Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/War against Nabis

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

War against Nabis
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

This 2006 A-Class and 2007 FA promotion was delisted at FAR in April due to sourcing. I don't believe this meets the A-class (or even B-class) criteria, due to the weak sourcing. Large swaths of the text are only sourced to Livy, and the Smith 1873 work cited many times is now heavily dated. The sourcing present is just too weak for A-class, IMO. Hog Farm Talk 16:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Demote: please note that this isn't an area that I have subject matter expertise in. Nevertheless, I agree that the article seems to rely heavily on aged sources. This means that there is a potential that it isn't comprehensive (i.e it doesn't consider aspects covered in modern scholarship). In the absence of any objections from others in the know, I agree that it probably should be demoted unless more diverse sourcing can be introduced. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Demote - the sourcing is still too weak. Mainly sourced to a very dated 19th-century source and to ancient primary sources. Hog Farm Talk 23:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Demote for overreliance on what are basically primary sources. The fact that the article can't even seem to agree on a name for itself is also discouraging. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Demote - agree with above comments RE sourcing, and I see that some of the content in the notes appear unsourced as well. It is a little odd, given the name of the article, Nabis is really only mentioned in passing in the lead. Zawed (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Demote - I thought for a second Hog was suddenly interested in Roman history. :p I agree there is a big lag of diverse of newer sources and surely there has to be at least one new source in that time. This is also poorly written by our modern standards. Maybe in pre-2010 Wikipedia, this might be good but it needs a major update in grammar to get it up to date in our modern standards. Hopefully, it will rise to the ashes one day again. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)