional or not) will understand where the real issues lie, I'm afraid that we'll see no real improvements in the article. Only the same vicious circles again and again and again ... Poor article, and poor Alexander who cannot have the article you deserve in Wikipedia.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While this review has been bubbling along I have been doing some background reading, so if nobody does step up to the plate I will make a section on Alexander's generalship (depending on who you read his success is due to luck, to his father's military skills and siege weapons, to Persian disorganisation, to almost anything but Alexander himself!, apart from Alexander's skill at leading and inspiring his men - a not inconsiderable feat, especially in taking over control of his father's generals - anyway, there are, thankfully, sources which do explain how Alexander used speed and decisiveness, and concentrated attacks in one vulnerable place, thus weakening even the largest foes). Also, I will look at a section on Alexander's relationship with the Greeks. At present I don't think there is quite enough already in the article, even without a distinct section bringing the threads together. His use (or non use, especially in battle) of Greek troops/mercenaries, his dismissal of the Athenian fleet, his treatment of captured Greek mercenaries, his later adoption of Persian customs, etc. These are items that are not just the subject of scholarship, but are part of the popular perception of Alexander.
 * I have always agreed with Yannismarou's view that there is quite a bit of work to do to make this a fully comprehensive article; and I accept that the tertiary sources I have consulted for similarities in structure and overview will be making decisions which will leave out some significant details; however, where I have previously felt that this article was essentially almost complete enough to meet the GA criteria of "broad coverage" (which is less than FA's "comprehensive"), I am now wondering if it will be quite "broad" enough. I will, though, have a go. Even if a GA review doesn't always end in an article being listed, the process in general does improve the article which is always a net gain.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Generalship
There are a number of sources specifically on Alexander's generalship. I wouldn't expect a big, detailed section on this for GA purposes, but a decent enough start with an overview of the sort of strategies he used, and the relationship he had with his men.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold 14 days
I think that while there is a bit of work to do, 14 days should be enough if people get involved and work together. I'm putting this on hold until 26 Jan.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The present wave of editing contains apple-polishing like this and this reinstatement of a piece of hero-worship cited to a tertiary source; I omit the Single Purpose Account, which is reliably reverted. The reliance on primary and tertiary sources alone would take more than two weeks to fix; the various flavors POV-pushing will take admin action, which mere national bias is unlikely to attract.


 * I do not see a net improvement, but will be happy to look again towards the end of the month; please remind me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I have reinstated the line regarding Hephaestion being a possible lover, as that appears to be a widely held view, though I understand the reasons for the removal - the cited source was not explicit. I have put in a source - it was the first one I found that could be easily linked and read by the general reader; it may be replaced by a stronger source, though it would be appropriate to select a source that can be consulted on GoogleBooks. The line regarding Alexander being a notable general is more than appropriate - it is an essential statement that needs to be made prominently and early on in the lead. The source is first class - it is a reliable source, published by a reliable and reputable scholarly publisher and written by a highly respected military historian who is cited 220 times on Wikipedia.
 * I note your further comments on sourcing. I hadn't perceived the sourcing to be a particular issue, though I see that further up, Aldux has also made a comment on the use of primary sources. Is there a belief that Plutarch is a WP:Primary source? Granted he was writing a long time ago, but that a source is old, doesn't make it primary. Plutarch based his work on Alexander on other sources. Plutarch appears to be no different in that regard from a modern historian. Plutarch is writing 400 years after Alexander, so is not a contemporary. One may have questions to ask about Plutarch, and it is fully appropriate and expected that a range of sources will be used in this article in addition to Plutarch, but to omit Plutarch would be inappropriate as my understanding is that he is regarded as an important source.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jona Lendering regards Plutarch as a good source.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if you regard Plutarch as a secondary source, it is not a sufficient secondary source. He needs backing (at least in most cases) by more modern sources. I don't believe that we should omit Plutarch, but I also don't see anybody proposing that (Aldux absolutely correct remarks on Plutarch do not mean that he proposes his omission). I do believe, however, that he needs backing by "real" secondary sources in many occasions.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Plutarch is an unavoidable primary source. He was secondary in his own time - and he is unusual in his time for the frequency with which he cites his own sources; but by and large they are lost except for his citations and we cannot check them.
 * He did not intend to write a history; the closest genre we have to the Parallel Lives is the inspirational self-help manual. This means that quite often Plutarch will choose the good story over the plausible one - and his standards of plausibility are not ours to begin with. This is a particular problem with Alexander, whom Plutarch is presenting as the model monarch; the reason to use modern secondary sources is for their judgment on what actually happened. (Was Philip killed by Pausanias? Yes. Was Alexander actually begotten by a giant snake? No. Yet Plutarch is the source for both, and the alternative sources like Justin or Diodorus are no better.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My motto when writing an arcicle is "put as many (reliable of course!) sources as you can". If Plutarch can be backed with more reliable secondary sources, this should be done. In any case, I agree on both aforementioned remarks: 1) Yes, Plutarch did not intend to write history, so whatever Lendering or anybody else may say, Plutarch is not always reliable. 2) Nevertheless, Plutarch is unavoidable, because his text is per se a very importan source, despite its deficiencies in terms of historical accuracy.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And what Lendering means is clear: Plutarch - and Arrian - are better than the echoes of Alexander's official propaganda and than the legends of the Alexander Romance of pseudo-Callisthenes. They are; that's not saying very much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all input. I think we are all in agreement. Plutarch is an important source to use, and other sources should be used as well, and if there is something contentious, a reliable modern source which can be accessed easily by the general reader is the most appropriate. If people are aware of any contentious or questionable statement that might be challenged and which is not sourced to an appropriate reliable source, then please let me know and I'll look into it.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice of closing
I am aware this Review has gone on for some time with little work done. I intend to do some work myself, but haven't yet found the time. It would be inappropriate to keep this Review open endlessly, so I am giving notice that I will close the Review in seven days (6 Feb) if there has been no significant attempt to broaden the coverage in line with the comments above. Closing the Review will have little impact on the article itself, and once work has been done to improve broad coverage, the article can be nominated again.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Close as fail
Closing as fail. Lack of broad coverage. I still have some library books here, so I have a firm intention to find the time and motivation to do some work on this article. I am just coming into a bit of spare time, so might be able to focus on this shortly.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)