Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thrasybulus

Thrasybulus
Self-nom. I've been working on this for a while, and I think it presents a balanced and comprehensive picture of a man who has been nearly forgotten today despite being quite prominent at his time. The one thing I wish it had is more pictures, but one of the downsides of being nearly forgotten is that no one really bothers to draw many pictures of you. RobthTalk 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I'm suporting this. It's well referenced, and hence reliable. I'd prefer Greek transliterations than Latinizations of the names, but that's a wikipedia policy thing. Decent article. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced, well written, good lead, sections well laid out... I don't know the subject well enough myself to know for certain that it's comprehensive, but it looks that way to me.  One thing that could be improved is the use of images, though that's not an FA requirement.  Image:Cyzicus.JPG is a nice informative picture, but alas, it... isn't pretty.  If someone could whip up something that looks nicer while having the same content, that would be awesome.  Other images might be nice, simply to break up the text and make it prettier, but I understand the difficulty in just comming up with new images, and as I said, it isn't an FA requirement.  Good work on the article. Fieari 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to second that comment about the Cyzicus picture. The current one is the best that me and MS Paint could whip up, but that's obviously pretty far down the totem pole as far as drawing programs go, and I never have been known for my "skills of an artist."  Anyone with more talent or better software who has the time to improve it will earn my undying gratitude.  RobthTalk 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to see more specific page references in the footnotes. Durova 02:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A good lead grabs the attention immediately and the article is up to the standard of any features I've read recently. The writing and layout are excellent, references and footnotes fine, content and links interesting - all adding up to a comprehensive treatment of a subject that as the submitter says was once prominent, now forgotten. No quibbles really, but agree images would enhance. Thamyris 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Translated texts (e.g., note 30) don't identify edition or translator within article. Also agree with Durova concerning footnotes. Monicasdude 20:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've listed translators for the works that I could find the information for (I couldn't find it for the Thucydides or Xenophon). As far as editions, all the editions used are the online versions linked to (I made a point of taking any quotes, line numbering etc. from those editions).  I won't be able to add page numbers till Sunday afternoon at the earliest, since the copy of the R.J. Buck book that I used is in a non-circulating library that's closed most of the weekend, but I'll put them up as I get a chance.  RobthTalk 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to list the translator unless you're quoting an actual translation; so just simply list the place you got the translation after the passage reference. The others all you need is, for instance, citations of the type Thuc. x.12. . For your secondary texts, you do indeed need to do the page references, and use citations such as ibid., passim, op. cit. and loc. cit. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Page numbers have now been added to all citations of modern sources. I didn't use ibid. etc, since I recall reading somewhere that those have been deprecated by the MLA.  RobthTalk 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct: the MLA style book has been opposed to "ibid" since about 1982 or thereabouts. Few style sheets use it anymore, and I think Chicago ("Turabian") is against it as well.  Geogre 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Never thought of such organizations as authorities. Certainly made little impact on the journals and books I've been reading lately. What do they suggest one uses in their place? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, quite good. Everyking 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I made a few copy edits after seeing this one in Peer Review, but other than that, I haven't touched it. Anville 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - very well-written. Some of the sections are a little bit long, though; perhaps breaking up into sub-sections? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks great. Gflores Talk 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A great article. S iva1979 Talk to me  16:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 09:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Another outstanding article on an obscure general of classical antiquity. This one especially so, I've only ever seen Thrasybulus mentioned in reference to the more infamous Alcibiades. So I not only enjoyed this article but learned from it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Meets the criteria as far as I can see, though I don't know squat about ancient Greece. I did check all the references to Thrasybulus in Plutarch, and they seem to agree with the article: Thrasybulus had great physical courage and supported democracy. Plutarch is either neutral or favorable in his references, which contradicts Buck's theory that ancient writers were down on Thrasybulus because of an anti-democratic bias. But the article should take note of all theories about its subject. Casey Abell 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, very good article. Aldux 23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)