Wikipedia:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:02, 7 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force, User talk:Paul August, User talk:Sj.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems to rely way too heavily on primary sources as opposed to secondary sources. Could use an overall copyedit pass and review for flow. Image review and cleanup/improvement of the individual image pages would also be helpful, images include: File:AtaloPergamo.jpg, File:Dying gaul.jpg, File:AttalusICorrected.jpg, and File:Attalus I coin depicting Philetairos.jpg. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeap, it relies mainly on primary sources, although secondary sources are also used. It was one of the first FAs I read before my own ventures, and almost 3 years later I still regard it as FA quality. I am willing however to help adding secondary sources (through googlebooking only), if that is ok with Paul.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Paul August &#9742; 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll start working, maybe as soon as now (!); definitely during the weekend.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any suggestions for changes to the article? Paul August &#9742; 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Main concern iterated above is heavy usage of primary as opposed to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * O! We are fast here. As I understand the main argument for delisting is citations. I'll express my opinion about copy-editing as well, but, allow me to tell you, that, if somebody argues that the prose is not satisfactory, he/she has to present some concrete examples to support his/her arguments. Otherwise ... In the meantime, I'll start adding secondary sources. As I have made clear, I still believe that this is a FA, and for the time being I am  weak keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On this subject, from these sources, secondary sources are more likely to summarize Livy than emend him. Most of the obvious secondary sources seem to have already been listed; I would also look at the first chapters of Magie's History of Roman Asia, for an idea of what is important enough to list in comparable space. It would be a virtuous act to check them thoroughly; but it's unlikely to change the text much. Justin (for what he is worth) should also be a primary source, IIRC. Weak keep Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Turn to full keep. Most primary sources are now backed by secondary ones; and I don't think that any event still cited by only prim sources has been ever questioned. Agree with Sept: secondary sources don't add much; they just summarize Livy without amending him. I promise I'll check Justin.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, the copyright status of the photos mentioned by Cirt looks to me fine.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist - there are paragraphs and sentences that are missing citations and cquotes where quote or no block quote at all should be used. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely not-too-far-off-keep (?) - I changed the cquotes to quotes, and tweaked a bit of prose here and there, but this subject area is not my forte, and I feared intorducing ambiguity with too much reduction of repetition. Surely the basic biographic details in Early life are easy to source (?) Please keep this open a bit longer and I can see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of the present tenses in the verbs should be past tense. Shouldn't there be a source for the conjectures in "Early life"? "twenty decked Rhodian warships" could be unclear to some: 20 decks or 20 ships? I think I would prefer the Magna Mater cult to appear in chronological sequence between the First Macedonian War and Macedonian hostilities of 201 BC rather than at the end. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked to Rhodian decked, although any reader who can conclude that the Greeks built warships larger than the Titanic is probably hopelessly lost anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist (but obviously willing to change in response to edits) Neutral (for explanation see below Paul August's summary comments). The heavy reliance on primary sources itself requires commentary early in the piece. A section is needed along the following lines: "Attalus life is known primarily from Livy, while his blah blah. Scholars' analysis of Livy... (explain what the secondary sources say about Livy's historiography etc)" etc Livy wrote two hundred years after Attalus's time. This could also open a debate about the definition of a primary source, but leaving that aside, the extensive reliance on Roman/ Greek sources requires serious discussion before they are then effectively adopted as reliable. I would also recommend the text be re-styled to occasionally remind us of the basis in sources. "Livy reports that.."; "Polybius's report of the battle described..."
 * Early life is either seriously under-referenced, WP:OR, or both.
 * Is there really no archaeological research at all to contribute to a contemporary analysis of this historical figure? I find the lack of archaeological research strange.
 * Occasional clunky prose: "The spoils from Oreus had been reserved for Sulpicius, who returned there, while Attalus stayed to collect the spoils from Opus." 'Spoils' used twice, and not felicitous phrasing either. Better might be "Sulpicius returned to the spoils reserved for him from the sacking of Oreus, while Attalus stayed to claim those from Opus" (or similar). "Attalus, with his fleet at Aegina, received an embassy from Athens, to come to the city for consultations." Better might be "Attalus, with his fleet at Aegina, received an embassy from Athens inviting him to consultations in the city." There are others that could be improved.
 * Why is the section "Introduction of the cult of the Magna Mater to Rome" tacked on after the family section, which reads as though it should be the conclusion to the article, with its final lines about succession and death? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I've just got my hands (again) on the most authoritative work on the subject, Esther Hansen's The Attalids of Pergamon (1971). I'll try to review the article for accuracy, giving more granular citations, where it seems appropriate. Paul August &#9742; 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added several cites to the "Early life" section, which I think is now well sourced (if not over sourced). With this and the sourcing that Yannismarou has done, I think the article has adequate sourcing. If other editors think that more sourcing is still required, please say so, and I will try to provide it. Thanks to all for trying to improve the article. Paul August &#9742; 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say Hamiltonstone raises some interesting poitns above. Kudos on the early life sourcing. Is there anything in the book about archaeological evidence? I am not familiar with doing ancient hsitory articles, so I could imagine this might vary tremednously from figure to figure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamilton raises indeed some interesting points, but I cannot agree (and I did not agree even before Paul's further citing) with his first remark. His second remark is interesting, and I also want such a section (an overall assessment of the x personality) in the articles I write, but I do not believe that such an analysis is a prerquisite for FA status; and it is not a standard for biography articles. In any case, such a section should not be necessarily based on archaelogical evidence, as Hamilton seems to imply. Prose issues should be taken care (and maybe they have already been; I did not follow the recent edit history of the article), but, as far as the last remark is concerned, I am also not sure I can agree. In terms of structure, if an important aspect in a person's biography cannot be related to the linear narration of a biography, then it can be placed at the end of the latter; and I can't see any wrong in that, unless something better can be proposed. About archaelogical evidence in particular, I'll contribute in case I find something in the net, google book etc. In any case, keep in mind that the article has already more sources than the average FAs!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not be surprised if there were a serious absence of epigraphical evidence. Pergamum was a capital for a century after Attalus, and a provincial capital for centuries thereafter; Attalus' monuments are likely to have been rebuilt. If secondary sources have nothing to add to Livy, it is likely that there is no evidence on which to base it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some responses.
 * Paul's intensive work in the last couple of days is improving this greatly, and yes, early life is now sorted.
 * I am not sure whether Yannismarou is counting my intro text as my first remark (about the need to discuss the primary sources in the article), or is referring only to the bullet points. Based on Y's reference to archaeological evidence in Y's text, I am assuming s/he has counted just the bullet points, in which case I am very surprised at these observations. Y's own essay on FAs talks about in-line cites being better every sentence than every para: the early life section had only one in-line cite when i viewed it, and that was at the end of the first sentence. Y concludes his/her remarks by saying that this has more sources than the average FA. I don't think that is relevant - this is a matter of being, per FA criteria, "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". If the literature is there, it should be covered. I'm not an expert, hence my query (rather than statement) re archaeological evidence - if it isn't there, then fair enough. Interestingly i note from the footnotes that "inscriptions are the main source of information on Attalus' war with the Galatians", suggesting that archaeological evidence (and i mean not only epigraphical) may be relevant, even important, to the subject. BTW I didn't think this article had many in-line cites by FA standards, so I mustn't be reading the ones that are 'lighter on'.
 * Finally, I would again emphasise my point about a need to discuss the sources in the article. If we are relying heavily on Livy, I would suggest an analysis of the implications of such reliance is essential. Otherwise the article may not meet the FA criteria of being comprehensive in "placing the subject in context". It doesn't have to be a huge deal, but it should be there. For examples, see some of the material in the 'background' section of Walter de Coventre (FA), the 'historical record' section of Theramenes (FA), or the 'sources' section of Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick (current FAC). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that note on Theramenes adds much; it omits the minor details that Lysias, Thucydides and Xenophon are contemporaries and that Diodorus is an unreliable compiler of some four centuries later, who may be copying a good source on this subject. Quellenkritik should be done right, or not at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I wouldn't know my Gaius from my Julius, so I was oblivious to any issues in the Theramenes text - sounds like a reason to either improve it or bring Theramenes to FAR as well. I just wanted to give illustrations of what kind of text was needed - i'm taking it as read that Paul Agust would do it well, particularly with Septentrionalis cheering him on :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's mostly harmless. But the absence of such a paragraph is no great loss either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In case it is not clear, these are keep arguments. If Theramenes has defects, this article should not be required to imitate it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis commented "Quellenkritik should be done right, or not at all." This is FA: it should be done right, I would not have thought 'not at all' was an option.:-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm continuing to work through the article, checking sources, and adding, or increasing granularity where appropriate. I've done so through the section "Macedonian hostilities of 201 BC". I'll attempt to address other concerns above when I've completed my review. Paul August &#9742; 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope this will be kept as an FA. Tony   (talk)  13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note:Continuing to work on the article, but I will be away for the weekend, so nothing more from me till Monday. Paul August &#9742; 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note for closer - I think this is progressing steadily in the right direction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've completed a detailed review of the article. Some comments:


 * Acurracy: I have (I believe) checked every assertion of fact in the article, and I can write with some confidence that each is well supported by the cited references. If anyone has any concerns about any of the assertions in the article I urge them to please say so and I will attempt to address them.


 * Quality of sources: Esther Hansen's The Attalids of Pergamon (531 pages), is by far the most comprehensive work on the subject (for example her chapter on The Reign of Attalus I runs to 44 pages), and while perhaps a bit dated (1971), remains authoritative, particularly so for the purposes of an encyclopedia article (rather than say a research paper). The other secondary sources (mostly provided by Yannismarou) -- all of very high quality -- mostly serve to corroborate Hansen.


 * Reliance on primary sources: I believe that those editors who have expressed concerns about the possible over-reliance on primary sources may be misapprehending the situation. Although by glancing through the "Notes" section, one can see many citations to Livy, Polybius, etc, &mdash; except for the handful of places in the text where direct quotes have been used &mdash; there has been virtually no reliance on primary sources at all. Rather it has been Hansen's work which has been almost universally relied upon. As far as I can tell the article contains no "original research" and no interpretations of primary sources independent of the secondary sources.


 * Granularity of sourcing: There are various opinions on how granular source citing ought to be. Should each paragraph have it's own citation?, each sentence? each assertion? In my view no universal rule like this can make sense. This must be judged on a case by case basis, and only by reading and understanding what is being written and its context. You most certainly can't simply scan your eyes down an article and judge the adequacy of sourcing by the density of citations (no offense meant to anyone, and I'm not saying that anyone on this page has done that).


 * Commentary on primary sources: hamiltonstone, has suggested above that "the heavy reliance on primary sources itself requires commentary early in the piece". I'm not sure that such a thing would be a particularly useful addition to the article. The primary sources used here are the standard ones for this period and locale. Their idiosyncrasies are well understood, and have no particular significance for this article. Most of what might be said about these sources in relation to this subject would pertain to any article concerning this period and locale. Moreover as I've written above, there has in fact been little reliance on primary sources, and then only to augment and flesh out a bit the secondary sources. Whatever issues there are concerning the primary sources have presumably already been taken into account by the secondary sources.


 * Archaeological evidence: hamiltonstone has written: Is there really no archaeological research at all to contribute to a contemporary analysis of this historical figure? I find the lack of archaeological research strange. There has, of course, been significant archaeological research pertaining to Pergamon and the Attalid period. And bits of this research can be seen explicitly in the form of epigraphical evidence in three places in the article, (see notes 10, 48 and 53), although such epigraphical evidence underlies and supports other content in the article. Otherwise, as with the proposed commentary on secondary sources, there is little of particular significance to this subject and the secondary sources have presumably made appropriate use of all relevant archaeological data.


 * "Magna Mater" section: Two editors, DrKiernan and hamiltonstone, suggest above that the section on the "Magna Mater" should follow (chronologically) the section on the "First Macedonian War". I have moved the section accordingly.


 * Tense: DrKiernan has written above Perhaps some of the present tenses in the verbs should be past tense, but having reread the article, I find no use of present tense at all.


 * Paul August &#9742; 20:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Paul for your excellent work. I have no problems with the article now retaining its FA listing. I am describing my position as 'neutral' because I am undecided what to think about the lack of explicit treatment of primary sources. On the one hand, I think Paul's point, that "whatever issues there are concerning the primary sources have presumably already been taken into account by the secondary sources", is well made. That is indeed a very good reason to ensure the text is fully referenced to the secondary sources, as Paul has done here. It incidentally also takes care of my query about the archaeology. On the other hand, I don't accept the comment "The primary sources used here are the standard ones for this period and locale. Their idiosyncrasies are well understood". To those familiar with the field, maybe. To a wikipedia reader, that would certainly not be the case. Does that mean these points would need to be raised in every article that relied upon them? Perhaps, but only briefly. I was never suggesting an entire essay. However, I think the fact that the Livy article, for example, does talk about the nature of his writings, together with the citation of secondary sources throughout the current article, ensures there is not a significant problem. Probably I am thinking that if FA is the very best that WP has, then it might indeed go as far as discussing the sources. But no matter. The article is very good, and I am clearly in a minority on this. Thank you Paul and others for their efforts here. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments on primary sourcing may reflect an over-acute awareness that the primary sources for this article are (as classical history goes) unusually sound: Livy has no axe to grind, and is confirmed in essence by Polybius; to make a point of their flaws is undue weight. The modern historian's expectation of contemporary unbiased sources, compounded with documentary and archival evidence, is (for almost all of ancient history) starkly unrealistic; it may be sort of true for a few years in Athens and Rome, and for a narrow level of information (ruler's epithets, but not dynastic politics) in Egypt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - hahaha, reminds me of reading latin and greek texts at school :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Paul August &#9742; 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Three more comments:
 * Thanks: To everyone for working to improve the article. Special thanks to Yannismarou for his work on the article and comments above, and also to hamiltonstone and PMAnderson for their thoughtful remarks.
 * Unsastisfied conserns?: Some editors who have expressed concerns above with the article have not commented upon the subsequent changes and discussion. I would appreciate knowing if their concerns are still unsatisfied.
 * FA status: I don't understand how the FA process works, but to be clear, I have No opinion as to whether this article ought or ought not to be an FA.
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.