Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corinthian War

Corinthian War
Self nom. Everyone knows about the Peloponnesian War, but fewer people have heard about its successor, this little excercise in futility, in which ancient Greece spent another 8 years trying to bludgeon itself into a pulp. Draws on all the relevant ancient sources and several good modern commentaries. RobthTalk 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks excellent. The one suggestion I would make would be changing the title of the section "394 BC," as well as generally changing dates from BC to CE. (The title of the section should probably be changed to something other than a year, anyways...) The Disco King 22:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you were to change the initials, wouldn't it be BCE, not CE? Andjam 00:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's BC in all our other ancient history articles; we should probably keep it like this for consistency. RobthTalk 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia community spent a long time bludgeoning itself into a pulp over AD/BC / BCE/CE before reaching the solution that either is acceptable, as with American English and British/International English. See WP:MOSDATE. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, whether it's BCE or BC, I still don't think "394 BC" is a good title for that section. The Disco King 16:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Has now been retitled. RobthTalk 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, everything raised during the peer review has been adressed and this is an otherwise excellent article. I would make the map a little smaller, though; it takes up most of the screen even on 1024x768. Kirill Lok s  h in 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Shrank the map. Looks better. RobthTalk 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- Noticed a few things.
 * 1) The Corinthian War (395 BC-387 BC) was an ancient Greek military conflict between Sparta and four allied states, Thebes, Athens, Corinth, and Argos, initially backed by Persia. What was backed by Persia, Argos or the Corinthian War?
 * Rephrased for clarity.
 * 1) The immediate cause of the war was a local conflict in northwestern Greece in which both Thebes and Sparta intervened, but the deeper cause was hostility towards Sparta provoked by that city's unilateral domination of Greek politics in the years following the Peloponnesian War. Quite a long sentence...split this up replacing but with however. Also, a description of the local conflict would be helpful.
 * Sentence has been split. Further details are given in the relevant body section of the article.
 * 1) The effects of the war, therefore, were to establish Persia's ability to interfere successfully in Greek politics and to affirm Sparta's hegemonic position in the Greek political system. I don't think this is what you mean and makes almost no sense...I think you mean the effects of war enabled Persia to interfere...(and so on).
 * I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but I think it says what I'm trying to say right now, which is that the effects of the war were to make it clear that the Greek political system was a Spartan dominated system in which Persia wielded great influence with its financial clout. This had largely been the case at the start of the war, but was essentially codified by the end.
 * 1) ''Agesilaus campaigned effectively against the Persians, advancing as far inland as Sardis, in Lydia. Put the comma clause after Lydia for clarity.
 * Changed.
 * 1) battle of Haliartus , battle of Nemea, battle of Cnidus, battle of Coronea,battle of Lechaeum.  Capitalize Battle
 * Done.
 * 1) but then defeating a group of Thebans who pursued too enthusiastically. How did the Theband pursue "too enthusiastically"? meaning is unclear.
 * Expanded and clarified.
 * 1) The allies then sent emissaries to a number of smaller states, and received the support of many of them. The comma is not needed.
 * Removed.
 * 1) which he placed under the command of his inexperienced brother-in-law Peisander How is Peisander inexperienced? Don't put in those kinds of adjectives unless you explain it.
 * Clarified.
 * 1) Thibron was later replaced by Diphridas, who raided more successfully but without achieving any dramatic results. Again, explain what you mean by "more successfully"
 * Expanded and clarified
 * 1) No Argive army challenged him, so he plundered the countryside for a time, and then, after receiving several unfavorable omens, returned home. So's aren't a good idea for FA's. Perhaps a better way of phrasing would be Since no Argive army challenged him, she plundered the countryside for a time...etc.
 * Changed
 * 1) democrats Capitalization?
 * No. These are, as they say "small-d democrats," that is, supporters of democracy as a political system.  The capital is generally reserved for the US political party.
 * 1) He, judging that he could accomplish more by campaigning where the Spartan fleet was not than by challenging it directly, sailed to the Hellespont, where he won over several major states to the Athenian side and, at Byzantium, established a system for collecting dues on ships sailing through the Hellespont, as had been done during the later part of the Peloponnesian War. Again, another long, slightly confusing sentence.
 * Split and rephrased.
 * 1) had outlived its usefulness For clarity's sake, "was no longer useful" is better phrasing.
 * Changed.
 * 1) king Capitialization?
 * Changed.
 * 1) treary Treary? Me thinks you mean treaty.
 * What do you mean? Of course I meant treary.  Ain't you ever heard of a treary? (...Changed.)
 * 1) were utterly abandoned to the Persians.  Cut out utterly.
 * I rephrased it, but the information needs to stay.
 * 1) Six red links a little much. (I'm not saying to cut them out, I'm suggesting to make them blue).
 * I've been working my way through these--there were originally about 12. I should be done by the weekend.
 * 1) No external links
 * There really aren't a lot of good internet sources for this kind of topic. I haven't seen anything that really seems worth putting in.
 * The writing, at times, was confusing, and the way you split up the article is also kind of odd. Sory about the screwed up numbering and hope I helped... -Osbus 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All interspersed comments above are mine. Hopefully this addresses your concerns.  Thanks for the comments!  RobthTalk 03:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good comments, but neither the presence of redlinks nor the absence of external links is a problem. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * External links can he helpful, and more than three red links, in my opinion, is a little much. But since all of the above has been mostly addressed,
 * Oh, sure, external links can be helpful, and it is nice to turn red links blue, but what I meant by "not a problem" was "is not relevant in terms of WP:WIAFA". -- ALoan (Talk) 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. -Osbus 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Terrific article.UberCryxic 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment one of the quotes is missing an opening " - also there are a few short paragraphs. Other then that it looks good. Just another star in the night T 01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone else commented on the short sections earlier; I've merged the two shortest. I can't seem to find this missing quotation mark, though. RobthTalk 05:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose No external links or see also sections. The section title "Sparta wins on land but loses at sea" doens't sound right.  Also, the footnotes should be above the refrences, not below.  Tobyk777 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed the heading to "War on land and sea (394 BC)." As far as the others, see also is only necessary if there are relevant links that haven't been included in the article body, and external links only if there are external links that provide added value.  In terms of section order at the bottom, I don't know that there's a clear preference; I always put the footnotes last since I figure people will be coming to them by clicking on a note rather than scrolling all the way down to them.  RobthTalk 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I found the unbalanced quotation mark; it was right before footnote 44. In my own (exalted) judgment, "See Also" sections are at best superfluous, so I don't regret the lack of one here.  Anville 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support (I commented before :)) Just another star in the night T 14:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I like history, this is a Historical Article that must be featured. Anonymous anonymous 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, support, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: In light of this post on the mailing list, I've replaced the vase painting at the start of the article with a US government image, just to be on the safe side copyright-wise.  RobthTalk 02:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional support, the condition being that the one-paragraph sections get merged into other sections or expanded. One-paragraph sections are very ugly. --Cel es tianpower háblame 11:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are only four one-paragraph section, three in the section "War on land and sea (394 BC)", each of which refers to an important battle (Nemea, Cnidus, Coronea), and the introductory paragraph in the section "Later events (393 BC to 388 BC)". I'm sorry, but I think they should stay.  I would be tempted to add main, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The "later events" one is fine, it's not a section outright. Why don't you merge the three into a three paragraph section (War on land and sea) and add a main tag to the top, citing all three? --Cel es tianpower háblame 12:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That (one large section) was actually the original format; I changed it because it made for a rather longish section. I just went through and added main to the three battle sections, but I would like to keep them; I think they're rather logical breaking points.  RobthTalk 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can live with that, full support, great article. --Cel es tianpower háblame 10:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)