Talk:Battle of the Eurymedon

Eurymedon Pot

Can we get something in here about the Eurymedon pot? It's really funny AND completely relevent to this topic. Deutschebag17 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

• Battle of the Eurymedon River → Battle of the Eurymedon —Battle of the Eurymedon River is an unusual title. Most river battle articles today, as pertaining to Eurymedon River would either be worded as, Battle of Eurymedon River, or Battle of the Eurymedon, but most articles on Wikipedia are like Battle of the Granicus, not Battle of Eurymedon River, so it would be reasonable to change the name of this article to Battle of the Eurymedon. The term ‘the Eurymedon’, already means it’s a river. If anyone agrees, or disagrees, please respond below, thank you. --Ariobarza (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs Modern References

While the article uses original source materials such as Thucydides and Plutarch (which are important content vehicles), it does not use modern secondary sources for any respective dating of events that would bring this article up to contemporary standards (using a 1948 reference as primary information, makes this article obsolete). Additionally, it does not cite specific claims with any of the sources (i.e. using a Reflist)... Should anyone be able to contribute any of these, it would greatly improve the reliability of this article... Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Eurymedon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet"

   1. "In Plutarch's memorable words..." This sounds like a statement of opinion. It should be reworded.

• • • Reworded to avoid POV

1. 1. Did the Persian ships carry the same compliment of marines and troops as the Greek ships? if both sides used the same type of ship it could be concievable to infer troop strength from the ship estimates. If not, the differences in the the two sides' ship design should be at least briefly mentioned to explain why troop numbers are never discussed.

• • • I have clarified this point - the Persian complement was probably the same as the Greek.

1. 1. Is there any ballpark for casualties? If none of the references have any figures, then this should be stated in the text since it is a very important part of the battle.

• • • The only estimates refer to the number of ships lost; I have stated in the text that there are no estimates for troop casualties.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "There are no estimates for the size of the Persian army." - Needs a ref. Also, is there even a ballpark figure in any sources, or is it that not a single one of them mentions a number?

• • • There is no estimate for the Persian army in any ancient text. Some modern writers might have made estimates, but I haven't seen any. I've changed the sentence so that it refers only to the ancient sources.

1. 1. "that his men were exalted by the impetus and pride of their victory, and eager to come to close quarters with the Barbarians" - This quote needs a ref.

• • • Done

1. 1. Is there any way that the primary references can be put into one of the {{citation}} templates? I don't know if there is one specifically for them but it might look better.

• • • As I said in the review for Wars of the Delian League, I will look into this matter.

1. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

5. Overall:

   On Hold for a few issues. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

All points have been addressed to my satisfaction. The article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)