Talk:Greco-Persian Wars/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC) and Wandalstouring (talk)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References needed:
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments from Nikkimaria
Most of the following comments deal with prose/MOS issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * this tool finds several disambiguation links and double redirects.
 * Ref 7 is a dead link
 * ✅. Removed, it wasn't particularly important anyway.
 * Should be consistent in calling the opponents of the Greeks either the "Persian Empire" or the "Achaemenid Empire"
 * The problem here is that the formal name is 'Achaemenid Empire', but 'Achaemenids' would refer to the family, not the people, who were 'Persians' (at least theoretically). It is therefore necessary to switch between the two as appropriate. But I can certainly remove references to the 'Persian Empire'.
 * Caption for Battle of Salamis picture?
 * ✅. Whoops. Added one.
 * What do the symbols next to certain commanders in the infobox represent?
 * That they were killed in action - this is pretty standard in military history infoboxes.
 * Section headings should not start with "The" (The Hellenic Alliance -> Hellenic Alliance). They should also not use characters like "&". Under Bibliography, only the first letter of each subheading should be capitalized
 * "See also" is meant to be for links that are not included in the main article text
 * Caption of infobox picture is unclear - do you mean "on" instead of "of"?
 * Should consistently use either American or British spelling
 * ✅ I think
 * Avoid using redundant words: "many", "any", "some", "all" are often not required and may interrupt the flow of the passage
 * ✅ At least where they disrupted the flow.
 * Should avoid using personal pronouns like "we"
 * Comma not needed in first sentence
 * ✅ Removed.
 * Try to maintain a strict encyclopedic tone at all times - avoid colloquialisms, conversational language, WP:WTA, etc.
 * ✅ Amended inappropriate passages
 * Should avoid wikilinking the same term more than once or twice
 * The use of passive voice should be minimized
 * This use of the passive is not in any sense incorrect. It is purely a choice issue. It certainly shouldn't prevent this article becoming a GA.
 * Some problems with inclusion/lack of commas - commas are usually included at natural breaks in the sentence, and comma use in this article should be checked
 * ✅ Sorted.
 * Words like "despatched" and "whilst" are often considered to be deprecated - consider "dispatched" and "while"
 * ✅ Changed.
 * Check use of "that" versus "which" - grammar issue
 * ✅ Changed as appropriate; though note that it is not incorrect to use 'which' for 'that'; this is, again, a personal choice.
 * Missing/misusing hyphens for some terms, for example "city states" -> "city-states".
 * ✅ I think.
 * I would suggest reading through the article out loud looking for potential problems with clarity and flow - there are several instances of poorly worded phrases and unclear sentences. This is not strictly a grammar check (although that would help), but deals with word order and word choice
 * The article also needs some copy-editing for grammar - trying running it through a MS Word grammar & style check, or try to recruit a "grammar Nazi"
 * ✅ I think.
 * "With the completion of the pacification of Ionia, the Persians began planning their next moves; to..." - should use a colon instead of a semi-colon here
 * A couple errors in spelling and choice of homophones (uses "there" when it should be "their", "sacrificied", etc)
 * The link under "Permission" for the Persian Empire 490 BC image is dead. The links for the Battle of Marathon diagram are also dead, and the licensing indicates that a credit line is required. Battle of Thermopylae - second link is dead. Battle of Salamis - link is dead.
 * ✅ Sorted these out.
 * ✅ I think.
 * "With the completion of the pacification of Ionia, the Persians began planning their next moves; to..." - should use a colon instead of a semi-colon here
 * A couple errors in spelling and choice of homophones (uses "there" when it should be "their", "sacrificied", etc)
 * The link under "Permission" for the Persian Empire 490 BC image is dead. The links for the Battle of Marathon diagram are also dead, and the licensing indicates that a credit line is required. Battle of Thermopylae - second link is dead. Battle of Salamis - link is dead.
 * ✅ Sorted these out.
 * The link under "Permission" for the Persian Empire 490 BC image is dead. The links for the Battle of Marathon diagram are also dead, and the licensing indicates that a credit line is required. Battle of Thermopylae - second link is dead. Battle of Salamis - link is dead.
 * ✅ Sorted these out.

Comments from Wandalstouring
Wandalstouring (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Siege of Sestos in the first chapter links back to this article. Needs to link to more specific information.
 * The minor authors merit a tad more information on bias and reliability.
 * I agree - to be done.
 * There are too many sections solely referenced with primary sources. I support refering to primary sources, but you must also point out which secondary source you use for your statements. For example the story about the Ionian migration to Asia Minor is contested, there are also source for a Ionian migration to Greece and new evidence is unearthed for migrations during the Bronze Age and not just during the Dark Age.
 * I agree in general about sections referenced only with primary sources.
 * For this "movement" in the dark ages I want more than Herodot as a source. Any such immigration theory must have an accepted archeological basis or it's nonsense. Also this idea about the temple for Ionian cities needs some backup other than Herodot. there are more primary and secondary works on the topic.
 * ✅ I have added some secondary sources to this, and changed the it to a "Herodotus suggests..." type of paragraph. I don't think any further detail is needed for this article. Obviously, if you want to add any, then that's fine; you probably have better access to information than me on this one.
 * Military equipment and tactics merit mention because the Greek victory is mainly attributed to them while the Persians were definetly able to conquer Greek Asia Minor. The Persian system of combining archers and spearmen (sparabara) reminds me of Assyrian warfare with the addition of better cavalry, at least the Assyrians were quite influential for the military development in the region of the Persian Empire. For the Greeks you have during this time the switch to the hoplite from looser formations and the introduction of the trireme instead of the double-deck penteconters. There's also a difference between Phoenician and Greek triremes that should briefly be highlighted.
 * This is clearly beyond the scope of the article. This is a summary style article; to discuss these kind of details is just not necessary. Details of tactics and military units etc. can be included in the sub-articles (like we did in Second Persian invasion of Greece, but do not make sense in a primarily narrative article like this.
 * I don't think it's beyond the scope if you write briefly that the Greeks had bodyarmour that was arrowproof, heavy shields and attacked in phalanxes with longer spears than the Persians. The Persians had a large force of drafted soldiers from all over their Empire who fought with bows, shorter spears, wicker shields and only few had bodyarmour. Thus the fighting was very much a Greek affair on land and at sea where the Greek marines played an important role. You get an extra bonus if you point out how recent the introduction of these weapons in Greece was. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then, if there are bonus points on offer, I'll give it a go...
 * The Greek light armed are missing, they were half the army. Just mention them once. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added the Greek light troops, and the Sparabara, as requested.
 * the "bubbling cauldron of discontent" needs to be more balanced. There are no reports that the Ionians revolted during the regime change from Cyrus's dynasty to Darius's dynasty, unlike elsewhere in the empire.
 * Agreed - I will look into it.
 * way too much detail about Miltiades, Themistokles and Aristides. Cut that paragraph and provide only a summary of the important facts for this war. Like for the Persians you left out most of their politics do the same for the Greeks.
 * Agreed - I have already cut this a bit, and will look to remove more.
 * You cite Holland too much. That Themistocles wanted a GREEK navy, not an Athenian is not supported by the primary sources and should be backed up by another historian. Also the statement that for the Greeks to survive things were needed is questionable. There were Greeks living in the Persian Empire. You could argue for the independence of Athens some things were needed, but that he thought national and not in political units needs more historians agreeing on this.
 * Agree about citing Holland too much (but see below). Regarding this paragraph, I will look into modifying it away from Holland's interpretation.
 * the stories connected with the battle of Marathon can be moved to the article about that battle, they totally distract in the overview of the war.
 * Agreed, and will look at. However, I think a brief mention of the Marathon race is called for, since that is what Marathon is now most famous for.
 * "In what Holland characterises as, in essence, the world's first referendum," is a questionable claim. Does Holland write "this was the world's first referendum" or is this your summary? If he doesn't write it remove this claim and just state it's a referendum because we have no idea who in this world held a referendum and whether it was before or after this event.
 * Holland does claim exactly this. I make no such claim. The exact text is:"but the ostracism of 482 BC was, in effect, the first referendum in history".
 * the construction of ships needs more backup for the interpretation than just Holland writing a general history and a primary historian. Was it only because of the Persians or was it voted for by the poor, the majority of the voters, who wanted to earn money rowing warships?
 * The section about Sparta needs more than one historian for the interpretation. Do all historians agree that the Persians let this message pass because the expected it to fulfill their purpose or was it a backdoor to go back to Sparta in case something went wrong with the Persians?
 * ✅ I've cleaned this up; it seems this anecdote is probably an insertion into Herodotus anyway.
 * "On the afternoon of the Battle of Plataea, Herodotus tells us that rumour of the Greek victory reached the Allied navy," is doubted very much by Lazenby. Please use secondary sources to present information critically.
 * I will add a note that Herodotus's view is generally regarded with skepticism.
 * ✅ + Citation
 * more to come...
 * the construction of ships needs more backup for the interpretation than just Holland writing a general history and a primary historian. Was it only because of the Persians or was it voted for by the poor, the majority of the voters, who wanted to earn money rowing warships?
 * The section about Sparta needs more than one historian for the interpretation. Do all historians agree that the Persians let this message pass because the expected it to fulfill their purpose or was it a backdoor to go back to Sparta in case something went wrong with the Persians?
 * ✅ I've cleaned this up; it seems this anecdote is probably an insertion into Herodotus anyway.
 * "On the afternoon of the Battle of Plataea, Herodotus tells us that rumour of the Greek victory reached the Allied navy," is doubted very much by Lazenby. Please use secondary sources to present information critically.
 * I will add a note that Herodotus's view is generally regarded with skepticism.
 * ✅ + Citation
 * more to come...
 * more to come...


 * Dear Wandalstouring, I am very glad that you are back reviewing articles. You never let me get away with lazy writing! You are, of course, mostly right about all of the above points. There are some general points I want to make though.
 * Firstly, please remember that this is a summary style article WP:SS. If some aspects are passed over with little detail, then that is deliberate. We cannot discuss everything to do with the Greco-Persian Wars here.
 * Secondly, this article was created mainly by condensing the various individual articles into as small a space as possible. This does not excuse the problems with referencing in much of the article, but I hope it explains it. So for instance, a statement in the article Battle of Thermopylae that read: "Herodotus says X happened.[ref] Modern historians think that Y.[ref]" has generally been condensed to "X happened.[ref]". This is why there are so many passages that only use primary sources; I did not deliberately set out to do it this way. However, I agree that there are points were a secondary source should be used to back this up. This is also why there are so many references to Holland; in the articles I re-wrote early on, I used Holland a lot (as you know). When I condensed those articles, the references to Holland also became condensed; again, I did not set out to deliberately include lots of Holland references. However, I am not going to spend my time replacing these references, if they do represent a general consensus amongst historians. I am of course happy to replace/add new references where Holland is presenting one of his non-representative views.


 * I have addressed your specific comments above. Many thanks for a thorough review so far. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the status on the review from both sides? Nice progress so far, but since this is the oldest GAN in the backlog hopefully things could be sped up a bit :) Wizardman  17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On hold. Replied on talk page. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am working on it. Apologies for the slow progress, but real life calls! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)