Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Peer review/2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Greece [ edit · changes ]
Project pages
Related pages
Article alerts

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 11 Dec 2024 – Dimitris Vlastellis (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Someone-123-321 (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
  • 10 Dec 2024 – Alkis Raftis (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Ynsfial (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
  • 07 Dec 2024 – Pantodapoi (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Cielquiparle (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted)
  • 03 Dec 2024 – Code page 851 (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by HyperAccelerated (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
  • 06 Dec 2024 – Ioannis Sioutis (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by SolxrgashiUnited (t · c) was closed as keep by Explicit (t · c) on 13 Dec 2024; see discussion (6 participants)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(1 more...)
Article statistics

This list is generated automatically every night around 10 PM EST.
view full worklist

Greek articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 15 32 45 1 96
FL 1 1 1 22 25
A 2 9 16 1 28
GA 9 41 103 295 20 468
B 44 161 334 636 107 1,282
C 38 234 555 1,796 421 3,044
Start 39 401 1,812 10,053 1 1,855 14,161
Stub 1 57 698 10,530 17 3,745 15,048
List 4 14 101 681 75 405 1,280
Category 13,205 13,205
Disambig 324 324
File 578 578
Redirect 12 78 524 973 1,587
Template 1,369 1,369
NA 60 60
Other 2 50 52
Assessed 139 938 3,723 24,600 16,652 6,555 52,607
Unassessed 2 7 1 541 551
Total 139 938 3,725 24,607 16,653 7,096 53,158
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 177,990 Ω = 5.22

Byzantine calendar

[edit]

Greetings. I have greatly expanded this article which I have imported from Orthodoxwiki, including detailed references and a bibliography. It has not yet been rated. Would appreciate a detailed general review if possible, and a rating assigned. Criticism with ideas for making it FA status article eventually would be appreciated. Many thanks, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seleucus I Nicator

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I improved the article based on the Finnish version (FA) and want now to receive feedback. Perhaps the article can be further improved to GA status? Thanks, Mvaldemar (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]
  • "Seleucus' later conquests include Persia and Media. He formed an alliance with the Indian King Chandragupta Maurya. Seleucus defeated". The prose looks to me a bit choppy here.
  • " It is possible that Antiochus was a member of an upper Macedonian noble family. Seleucus' mother was supposedly." Some weasel wording. It would be better to say that the x historian says that or according to the z sources bla bla bla.
  • Do not wikilink single years (per WP:MOS).
  • "A number of legends, similar to those told of Alexander the Great, were told of Seleucus. It was said Laodice told his son". Again the prose ...
  • "The god had left a ring with a picture of an anchor as a gift to Laodice. Seleucus' had a birthmark shaped like an anchor. It was told that Seleucus' sons and grandsons also had similar birthmarks. The story is similar to the one told about Alexander. Most likely the story is merely propaganda by Seleucus. He invented the story to present himself as the natural predecessor of Alexander." Choppy prose again. Copy-editing is needed, so I'll not come up with more examples of problematic prose.
  • "Didymeia might refer to the oracle of Apollo in Didyma near Miletus. It has also been suggested that Ptolemy (son of Seleucus) was actually the uncle of Seleucus." "It was told that Seleucus' sons and grandsons also had similar birthmarks. The story is similar to the one told about Alexander. Most likely the story is merely propaganda by Seleucus." "It is told Alexander crossed the Hydaspes river on a boat." "It is likely that Seleucus had no role in the actual planning of the battle." "It is told that Chaldean astrologers prophesied to Antigonus that Seleucus would become the master of Asia and that he would kill Antigonus." "Perhaps Seleucus had to reconquer Babylon from Archelaus." Weasel wording everywhere. Who suggests what?
  • Do not overwikilink. Once an article is linked, it is a done business!
  • "to his bastard eldest son Antiochus ". Shouldn't we replace "bastard" with something like "illegitimate"?
  • Choose between BC and BCE. It cannot be both! It is not consistent.
  • "Blazing into battle was not his style." Maybe you could expand a bit on that in a different section, where you'll assess his political and military skills.
  • "His general Perdiccas became the Regent of all of Alexander's empire, while Alexander's physically and mentally disabled half-brother Arrhidaeus was chosen as the next King under the name Philip III of Macedon. Alexander's unborn child was also named as his father's successor. Alexander's generals divided the empire among themselves." Something is wrong with the story here. It seems incomplete. Perdiccas was the regent, and at the same time under his regency the generals divided the empire?
  • "Perdiccas' power dependent on his ability to hold Alexander's enormous empire together, and if he can force the satraps to obey himself." This sentence makes no sense to me. Where are the verbs?!
  • "War soon broke between Perdiccas and the other Diadochi". Who were the other Diadochi? Inform us a bit?
  • " the "Shield-bearers" (Hypaspistai)". Shpuldn't you link the hypaspists article?
  • "Perdiccas tried to marry Alexander's sister Cleopatra." How is this related with the rest of the paragraph?!
  • "After the assassination of Perdiccas". In the previous paragraph you told us something about a conspiracy, but nothing about an assassination!
  • Don't use "the" in the headings.
  • One paragraph in "Satrap of Babylon" is uncited.
  • "After arriving in Egypt, Seleucus sent his friends to Greece to tell Cassander and Lysimachus, the ruler of Thracia, of Antigonus." Tell what of Antigonus?
  • "The allies sent a proposition to Antigonus." Who were the allies?
  • "The fleet was too small to defeat Rhodes, but it was big enough to force Asander, the satrap of Caria to ally with Ptolemy. Seleucus also invaded the city of Erythrai to show his power. Ptolemy, nephew of Antigonus attacked Asander. Seleucus returned to Cyprus, where Ptolemy I had sent his brother Menelaos along with 10 000 mercenaries and 100 ships. Seleucus and Menelaos began to siege Kition. " I said I wouldn't speak again about the prose, but I could not help it. Here the prose reads like a telegraph. It needs improvement.
  • "His return to Babylon was afterwards officially regarded as the beginning of the Seleucid Empire and that year as the first of the Seleucid era." Source?
  • Citations 34, 44, 46, 47 and 50 need proper fromating. Use one of the appropriate templates, such as Template:cite web.
  • Many typos, by the way, all over the place.
  • "Modern scholarship often considers that Seleucus actually gave more territory, in what is now southern Afghanistan, and parts of Persia west of the Indus." Uncited.
  • Try to avoid "perhaps". It is weasel, and you use it a lot.
  • "the Diadochi finally decided to deal with Antigonus." Why? What else did Antigonus do, and caused this alliance against him?
  • Is your source for citation 49 "the Easton's Bible Dictionary"? And if yes, it still does not tell us who said the quote.
  • Do not forget that citations go always after the quotation mark.
  • In "Death and Legacy" I see nothing about his legacy,a dn a little about his death. How was he assassinated? How did Ptolemy approach and kill him?
  • External links go at the end of the article.
  • Format properly citation 1, consistently with the rest of your citations.
  • In References use Template:cite book for all your books. I personally prefer to have a separate section for further reading, so that the reader knows the exact books I used for the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themistocles

[edit]

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)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]
  • Trivia, but WP:MoS needs " " 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 (–, —, -).
  • 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.
  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cplakidas

[edit]

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)[reply]

Aristotle Onassis

[edit]

The Aristotle Onassis article has had some edit warring associated with it. The current version is stable with semi-protection. A review of the article by a neutral editor to identify deficiencies and direction on corrective action would go a long way to improving the article. It is currently rated high on the importance scale for Wikiproject Greece. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yannismarou

[edit]
  • Short lead. Expand it per WP:LEAD.
  • Your references are not properly formatted. Read carefully WP:CITE and WP:REFERENCES, and make use of a series of very useful templates: Template: cite book, Template: cite encyclopedia, Template: cite news, Template: cite web, and Template: cite journal.
  • Can't you try to find any free use image of him. If you are not familiar with copyrights in WP, tell me to elaborate.
  • "He once said: "It is hard to maintain vitality when you are always hungry". Uncited quote. Provide a source. And do not italicize.
  • Your prose is problematic. Start first with your structuring sentences and paragraphs. Your paragraphs are stubby, making the prose choppy. Merge these small, stubby paragraphs or expand them, and gradually improve the flow of your prose. After the article is further improved, you'll definitely need a copy-editing.
  • "After hearing from an Argentine film distributor and a senior executive at Paramount in New York reporting the film star Rudolph Valentino saying that everything from the Orient was in evidence at that moment". I lost you here.
  • "His power and influence rapidly increased". How? Can you expand?
  • "he was present at important social events, and in 1925 he received Argentine and Greek citizenships". Source?
  • "According to Peter Evans (his official biographer) and Christian Cafarakis (a former employee)[6] a considerable part of the tobacco was smuggled,[7]". Try to place the citations at the end of the sentences.
  • "In 1929 the Greek government announced a 1000% increase in tax of imported products from countries with no trade agreement with their country" Which is "their country"?
  • Multi-referencing problems in "success".
  • When you cite printed sources, add pages.
  • "Success" does not give me a comprehensive idea about how he achieved "success". You should re-organize and re-write the section, making the reader follow Onassis road to success.
  • "According to the Evans biography, four days after his marriage with Jacqueline". Who is she? I know who she is, but have you properly introduced the person to the reader? And, is the story of his career over, since you go to an isolated incident?! There is no concrete and comprehensive story to follow here. The biography seems like a collection of trivia.
  • Do not wikilink dates (read WP:MoS).
  • "According to Greek Fire: The Story of Maria Callas and Aristotle Onassis by Nicholas Gage, Callas gave birth to their child, a boy, who died hours later on March 30, 1960." You have the citations section to source your assertions; it is inconsistent to introduce a book in the main article in the way you do it.
  • "Onassis never recovered from the death of his son." Just a sentence (seamlessly connected with the rest of the article) for this issue?
  • "It was said[". WP:WEASEL.
  • "Popular Culture" is badly written! A collection of trivia, without even a proper order.
  • Do not put in "See also" articles already linked in the main text.

The article needs a lot of work. These are only some of the many remarks I could do. But it is a nice start. Keep up the good job, and when you feel the article is significantly improved, come here once again for a fresh review.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greece/Peer_review/2009&oldid=431474198"