Talk:Battle of the Eurymedon (190 BC)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days...Ealdgyth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead:
- Perhaps one sentence in the last paragraph giving the longer term outcome to the battle - what the result of the Selucid navy being isolated meant?

Done

Background:
- We don't need to put "BC" after every date quite honestly. See MOS:ERA.

Done

- "whose rights were traditionally defended by Rhodes." - If the rights were traditionally defended by Rhodes, why was a Selucid getting involved? Did they control Rhodes at this point? It's not clear why the Selucids are trying to uphold Rhodian "rights" here.

They did not control Rhodes but what it boils do to is that the Seleucids believed that the Asia Minor states should have appealed to Rhodes for mediation and that Rome had no right to meddle into the region's affairs.--Catlemur (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude:
- "All while the Roman infantry would struggle to sustain itself, while remaining grounded in mainland Greece." This isn't a sentence - I think it's meant to be a dependent clause of the preceeding sentence?

Done

- Not a biggie - but "arrived at Piraeus too late" ... I usually have see "the Piraeus"? This was still Athens' seaport at the time, right? Might want to make that clear. Which side was Athens on? And why did the Roman fleet go to the Piraeus anyway?

Added a "the". Athens remained neutral in the conflict. The reason they arrived at the Piraeus was to repair their ships after a lengthy voyage from Italy and allow the crews to rest.--Catlemur (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows the only "concern" is quite obviously a scrape of wikipedia.

I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Apologies for only noticing the review now, I forgot to add this page to my watchlist. It should be ready now.--Catlemur (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I figured it got lost in the "thank goodness 2020 is over" haze... passing it now. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]