Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman-Spartan War/archive1

Roman-Spartan War
Self nom. A new article I only started it last month on a very obscure topic with limited primary sources and secondary sources (as can be seen). I think this article meets the FA criteria. Kyriakos 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as a semi-involved editor (I copyedited it a couple of times). A very good example of how to make the best of limited source material. --RobthTalk 07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Objection The article isn't stable. Wandalstouring 12:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ??? How is it not stable?Sumoeagle179 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a little puzzled by this too. Is there something about the article that will cause it to be unstable in the future?  Major changes in the recent past as part of the preparation for this nomination are not evidence of instability going forward. --RobthTalk 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An overhaul of the article had started several days ago. When I checked recently there were still some of the issues mentioned in the GA review which needed to be fixed. The FA request after the failed GA review (without solving all issues) came very much as a strange surprise. Wandalstouring 11:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The web refs should be in cite web format.Sumoeagle179 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is fixed now.--Yannismarou 21:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now. A very strong future candidate.  But for now, the Livy and Polybius should be cited by book-chapter, not page numbers of specific translations (this allows someone with a different translation to look-up the reference).  Also, these texts are presumably on-line somewhere (Perseus project?), and links to them would be very nice.  Modern bibliography is a bit thin: E. Gruen, Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome and E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae are standard.  (Update: The Badian is not terribly useful.) Semperf 19:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This can definitely be worked on; I will try to get my hands on one or both of those in the next few days. --RobthTalk 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have cited Livy and Polybius by book chapters. Perseus project doesn't have any of Livy's books after book29. And I have also been to my state library I didn't find any of thise books. Kyriakos 22:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a Livy translation here and here. Semperf 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but I do agree that Livy and Polybius should be cited by book-chapter.--Yannismarou 21:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More bibliography to consider: M. Holleaux in Cambridge Ancient History (1st ed.) 188-193 (I can scan and sent to you, if necessary). Semperf 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * ((a)”Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
 * No, it’s only passable. And it does have spelling mistakes.
 * I went over the article with spell check.


 * (b)"Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.


 * No. Rome went to war but I’m not entirely sure why. What relationship did Rome have with the Aechean League?
 * Done I send how they were involved with each other.Kyriakos 00:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What was Rome’s foreign policy? Imperialism?


 * What was Rome's interest in the region?


 * In other words what is the background to all this – at the moment I’m not clear of the history.


 * c) "Factually accurate" Possibly, but it is too heavily reliant on Livy. It needs more anaylsis and use of modern sources Michael Crawford perhaps. Raymond Palmer 00:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources. T.R.S. Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. 1, p. 341 lists the sources for Flamininus' proconsulship in 195 as:  SIG 592; Liv. 34.22-41; Plut. Flam. 13.1-3; Justin. 31.3.1; Eutrop. 4.2; Auct. Vir. Ill. 51; Oros. 4. 20.2; Zon. 9.18.  I think you have to add at least the Plutarch and SIG (= Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum).  The Gruen reference above will be helpful with the context that Raymond Palmer is asking for.  Semperf 01:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Further comment. I want to endorse some of Palmer's suggestions.  I think we've got a good structure here, with good ancient referencing.  But the facts need a little more interpretation.  And the writing could be improved.  Semperf 02:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. Article is of GA grade. Maybe A grade if more varying sources used. Ciraric 10:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also-
 * Livy too heavily depended upon.
 * Article doesn't compare to current FA in the category of war. Algerian Civil War was the example I found. Of course less information may be available due to the historical nature of the article).
 * Article failed GA status (possibly at quite an earlier stage but I was under the impression that the article was quite young) and so would be better suited being put through that again (I know not an argument per se but I wanted to point it out). Ciraric 22:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article still needs work, imo, to be a GA. Some of it is done well, but it is just too hard to follow, this sounds like a group of participants sitting around and discussing the war in a pub, and I'm the barkeep catching bits and pieces.  The lead section really should put the whole thing into an historical context--was this one of many wars?  the only one involving these combatants, did it spread over wider areas than other wars?  how many years or ceasars or generals did it consume?  I love reading Military History Quarterly, because no matter the topic, whether I've never even heard of the nations involved, I get set down there on the battlefield, in that era, with those weapons of war, and those commanders, fighting for that great ideal of that nation in that dawn--no matter how many participants, no matter how confusing and lengthy the prelude to this battle.  The article should read entirely by itself, and this doesn't.  Please include the English after the Latin, but don't exclude the Latin--I love to see it used where it belongs.  KP Botany 02:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per the above users, and, my failing of this article only a few weeks ago for GA; I believe this article is poorly worded, with limited context for readers unfamiliar with the content/conflict. The lead does not function as such (as outlined in WP:LEAD). The range of sources is also very, very limited, with a particular over-reliance on Livy. Jhamez84 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment As another semi-involved editor, I also think it needs more work, especially in the areas of prose and references. This nomination was, perhaps, a bit premature. We should get it approved as a GA first, then return here once the serious issues have been addressed.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It's really strange for an article to be at WP:GAC and WP:FAC at the same time. If it just failed GA (as indicated above), why is it still there? (Or, why is it still here?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have rewritten some sections of the article and I have add four secondary sources. Kyriakos 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)