Talk:Wars of the Delian League/GA1

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

Before I begin the GA Review, let me apologize for the delay of this article's review. I see that it has been up for some time. Over the summer here there have been major backlogs on WP:GAN, due to the painfully small amount of active GA reviewers of late. I would encourage you (and everyone else) to review an article or two on the queue to help us all out!

I would also suggest splitting the article into multiple smaller articles. Though there is no policy dictating article size, WP:SIZE recommends that articles be no longer than 50 KB. When they get longer than that, users become hesitant to review them, and so the progress on the article is slowed significantly, as you have seen. — Ed! (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) "However, from what little we know of Ephorus, historians are generally disparaging towards his history." - Why is this? Also, avoid using "we" in the article.
 * Explained
 * 1) "This is based on an ancient scholiast's annonation of a copy of Aeschines's works." -Does the scholiast have a name? Is there some reason that they are annonymous? Please make this more clear.
 * The annotation is literally that; anonymous ancient jottings in the margins of a surviving manuscript. I have tried to make this clearer in the text.
 * 1) "The Siege of Eion may be similarly dated by the scholiast to Aechines." - There is a lot of passive voice such as this in the article. It should be reworded in active voice to something like, "The scholiast to Aechines similarly dates the Siege of Eion to this time" or something more clear.
 * Done
 * 1) Delian League is linked to as the "main article" for three sections streight. This is not necessary, the first link covers the point so the next two should be removed.
 * Done
 * 1) "Military Expansion of the League" and "Internal Rebellions" sections are short at one para each. Both should be merged into other larger sections, or made into subheads at least.
 * Done
 * 1) "Although Herodotus does not cover this period in his history, he tells us as an aside that..." Once again, don't use "us," the prose should be devoid of any references to the reader. "We" and "us" are used a few more times in the prose and should be removed.
 * Done (I think)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) "However, it is impossible to be certain about this." - It would be best if this statement were referenced by a modern historian, so it doesn't appear to be a statement of opinion.
 * Changed to be clearer
 * 1) "Given Ctesias's infamous inaccuracy, and the fact that this engagement is not mentioned elsewhere, and nor does the name of Charitimedes appear elsewhere, it is not clear whether this account should be accepted." - This also sounds like a statement of opinion, particularly using the word "infamous". It should either be reworded more neutrally or referenced.
 * Removed as unnecessary anyway
 * 1) Is there any way that the primary references can be put into one of the templates? I don't know if there is one specifically for them but it might look better.
 * I don't think there is one. I will have a look, but this seems to be the standard way of citing them.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold this is a very well written and exhaustive article. It has comparatively few issues facing it, and it can be promoted. — Ed! (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done. The article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. — Ed! (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)