Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indo-Greek Kingdom/archive1

Indo-Greek Kingdom
Obscure, fascinating historical subject. Essentially self-nom PHG 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: A brillant outpouring, but it is rather long. Certain sections would benefit from being spun off into their own articles and summarised here (for example, the first section, history, and the last section, timeline, could be combined into an excellent - probably featurable - article on the History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom).  Otherwise, bravo. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I have added a few bits here and there, but the main work is of others - mostly PHG. There are few works in existence about this fascinating subject, and certainly none this comprehensive and multifoil. The Indo-Greeks are a great lost civilisation; their influence is subtle but traces of it remains in most Asian cultures; something which is reflected here, especially if one browses through the many "sequel" articles on Nomad kingdoms. I do agree with the previous speaker: a few spin off pages might be good. I suggest one for the kings (Rulers of the Indo-Greek kingdoms): the sequence is not quite established. A list of the most important kings could still be on the original page. --Sponsianus 15:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. I have few recommendations to make for the article - possibly, as proposed by Sponsianus, a separated page for the list of rulers. But as for generating a History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom page, -- I'm not so sure, as I feel the "Historical outline" section suits quite well where it is. Aldux 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. I'll vote after I actually read it all, but in the meantime, it certainly looks impressive! :) My only comment at the moment is please take a look at it in Safari or Firefox. There are a lot of images bumping into each other and/or that simply have clunky layouts. This sounds weird, but instead of thinking about illustrating the text, think about illustrating the article. They are two (slightly) different things. Anyway, shutting up now. :) jengod 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Magnificent.  Although it's on the long side, I think that the potential readers of this article have more stamina than most. Mark1 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Neutral. Magnificent in length, detail, and with decent citations, good pictures...but:
 * The article is entitled "Indo-Greek Kingdom" but the introduction neither describes that subject nor uses that term (it describes the Indo-Greek people or their Kings). It should be re-written to reflect this.
 * Done. Thanks for the comment. PHG 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The pictures are great, but IMO rather cluttered, especially toward the middle of the article.
 * Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Better, although I would still cut more coin pictures.
 * The entire "Indo-Greeks and Buddhism" probably should be its own article, with the main article focusing on the Indo-Greek Kingdom and this subsection truncated substantially to reflect the overall point about cultural syncretism, with less detail about every coin, icon, deity, etc. IMO the article should include sections 1,6,7,8 with the interior cultural sections shortened and moved to subarticles as indicated. Alternatively, expand the introduction by another paragraph to include an overview of the cultural/religious subject addressed in those subsections.
 * Please check the re-organization, which I think makes the article clearer now.PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great article, just a bit unwieldy and long. It could probably be two FAs.  Kaisershatner 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Much improved! Thanks.  I also exported the timeline section into its own article.  I moved the history sections around because the major cultural paragraphs dealt with Menander, so they follow chronologically now with the post-Menander history sections coming before legacy.  I still have concerns about length & density of pictures, but maybe that's just a matter of taste.  From the standpoint of references and breadth of information, it's very impressive.  Kaisershatner 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments – 1. I have concerns on the length of the article. Perhaps the lists and quotes should be cut down and a summary provided. Although I agree that most sections are written in summary form, I still feel that the length should be cut down. Summarising entire sections perhaps? 2. Reduce the linked text. Punjab, India and other words have been excessively linked. 3. To the south, the Greeks occupied the areas of the Sindh and Gujarat down to the region of Surat (Greek: Saraostus) near Bombay Use the new name Mumbai and on the first instance use Mumbai (Bombay). According to Plotomy, Mumbai was also known to the greeks as heptanesia. Could this be mentioned? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed the mention of "Bombay" to "Mumbai (Bombay)". PHG 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Although I do find it a little long, and some of the images, especially the large number of coins, could be formatted differently or the number displayed reduced, these minor issues should not stop this excellent article from being featured, Gentgeen 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Object: A great article, and I'd like to support, but there are some issues that should be addressed brfore it becomes a FA. First, there are quite a few tiny paragraphs - expand or merge. Second: we need to decide whether this is an article about a former state or history of it, and format it accordingly (compare: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a FA, and History of Poland (1569-1795), history of that state). If this is supposed to be article about a state, format it like a state - meaning history should only be in one section - at the moment, it's spread throughtout the article. Economy section is missing - it should be added to a state article. If it's history, then format it chronologically, rename to 'History of...' and move geography and culture sections to state article (or its subarticles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for the great feedback. I have mostly restructured the article along the "State" format, with History/ Culture/ Religion/ Art/ Legacy/ Timeline... for Economy... well close to nothing is known about it. PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I have added a "State" box at the top of the article, and even added a paragraph on Economics. Thanks for the suggestions.PHG 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! I support now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. It's looking too long, some information is redundant, the ruler's list can be moved to another article or organized as table, but it is a great article TheNeon 09:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have re-incorporated the "Nomadic invasion" paragraph into "History" so as to avoid a major redundancy... this also allowed to shorten the article slightly. PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The map in the lead has no source. Also, it shows Sialkot as a box, and other places as circles, but there's no explanation why this is so. Is that a convention for capitals?deeptrivia (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wrote the sources, and changed Sialkot to a regular city (it only later became Menander's capital). PHG 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. A beautiful article. Linguiste 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is very well done, but there are a few cases where a theory (presumably from someones original research) is mentioned but not backed up by a source, which makes the text sound weasly:
 * Menander is considered as probably the most successful Indo-Greek king, and the conqueror of the vastest territory. According to who?
 * Done. "Numismats and historians are unanimous in considering that Menander was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, and the most famous of the Indo-Greek kings. The coins to the name of Menander are incomparably more abundant than those of any other Indo-Greek king" Bopearachchi, "Monnaies Greco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques", p76. PHG 09:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Among others, Foucher, and more recently Boardman have taken the contrary view that some of the most purely Hellenistic works of northwestern India and Afghanistan, may actually be wrongly attributed to later centuries, and instead belong to a period one or two centuries earlier, to the time of the Indo-Greeks in the 2nd-1st century BCE. - cites for the research please
 * Done."The beginnings of the Gandhara school have been dated everywhere from the first century B.C. (which was M.Foucher's view) to the Kushan period and even after it" (Tarn, p394). Foucher's views can be found in "La vieille route de l'Inde, de Bactres a Taxila", pp340-341). The view is also supported by Sir John Marshall ("The Buddhist art of Gandhara", pp5-6). Also the recent discoveries at Ai-Khanoum confirm that "Gandharan art descended directly from Hellenized Bactrian art" (Chaibi Nustamandy, "Crossroads of Asia"). On the Indo-Greeks and Greco-Buddhist art: "It was about this time (100 BCE) that something took place which is without parallel in Hellenistic history: Greeks of themselves placed their artistic skill at the service of a foreign religion, and created for it a new form of expression in art" (Tarn, p393). "We have to look for the beginnings of Gandharan Buddhist art in the residual Indo-Greek tradition, and in the early Buddhist stone sculpture to the South (Bharhut etc...)" (Boardman, p124) PHG 10:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, it has been suggested that these works of art may have been executed by itinerant Greek artists during the time of maritime contacts with the West from the 1st to the 3rd century CE. suggested by whom?
 * Done. "Others, dating the work to the first two centuries A.D., after the waning of Greek autonomy on the Northwest, connect it instead with the Roman Imperial trade, which was just then getting a foothold at sites like Barbaricum at the Indus-mouth. It has been proposed that one of the embassies from Indian kings to Roman emperors may have brought back a master sculptorto oversee work in the emerging Mahayana Buddhist sensibility (in which the Buddha came to be seen as a kind of deity), and that "bands of foreign workmen from the eastern centers of the Roman Empire" were brought to India" (Mc Evilley "The shape of ancient thought", quoting Benjamin Rowland "The art and architecture of India" p121 and A.C. Soper "The Roman Style in Gandhara" American Journal of Archaeology 55 (1951) pp301-319) PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are several short paragraphs and single sentences that should be merged with other relevant sections.
 * Could you be more specific? PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agjusted the only one that was still there.--nixie 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please dont put quotes in itallics, see Mos. Would it be possible to have the notes in text like (Tarn 1951) changed to ref/note so that a consistent system for notes is used throughout the article.--nixie 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. thanks for addressing all my points so quickly.--nixie 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead map has border POV issues. Please fix them. deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Deeptrivia. As far as I know, the borders on the map are in line with general knowledge regarding the territorial expansion of the Indo-Greeks (Tarn, Bopearachchi, Westermanns "Atlas der Welt Geschichte" of 1955 etc...). The only contentious issue among historians has been about whether the Indo-Greeks actually took Pataliputra or not (although everybody agrees that they besieged Pataliputra, as described by the Indian record of the Yuga Purana). This doubt has been reflected in the map by stopping the border line at the level of Pataliputra (it used to be around Pataliputra), so that the question remains suspended. Best regards PHG 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was talking about the current borders of India shown in the map, with reference to Kashmir. deeptrivia (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Deeptrivia. Honestly, I have no clue about how I should modify this map to avoid 20th century border polemics. Any specifics about which lines should, for example, be pasted out? PHG 13:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi PHG. I think the easiest way out would be to remove all modern political borders. That's not too bad, I guess. deeptrivia (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's going to make the map very hard to read. I would have imagined that taking away the two small lines around the Sialkot dot would solve the Kashmir border issue. Can you confirm? PHG 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can use this NPOV map as a reference and see how best you can resolve this issue. deeptrivia (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)