Talk:Battle of Artemisium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References needed:
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comment

There are some POV and coverage issues. I advice you to use chapters 5 to 6 from Lazenby, The Defence of Greece, to broaden your coverage of modern sources and to include all points. In the structure you should better point out that the battle consists of several different engagements with more detail about tactics(diekplous) like in Battle of Yarmouk. That the Athenians had been building a fleet of 200 ships for three years for their war with Aigina should be included since they and the Aiginetes are armed up to their teeth in naval matters. The different storms should be highlighted and the different signal systems at work. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for the delay in getting round to this. I don't have access to a copy of Lazenby at this moment, although I'm hoping to get one soon. As soon as I do, I will revise this to include any extra points.

As far as the different engagements, I've now divided this into sections based on the days. I'm not sure there's much more I can say about tactics; I'm not sure anymore is known. What there is comes from Herodotus (for instance, the 'hedgehog' tactic on the first day).

I will add in the point about the Athenian fleet and the Aeginatans, and see if I can add any more about the storms and signalling. Oh, and I will add the references for the chronology later today. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you a copy of Lazenby via email. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I now have a copy of Lazenby, and I have started adding details, as suggested, to the article. If there's anything I've missed, please let me know. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the considerations section very much. You should go to MILHIST A-class review with this article. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand why references for simple and clear facts such as the fate of Persian ambassadors in Athens and Sparta (No 18), have to be done to Holland and not to Herodotus. By the way, is there any source about their trial in Athens ? Because Herodotus (VII, 133) does not mention trial. It would be necessary to justify that horrible ’’simply’’ (i.e. without trial) of Holland. Furthermore, the last reference of the text, concerning the Pindar’s verses (No 96), is not made to Plutarch (Themistocles, VIII), but to… Lazenby. Unbelievable ! ---Pagaeos (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it has some mistakes in Greek names. For example, the article uses the name Abronchius, but Herodotus (Urania, 21) said Ἀβρώνιχος ὁ Λυσικλέος Ἀθηναῖος, so it' s not Abronchius but Avronichos the son of Lysicleos the Athenian (or Avronichus the son of Lysicleus from Athens - it' s based in English translation of Ancient Greek names). Nataly8 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]