Talk:Second Persian invasion of Greece/GA1

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

Wandalstouring (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Comments:
 * A section on the different armour and fighting sytles is missing. To a certain degree you can defend yourself against all missiles with an aspis(had a reenactor trying and Lazenby also writes that) and if it fails, the hoplite had still rather arrowproof bodyarmour. Furthermore, this Greek armour wasn't only excellent against the hail of missiles, but formidable for close combat with spears. The Persians had lighter armour and for this reason, as Herodotus points out, the close-combat was on rather unequal terms with fear soon striking the Persian troops. To balance this the Egyptian marines should be highlighted because they were up to the Greeks in close combat with spears.
 * Naturally, after the different combat styles have been highlighted, the question arises why the Persians didn't fight the Greeks with Greeks and Egyptians because they had quite a lot of hoplites in their conquered territories. The political changes in the occupied Greek settlements should be highlighted and how durable these were. Plus there must sure be some analyses why the Persian in many of their inscriptions mention all the people from their empire, never putting too much reliance on one group.
 * Mostly ✅. I have addressed the issue, though not quite how you described here. I have raised the issue of Ionian reliability/the recent Egyptian revolt, but pointed out that they still served in the navy, so the Persians can't have mistrusted them that much. I think I have covered this in sufficient detail - I don't want to labour the point too much.
 * A section on the different armour and fighting sytles is missing. To a certain degree you can defend yourself against all missiles with an aspis(had a reenactor trying and Lazenby also writes that) and if it fails, the hoplite had still rather arrowproof bodyarmour. Furthermore, this Greek armour wasn't only excellent against the hail of missiles, but formidable for close combat with spears. The Persians had lighter armour and for this reason, as Herodotus points out, the close-combat was on rather unequal terms with fear soon striking the Persian troops. To balance this the Egyptian marines should be highlighted because they were up to the Greeks in close combat with spears.
 * Naturally, after the different combat styles have been highlighted, the question arises why the Persians didn't fight the Greeks with Greeks and Egyptians because they had quite a lot of hoplites in their conquered territories. The political changes in the occupied Greek settlements should be highlighted and how durable these were. Plus there must sure be some analyses why the Persian in many of their inscriptions mention all the people from their empire, never putting too much reliance on one group.
 * Mostly ✅. I have addressed the issue, though not quite how you described here. I have raised the issue of Ionian reliability/the recent Egyptian revolt, but pointed out that they still served in the navy, so the Persians can't have mistrusted them that much. I think I have covered this in sufficient detail - I don't want to labour the point too much.
 * Mostly ✅. I have addressed the issue, though not quite how you described here. I have raised the issue of Ionian reliability/the recent Egyptian revolt, but pointed out that they still served in the navy, so the Persians can't have mistrusted them that much. I think I have covered this in sufficient detail - I don't want to labour the point too much.
 * MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done, I'll find more issues in a few days. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a second language speaker and stylistic issues give me a hard time, but I think your article is totally in need of a copyedit because of repeated similar sentence structure one after another and lots of uses of however, however, however where it could be omitted. It doesn't fail GA for this reason, but still, before admitting it to any further review, try this. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)