Battle of Lade
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Speedy delist due to overwhelming consensus.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 01:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Massive citation issues (reliability of sources, lack of inline citations, reliance on one source). Fails criterion 2 any day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist. The article is a paraphrase of Herodotus. T8612 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist. Concurred with T8612. Ifly6 ( talk) 01:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Heavy reliance on single primary source. The initial History section lacks any citation. Can't see it still meets modern GA standard . Monstrelet ( talk) 08:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aside from the sourcing questions – both the overreliance on direct citations to Herodotus, and some uncited claims which really need referencing – the lead is surely far too short to meet criterion 1b. By far the main editor, MinisterForBadTimes, hasn't edited wikipedia in nearly a decade, so unless someone else picks this up for rescuing I suspect it'll need delisting. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist Large chunks of unsourced content and a commendable effort to be entirely made up of one primary source. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 21:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist - not close to the modern standards for GA. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Battle of Lade
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Speedy delist due to overwhelming consensus.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 01:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Massive citation issues (reliability of sources, lack of inline citations, reliance on one source). Fails criterion 2 any day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist. The article is a paraphrase of Herodotus. T8612 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist. Concurred with T8612. Ifly6 ( talk) 01:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Heavy reliance on single primary source. The initial History section lacks any citation. Can't see it still meets modern GA standard . Monstrelet ( talk) 08:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aside from the sourcing questions – both the overreliance on direct citations to Herodotus, and some uncited claims which really need referencing – the lead is surely far too short to meet criterion 1b. By far the main editor, MinisterForBadTimes, hasn't edited wikipedia in nearly a decade, so unless someone else picks this up for rescuing I suspect it'll need delisting. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist Large chunks of unsourced content and a commendable effort to be entirely made up of one primary source. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 21:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist - not close to the modern standards for GA. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.