Cretan War (205–200 BC) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 29, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What can be done to improve this atricle.
I've edited the article for grammar and style, which was quite needed. Beyond that, I think it's a great start for an article, but it could use some more work in a few areas. First, I believe that all articles are improved by the addition of a picture, if available. Second, the middle section describing the war itself is kind of sparse. Are there any specific battles that can be mentioned by name? Finally, I do not know what can be done about this, but I find it confusing to read about a war with so many combatants, and trying to remember who was on which side, who they were, and why they were fighting. I have a similar problem in writing my own articles, so that's not something I expect is easy to fix. But it's there. Thank you for requesting an assessment, and good luck! LordAmeth 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A request for assessment was made — from my review, I find that is remains in class B. — ERcheck ( talk) 11:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The article needs citations to move up. Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I was left with a few questiosn following the reading of this article, where the inhabitants of Abydos really called Abysians? As well, the ending of the section reads rather poorly: The people of Abydos fought bravely and heroicly until nightfall and forced the Macedonians to retreat. That night they sent their two most prominent citizens to Philip offering to surrender him the city. All the Abydosians after they surrendered the city felt ashamed that they had betrayed their fallen comrades so that night they all commited suicide Should this be true it definitly needs ot be re-written.-- Dryzen 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the mistake. After futher research I found out that the real name of the inhabitants of Abydos were called Abydenians. I found the name Abysians from a source but Polybius says that they are called Abydenians and I think that Polybius is a better source. Kyriakos 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has come along very nicely and lacks only inline citation in the Prelude section to pass.
I would suggest also working on the writing further. For instance, the word "then" is over used. For example, in the intro:
The Macedonian fleet was defeated by the allied fleet at Chios but Philip then defeated the Rhodians at Lade. Philip then swept through Asia Minor where he plundered and captured many cities Caria. Philip then attacked Athens which was convinced by Attalus to declared war against Macedon. Rome then declared war on Philip so Philip abandoned his Rhodian campaign which left Rhodes with their new Cretan ally Knossos to defeat their main Cretan enemies, Olous and Hierapytna and force them to sign a treaty favourable to them.
I'd also avoid passive constructions like the "war was fought," which makes the passage feel a little fuzzy to english readers. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone added a coyedit flag. With this in place, it is a little difficult to justify a GA promotion. Does anyone know what kind of changes the editor who placed the flag would like to see? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It was recommended on its Military history A-class review. (To see the review go onto the Military history banner and click on the failed) Kyriakos 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm satisfied enough with it to promote the article. If no one objects to removing the flag, please do. At that point, I'd be happy to list it. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've started giving this a copyedit, through the piracy and war section, but I'm going to stop for the time being since I think that the article needs enough work that a polishing task like copyediting is a little premature just yet.
This article is well researched (although I would like to see a little more use of secondary sources for interpretation and opinions), and contains a lot of good information. The problem is that these facts aren't tied together--they're just thrown at you, one after another. Someone in a section above here noted the problem with overreliance on "then this happened. Then that happened. Then the other happened." constructions in this article. This problem isn't just stylistic; it deprives the facts of their relation to each other, and leaves the article without narrative flow; it's also much easier to leave important and relevant information out when you aren't tying an article together into a coherent narrative. This is a particular problem when trying to explain the strategy and tactics of the war. For example, to look at the battle of Chios. We have the following facts:
In cases of causality, of course, we are limited to stating what ancient sources and modern analysis provide us with, but there has to be more to say than these disjointed facts. Try to flesh out the article in a way that answers these questions, and the similar questions one might ask of other passages. FA is a reasonable goal for this article, with enough work, but it's going to require thought about how to make this tell a coherent story to the reader. Feel free to ask me about any parts of this that need clarification. I'll be glad to help out as I can with the article, although this is not a period I'm very familiar with. Good work so far, and keep at it; this can get to where you want it to be, with thoughtful effort. -- Robth Talk 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There's some confusing/contradictory wording:
and
I expanded the treaty article a bit, using the terms as reported in Livy, and they're not very illuminating on either point. It seems to me that the treaty may more accurately be described as a mutual peace between Rome, Aetolia, and Macedon, leaving Rhodes as the major power in the East left out, and thus Philip's natural enemy (with Carthage in the West occupying Rome). That is to say, the treaty was less about constraining Philip, than focusing his efforts. In any case, the wording above sounds like a contradiction even if strictly true, so I suggest a rewording describing the treaty more accurately. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 18:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Cretan War → Cretan War (205–200 BC) – The only move I see in the history of this article was a capitalization difference, so technically this wouldn't be a controversial move that requires this kind of a discussion, but it is a featured article so I'm erring on the side of caution.
I don't see proof of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the ancient war over the 17th-century war, Cretan War (1645–69) that is currently disambiguated only using a hatnote. I'm not exactly sure what the ancient war's article title should be, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be at this title that implies that it's the primary topic. I went to investigate a bit and found:
I'm going to create the unambiguous redirect and move the templates to use it temporarily. It'll be a brief WP:BRINT issue, but that is harmless and it will give us a clearer picture of what actually links here.
-- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
There is an excessive use of sources from the ancient world (Polybius and Livy) and inadequate use of modern, secondary sources. This is an old FA, not up to current standards, and needs some work if it is to retain its FA star. Bencherlite Talk 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it POV to say Philip was the "antagonist" of this war? Brutannica ( talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, why is it called "the Cretan War?" Crete seems to play a fairly minor role, both in the politics and the fighting. Brutannica ( talk) 23:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"After the Macedonians captured Thyatira, they advanced to plunder the plain of Thebe," Thebe is linked to the mythical Cilician Thebe! Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I've found two separate mentions of corn in this article. Corn didn't esist in the Old World until it was brought back from the Americas by European explorers over 1,500 years AFTER the Cretan War. Please refrain from re-adding any mention of the plant to the article, this is the second time I've fixed it. 65.209.62.115 ( talk) 05:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cretan War (205–200 BC)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Very nice!-- Yannismarou 08:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 12:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is no longer up to FA standards. Several entire paragraphs rely exclusively on Polybius or Livy and lack modern sources, especially in "Roman intervention". Among the latter, Hammond and Walbank are the best sources on Macedonia, but Walbank's Commentary on Polybius is missing, as well as Paul Cartledge's works on Sparta. T8612 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Cretan War (205–200 BC) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 29, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What can be done to improve this atricle.
I've edited the article for grammar and style, which was quite needed. Beyond that, I think it's a great start for an article, but it could use some more work in a few areas. First, I believe that all articles are improved by the addition of a picture, if available. Second, the middle section describing the war itself is kind of sparse. Are there any specific battles that can be mentioned by name? Finally, I do not know what can be done about this, but I find it confusing to read about a war with so many combatants, and trying to remember who was on which side, who they were, and why they were fighting. I have a similar problem in writing my own articles, so that's not something I expect is easy to fix. But it's there. Thank you for requesting an assessment, and good luck! LordAmeth 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A request for assessment was made — from my review, I find that is remains in class B. — ERcheck ( talk) 11:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The article needs citations to move up. Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I was left with a few questiosn following the reading of this article, where the inhabitants of Abydos really called Abysians? As well, the ending of the section reads rather poorly: The people of Abydos fought bravely and heroicly until nightfall and forced the Macedonians to retreat. That night they sent their two most prominent citizens to Philip offering to surrender him the city. All the Abydosians after they surrendered the city felt ashamed that they had betrayed their fallen comrades so that night they all commited suicide Should this be true it definitly needs ot be re-written.-- Dryzen 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the mistake. After futher research I found out that the real name of the inhabitants of Abydos were called Abydenians. I found the name Abysians from a source but Polybius says that they are called Abydenians and I think that Polybius is a better source. Kyriakos 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has come along very nicely and lacks only inline citation in the Prelude section to pass.
I would suggest also working on the writing further. For instance, the word "then" is over used. For example, in the intro:
The Macedonian fleet was defeated by the allied fleet at Chios but Philip then defeated the Rhodians at Lade. Philip then swept through Asia Minor where he plundered and captured many cities Caria. Philip then attacked Athens which was convinced by Attalus to declared war against Macedon. Rome then declared war on Philip so Philip abandoned his Rhodian campaign which left Rhodes with their new Cretan ally Knossos to defeat their main Cretan enemies, Olous and Hierapytna and force them to sign a treaty favourable to them.
I'd also avoid passive constructions like the "war was fought," which makes the passage feel a little fuzzy to english readers. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone added a coyedit flag. With this in place, it is a little difficult to justify a GA promotion. Does anyone know what kind of changes the editor who placed the flag would like to see? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It was recommended on its Military history A-class review. (To see the review go onto the Military history banner and click on the failed) Kyriakos 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm satisfied enough with it to promote the article. If no one objects to removing the flag, please do. At that point, I'd be happy to list it. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've started giving this a copyedit, through the piracy and war section, but I'm going to stop for the time being since I think that the article needs enough work that a polishing task like copyediting is a little premature just yet.
This article is well researched (although I would like to see a little more use of secondary sources for interpretation and opinions), and contains a lot of good information. The problem is that these facts aren't tied together--they're just thrown at you, one after another. Someone in a section above here noted the problem with overreliance on "then this happened. Then that happened. Then the other happened." constructions in this article. This problem isn't just stylistic; it deprives the facts of their relation to each other, and leaves the article without narrative flow; it's also much easier to leave important and relevant information out when you aren't tying an article together into a coherent narrative. This is a particular problem when trying to explain the strategy and tactics of the war. For example, to look at the battle of Chios. We have the following facts:
In cases of causality, of course, we are limited to stating what ancient sources and modern analysis provide us with, but there has to be more to say than these disjointed facts. Try to flesh out the article in a way that answers these questions, and the similar questions one might ask of other passages. FA is a reasonable goal for this article, with enough work, but it's going to require thought about how to make this tell a coherent story to the reader. Feel free to ask me about any parts of this that need clarification. I'll be glad to help out as I can with the article, although this is not a period I'm very familiar with. Good work so far, and keep at it; this can get to where you want it to be, with thoughtful effort. -- Robth Talk 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There's some confusing/contradictory wording:
and
I expanded the treaty article a bit, using the terms as reported in Livy, and they're not very illuminating on either point. It seems to me that the treaty may more accurately be described as a mutual peace between Rome, Aetolia, and Macedon, leaving Rhodes as the major power in the East left out, and thus Philip's natural enemy (with Carthage in the West occupying Rome). That is to say, the treaty was less about constraining Philip, than focusing his efforts. In any case, the wording above sounds like a contradiction even if strictly true, so I suggest a rewording describing the treaty more accurately. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 18:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Cretan War → Cretan War (205–200 BC) – The only move I see in the history of this article was a capitalization difference, so technically this wouldn't be a controversial move that requires this kind of a discussion, but it is a featured article so I'm erring on the side of caution.
I don't see proof of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the ancient war over the 17th-century war, Cretan War (1645–69) that is currently disambiguated only using a hatnote. I'm not exactly sure what the ancient war's article title should be, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be at this title that implies that it's the primary topic. I went to investigate a bit and found:
I'm going to create the unambiguous redirect and move the templates to use it temporarily. It'll be a brief WP:BRINT issue, but that is harmless and it will give us a clearer picture of what actually links here.
-- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
There is an excessive use of sources from the ancient world (Polybius and Livy) and inadequate use of modern, secondary sources. This is an old FA, not up to current standards, and needs some work if it is to retain its FA star. Bencherlite Talk 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it POV to say Philip was the "antagonist" of this war? Brutannica ( talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, why is it called "the Cretan War?" Crete seems to play a fairly minor role, both in the politics and the fighting. Brutannica ( talk) 23:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"After the Macedonians captured Thyatira, they advanced to plunder the plain of Thebe," Thebe is linked to the mythical Cilician Thebe! Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I've found two separate mentions of corn in this article. Corn didn't esist in the Old World until it was brought back from the Americas by European explorers over 1,500 years AFTER the Cretan War. Please refrain from re-adding any mention of the plant to the article, this is the second time I've fixed it. 65.209.62.115 ( talk) 05:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cretan War (205–200 BC)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Very nice!-- Yannismarou 08:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 12:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is no longer up to FA standards. Several entire paragraphs rely exclusively on Polybius or Livy and lack modern sources, especially in "Roman intervention". Among the latter, Hammond and Walbank are the best sources on Macedonia, but Walbank's Commentary on Polybius is missing, as well as Paul Cartledge's works on Sparta. T8612 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)