Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Peer review/Themistocles

Themistocles
I've recently given this article a major re-write & expansion. It has passed GA, and I think I would like to get it up to FA if possible. So - what could be done to improve the article? Is there anything missing? Any comments would be welcome! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yannismarou

 * Trivia, but WP:MoS needs "&amp;nbsp;" between any number and unit, symbol or abbreviation that it goes with, such as 493 BC.
 * Done
 * "undoubtedly". I am not sure if such strong words add anything useful. You could say simply that he was a populist.
 * Removed
 * ""the man most instrumental in achieving the salvation of Greece". Source?
 * Added
 * I am not sure about the copyright status of File:Temistocle.jpg. Technical reviews are now strict in WP:FAC. Make sure all your photos have the proper copyright status.
 * "Herodotus's work was probably published in 425 BC, when he was approximately 60; Herodotus thus lived through the second half of Themistocles's career.[4] Herodotus lived". A bit choppy the prose here. Why don't you ask a good copy-editor to have a look at your article?
 * Fixed this example. I will find a copy-editor once I've worked through suggestions from this review.
 * You don't have to have a source for each sentence. Especially, if the source is the same for two or three consecutive sentence, you could just use the citation once.
 * This is true. However, following some tough GA reviews, I started adopting a 'reference everything' policy.
 * Something I saw in your writing of Epaminondas as well. Sometimes, you overuse "however". Again a fresh eye in the prose would help.
 * I admit that this is a habit of mine. The basic use isn't wrong, and is intended to maintain a sense of narrative drama. However, it can get repetitive, and I need to find other ways of phrasing!
 * "which qualified him to become archon". Do we know what archon?
 * Added
 * I would alphabetize the sources.
 * Done
 * Again, have a look at WP:MoS about the use of dashes (–, &mdash;, -).
 * Maybe you overexpand a bit in "First Persian invasion of Greece", since Themistocles had no major role in the strategic planning of the battle. He was probably one of the ten generals. ok! Anything else?
 * True that Themistocles had little apparent role. However, I think that this is all important background for explaining the second Persian invasion, the fall of Miltiades, the reason that Athenian policy after 490 BC was the way it was. But I'll see if I can trim it somewhat.
 * Take other opinions as well. Do nor rely only on what I say!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Themistocles, with his power-base firmly established amongst the power, moved naturally to fill the power vacuum". Again the prose.
 * Typo in there - power/poor. Reworded anyway
 * "Plutarch suggests that the rivalry between the two had more sordid beginnings, when they competed over the love of a boy: "... they were rivals for the affection of the beautiful Stesilaus of Ceos, and were passionate beyond all moderation." What do secondary sources say about that?
 * "It seems clear that, towards the end of the decade, Themistocles had begun to accrue enemies, and had become "incommensurate with true democratic equality"; he had become arrogant, and his fellow citizens jealous." For these assertions, it would be nice, if you could provide secondary sources as well.
 * "It is possible, based on the ancient sources, to draw ". A bit weasel.
 * "He also appears to have been corrupt (at least by modern standards), and was known for his fondness of bribes". This assertion could have some further analysis and fact-backing.
 * "to draw some conclusions about Themistocles's character. Perhaps his most evident trait was his massive ambition; "In his ambition..." I don't like the wording in general, and especially the "perhaps"!
 * "In popular culture" is listy. In FAC they disgust this kind of sections. If you want to keep it, then turn it into prose, and expand it. Something more about Themistocles in literature (ancient, medieval, and modern; if there is something! I have not searched this topic at all).
 * This was leftover from the old-article. I nearly deleted it, but then couldn't quite bring myself to do it. Themistocles does seem to be strangely absent from popular culture, and it's possible I should just get rid of it.
 * "A significant number of historians have stated that Salamis is one of the most significant battles in human history." Ok, but can you offer us some further information either here either in "Military legacy" about the role, strategy and tactics of Themistocles? A more thorough analysis of his military skills? Was he innovative during the Battle of Salamis? Is he important and in what way for the world navy military history?
 * Excellent point. I will work on adding this.
 * Just a question not only for the article but for me as well! Did you find anything, any comment in your sources for his oration skills? Is he lauded at all as an orator?
 * I'm not really sure. There are allusions to his skill, but nothing which concretely says that he was. He seems to have been the generation before the really famous orators. I will research further.

The article is nice, but I am not sure is ready for FAC. MoS, and prose issues should be taken care of. And it would be nice if you could vary a bit your sec. sources. You rely a lot on Holland. Great job, anyway!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, all absolutely valid. I wasn't planning to go to FAC yet, just looking for advice on how to improve the article, and this is all very helpful. I have struggled to find a modern biography of Themistocles; and it's difficult to know which other books might contain assessments of him. If you have any recommendations, please let me know! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can do what I do here from Brussels, where I have no access to my library in Athens: googlebooking and googlescholar-searching. If you want to sacrifice a few dollars to the universal knowledge, then you can immediately purchase an article from jstor (or ask somebody having access to provide you with what you want), or order a book through Amazon. Besides that, you may find some material in Questia or Project Gutenberg as well, but mainly old books. I'll add some additional comments to the review now that I am back from my lunch! But, honestly, I am really happy I see this article much improved, because Themistocles is one of the personalities which always intrigued me, and I had also thought about rewriting it in the past. But you're doing a great job!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cplakidas
Aside from the points Yannis rased above, a few other issues:
 * You give quotes of Thucydides and Plutarch in the lead section. These should be cited.
 * It might be interesting for the reader to add a note why Thucydides was paired with Camillus, given that Plutarch usually chose his pairs on the basis of common traits or a similar historical role.
 * There are too many parentheses. Try to work more of them into the text.
 * "in that decade became the most influential politician in Athens." is followed shortly after by "Themistocles had thus become the foremost politician in Athens". This reiteration looks a bit awkward, perhaps the first instance should be rephrased to something like "in that decade rose in prominence"?
 * "It is clear from Herodotus, however, that Themistocles would be the real leader of the fleet." the cited passage does not make this entirely clear. Perhaps this assertion should be supported by a couple of more modern scholars?
 * ""fastened the city [Athens] to the Piraeus, and the land to the sea" This, i assume, is a reference to the Long Walls? If so, that should be clearly noted.
 * "Furthermore, after the treason and disgrace of the Spartan general Pausanias, the Spartans tried to implicate Themistocles in the plot" elaborate please a bit on the what the plot was.
 * A major concern that will be certainly pointed out if you choose to forward this article for A or FA candidacy are the sources. You rely very much on primary sources, not only for the events (which is understandable), but also for interpretations, and when you use modern scholarship, it is mostly Holland. It is not as if the subject is obscure, so I strongly suggest that you should try to diversify your sources a bit more, esp. with modern scholarship.

I've also fixed a few minor points myself. Otherwise very comprehensive and, apart from the noted concerns, the prose is rather good and easy to follow. Well done! Constantine  ✍  11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)