Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Melos/archive2

Siege of Melos

 * Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about The Siege of Melos. It has just passed Good Article review. Now I think it's time for FA review. Kurzon (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The article looks to me to appear substantially the same as it did for its previous Featured Article Review.
 * I haven't dived deeply into the article yet, but some initial impressions:
 * Some but not all citations to books include page numbers. Note 16 is especially bad, citing three books but giving a page number for only one of them.
 * Still a very high proportion of citations to ancient sources, which was commented on in the previous review.
 * milos.gr is cited, and described in the article as the "official tourism website of Melos": what makes it a reliable source?
 * The structure of the article is a little weird. For example, the section "Restoration by Sparta" is only three sentences long – if there's only 50 words to say about a particular aspect of an article, it probably doesn't merit an entire section.
 * There's also some clunky prose: the section summarizing the Melian Dialogue, for instance, has five paragraphs of the format "The Melians argue that[...]. The Athenians counter that[...]." (Interspersed with one paragraph where the Melians instead "believe" for variety!)
 * Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, some of the sections are structured in an unconventional way, and its deliberate because I felt in this case it was the best way to teach the lessons I wanted to teach. I don't think an encyclopedia article needs to have beautiful prose as long as it presents information with clarity and accuracy. I'm not writing a novel.


 * Some of the sources may be ancient, but their authenticity is not in question, and in any case the secondary sources all refer to these same few primary sources. Thucydides is the ONLY historical account we have of the siege.


 * "Some but not all citations to books include page numbers. Note 16 is especially bad, citing three books but giving a page number for only one of them."
 * Is that so terrible? One little oddity in a footnote?

Suggest withdrawal. It does not appear that the disqualifying concerns raised in the previous review have yet been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - As it doesn't appear that substantive work has been done to address previously stated concerns with the article, this nomination is premature and will be archived. Kurzon, you may wish to check out Mentoring for FAC as was suggested by Ian in the previous nomination. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)