Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 [1].

---

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Macedonia, home of Alexander the Great, deserves an article worthy of His Majesty's name! It is the will of the gods and the birthright of the Macedonians to both conquer and rule this little section of Wikipedia. Like the glorious Philippeion of Olympia, Greece erected by Alexander's one-eyed father Philip II, this article has been constructed for the glory of Macedonia (no, not that Macedonia you pleb). Although it has attained the rank of Good Article status, anything less than Featured Article status would be a shameful insult and blight on the cherished name and memory of the Argead dynasty.

Other editors and I have worked hard to bring to you the present incarnation of this article, which is well-sourced, well-illustrated (with all the appropriate copyright tags/licensing), meticulously proportioned and balanced, and linked to appropriate sub articles via Wikipedia:Summary style (e.g., History, Government, Rise of Macedon, Ancient Macedonians, Ancient Macedonian language, Ancient Macedonian army, etc.). In regards to the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size and the current size of this article, please view our community discussion and consensus (external link). I consider that talk page discussion as necessary reading before any of you raise any sort of objection about the article's size, which has been drastically reduced even since the successful GA nomination, thanks to the creation of new sub-articles (authored by yours truly and currently GA candidates if anyone's interested in reviewing them as well). I look forward to the nomination process and I hope that we can have a thought-provoking, civil discussion on how to improve the article if necessary. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Philip II": Inconsistency. It would probably be best to use "Philip II" at first occurrence in each paragraph and "Philip" after that, unless there's another Philip involved.
• "utilized": overutilized. Substitute "used" for some of these.
• "allegedly sent two-hundred ships": alleged by whom? If you're pretty sure he didn't do this, delete this phrase, and if you're pretty sure he did it, based on the sources, drop "allegedly".
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Another monumental achievement. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. As you've suggested, I got rid of the word "allegedly" in the sentence about Philip V's navy. However, I can find only two instances in the entire article where the word "utilized" has been employed. Are you sure that this represents an overuse of that term? Also, "Philip II" is numbered precisely because in that sub-section and in the next we refer to his son and one of his successors, Philip III of Macedon (or Philip III Arrhidaeus). In the following sub-sections we also discuss the reigns of Philip IV of Macedon and Philip V of Macedon. More than that, there's only one monarch in this entire article who has skirted the rule of repeatedly having a Latin numeral placed after his name (minus those monarchs who had unique names that weren't repeated), and that's Alexander the Great. He is mentioned once in the article as Alexander III of Macedon, yet we shorten this to Alexander or just Alexander the Great because that is how the general public knows him. This follows the rule of Wikipedia:Common names where, for instance, we refer to the politician Bill Clinton as such, not by his full name William Jefferson Clinton. Likewise, we do not use the full names or even the surnames of well known performance artists Bono (Paul Hewson) or Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta). I actually attempted to have Alexander the Great mentioned as "Alexander III" in every instance, but these Latin numerals were removed by another editor. I did not want to engage in an edit war and I recognized the Wiki guideline about the use of common names, so that's why the article looks the way it does now. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to take the second paragraph of the lead, for instance: it's Philip II, then Philip, then Philip II again, and no other Philip has been mentioned. I think your basic approach is sound ... you want to keep reminding people you're talking about Philip II, but that gets tiresome so you mix in Philip. I just think that it's somewhat conventional to give the full name once in a paragraph and the short name thereafter, unless, in that paragraph, there are other Philips to consider. Again, great work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: thank you VERY much for pointing these out, as I was unaware of them. Another editor made some copyedits to the first few sub-sections recently and I hadn't noticed these specific changes in removing the Latin numerals after Philip's name in some places. I have edited the article to make it clear once again exactly which Philip of Macedon we are discussing in each and every instance. Once again, the only monarch who is allowed to shirk this rule is Alexander the Great, who is also named as Alexander III of Macedon in a couple places just to avoid any and all ambiguity. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clearer, I meant "Philip II" at first occurrence in a paragraph and "Philip" thereafter, where it's unambiguous. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I should have added: use your discretion on what "unambiguous" means. In the second paragraph of the lead, no one else named Philip has been mentioned. Later on, you could argue that if another Philip has been mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, then "Philip" might be ambiguous. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Eh...it's fine the way it is now, I think. Thanks once again for your review! Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, sorry, I thought I was done, but there's something of a consensus now to look at tightening leads, and I'm happy to see Tony working on that below. Two suggestions:
• Is it possible to slide "Ancient: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]" over to the right, into a third line in the infobox, or to put it in a footnote?
• "during most of its existence initially" is a little off; compare with "the whole time at first". One option is to start with "initially" and then put "during most of its existence" before the other two dynasties, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: hello again! I have shifted that pronunciation of "Makedonia" into a footnote as you've suggested. I've also reworded that sentence about the royal dynasties of Makedonia, although I did not use your suggested fix. The new sentence reads as thus: "The kingdom was founded and at first ruled by the royal Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties." I think it sounds crisper this way. Sometimes simpler is better. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all maps
• Coins are considered 3D works and so should not generally use the PD-Art tag. Sculptural works definitely should not use this tag
• File:Coin_of_Amyntas_III-161113.jpg needs a licensing tag for the photo
• File:Pella_House_atrium.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
• File:Aristoteles_Louvre.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:20100913_Ancient_Theater_Marwneia_Rhodope_Greece_panoramic_3.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: hello! Thanks for taking a look at these. The source info for Pella House Atrium is now fixed. However, I have a couple questions. Should the coins still contain PD tags, just not PD-Art ones? Since they are ancient art? What should I do for sculptural works? I am confused, since you say the sculpture of Aristotle and Theatre of Rhodope need copyright tags for the original work. Please be specific as to which precise tags are needed for each of these items, and I will gladly fix them. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

PD-US and PD-70 would apply to most of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: hi again. I have done as you've requested and fixed the license tags for each image of a sculpted work of art or coin. Please let me know if there are any pictures that I might have missed or that need further editing. I have also enlarged each and every map image in the article as you've suggested (minus the map in the infobox of the lead section). I hope all of these latest edits suffice! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Looks well-written. I read the lead carefully:
  • "For a brief period, his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world, the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Could that be: "For a brief period his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world – the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Placement of the dash (or pair of dashes) affects the meaning; currently, with just commas it's ambiguous.
  • "advances in philosophy, engineering, and science were spread throughout the ancient world"—Is "throughout" an overstatement?
  • "and even possessed democratic municipal governments"—does one "possess" a government?
  • "New cities were also founded"—is "also" needed? Tony (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: hi Tony! Long time no see; I remember you reviewing more than one of my featured articles in the past. It's good to see that you're still around! Thanks for taking the time to review the lead section. I have decided to amend that section according to your suggestions. I did change "possessed democratic municipal governments" to "had democratic municipal governments," although I'm not quite sure if this change was necessary. The subject of this statement is "local governments", which I believe can possess things. Right? There are multiple definitions for the word "possess," one of them being "have as an ability, quality, or characteristic," as opposed to the more common definition: "have as belonging to one; to own," or "have possession of as distinct from ownership." I believe that my original intent in writing that sentence followed the first definition here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Perecles, you're welcome. "while a few local governments within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had/possessed democratic municipal governments with popular assemblies" – I think simpler is better. But either way, it brings up something I didn't quite notice before: governments have governments? Perhaps it could be "a few local areas ... and even had governments with popular assemblies"? Tony (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: ha! How did I not notice this before? I have reworded the sentence as follows: "The authority of Macedonian kings was theoretically limited by the institution of the army, while a few municipalities within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had democratic governments with popular assemblies." That's the most optimal solution, I think. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Support the sourcing, have not judged content. Source review - note that I haven't read the article itself. I reviewed this version. Gotta sweat some of the small stuff.

• General comments
  • As with Sino-Roman relations, only the first place of publication listed on a book's title page is needed. See e.g. Chicago Manual of Style 14.135: "The place to be incuded is the one that usually appears on the title page but sometimes on the copyright page of the book cited—the city where the publisher's main editorial offices are located. Where two or more cities are given ("Chicago and London," for example, appears on the title page of the print edition of this manual), only the first normally included in the documentation."
  • I really don't like the use of ampersands. I can (begrudgingly) accept their use in individual citations for length reasons, but they should be replaced with "and" in the bibliography.
  • Given the quantity and length of some of your discursive footnotes, I'd recommend splitting them into a separate section. See WP:EXPLNOTE.
  • Should the Encyclopædia Britannica appear in further reading or external links? One, not both!
• Citations
  • Why the full citations for Liddell and Scott in refs 9 and 10? Should be Liddell and Scott 1940.
  • You need to decide whether you're going to end all the citations with or without a period. ;-)
  • Ref 237 has a hanging semi-colon.
  • Not a fan of the quote in ref 266. I'd integrate it into the main article or put it into your own words. Same with ref 352 and 353. Note that it's not clear which ref covers the quote in 352.
  • "seems far less convinced" and "seems less convinced" read a little bit like OR, although I totally understand what you're trying to do there. I might suggest rewording to "Errington is more skeptical ..."
• Sources section
  • E. J. Brill or Brill? Be consistent.
  • Ahmed's Chaghatai is from a self-published source.
  • Why are you citing a chapter by Bolman in a book written by Bolman? This should be cited in the usual style for books.
  • Is the 2002 edition of Bringmann in German? It's not coming up in Worldcat.
  • Chugg's Alexander's Lovers is by Lulu, a self-published source.
  • I'm not sure that A. Giuffrè was the editor of de Francisci's Arcana Imperii II? Worldcat has that as the publisher.
  • Hofmann's Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Griechischen - in German, I assume? Should be noted in the citation.
  • I wonder if there's a better source than Joseph, which appears to be the quasi-personal webspace for an OSU professor? If kept, you should standardize the citation to Joseph 2004 in ref 292.
  • Renault's The Nature of Alexander the Great ought to be cited to the original source. I'm not really doubting that Open Road Integrated Media messed with the text, assuming that the line "a focus on publishing ebook editions of older works of literature and nonfiction" in its Wikipedia article is accurate, but it really doesn't come across as reliable with a publisher like that. Full info is on Worldcat.
  • Why are you citing two different editions of Worthington's Alexander the Great: a Reader? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pericles' reply

@The ed17: greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review this article as well as Sino-Roman relations, even after it's successful FAC. I've addressed each and every one of your points, with the sole exception of your quibble about quotations in the citations (now placed in a new "notes" section). However, I have removed one of quotations that you viewed as problematic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Per the Chicago Manual of Style and for that matter Harvard style, I have removed all the additional publication locations/cities.
• I have removed all ampersands in the article that were not critical components to some of the URLs.
• Encyclopædia Britannica now appears only in the "External links" section.
• As I mentioned above, I have created a new "notes" ref group above citations for all those lengthy, discursive footnotes.
• I fixed the inline citations from online sources, e.g. Liddell and Scott 1940.
• All footnotes now contain uniform punctuation; feel free to point out any mistakes if they still exist. I'm pretty sure that I expunged every non-conforming, deviating instance of punctuation.
• Changed "seems less convinced" to "is skeptical" per your suggestion.
• Changed every instance of "E.J. Brill" to "Brill".
• Chaghatai wasn't actually cited in the article, so that was simple enough to remove. I've also removed Chugg as you've suggested.
• You are mistaken about Elizabeth Bolman. She is not the author of that book; she's the editor! It contains chapters written by various authors. She happens to be one of the authors writing some of the book chapters, not all of them.
• Bringmann's 2002 publication must be in German. In either case the 2007 edition is in English. I simply forgot to add the translator's name (i.e. W.J. Smyth), which I have done a moment ago.
• You're absolutely correct about A. Giuffrè being the publisher, not the editor. That was an honest mistake on my part, one that has now been fixed.
• I have specified that Hofmann's book is in German.
• I have fixed the online source citation for Joseph 2001. As for removing it, I'd like to see a second opinion on that. It's at least an academic source, i.e. a website hosted by an academic institution. It's also listed among other sources in that citation. If the citation relied on that single source, then perhaps it would be problematic. His opinion is at least supported by a few other authors who've had their books published by academic presses.
• I have changed Renault's publication details as you've suggested.
• Although I've removed the additional version of Worthington's Alexander the Great: a Reader, it exists there as a remnant of how the article was before I conducted a massive removal and shift of material into the existing sub-article Ancient Macedonians and new sub-articles History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), per Wikipedia:Summary style.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As for the lengthy quotations in citations 266, 352, and 353, I've removed the first one and reworded the sentence in order to use my own words instead of a quotation. However, I'm keeping the quotations in 352 and 353 (after distinguishing which "Errington" source the quotation came from in citation 352). I don't see a problem with these, since they aren't incredibly lengthy, just single paragraphs each. It would be one thing if I quoted half of their books. Then we'd have a copyright issue. There are featured articles on Wikipedia, such as the one on Pericles, which utilize sizable quotations in the body of the article, let alone in the footnotes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems more like a pet peeve of yours than an actual Wiki guideline that must be followed. In either case, thanks once again for reviewing the article. I hope that you view my recent changes to the article as being satisfactory. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey PericlesofAthens, just a note that I've seen your reply and will return here asap. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: well, you can take your time, I think. This review doesn't seem to be going anywhere anyway. I remember the days of old (c. 2007-2011) when featured article candidates used to get 20 to 30 comments/supports/oppositions within a single week. Now the FAC page is something of a ghost town. Kinda spooky. And also very sad. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Times are changing, and not always for the better. :-/ Your changes look good. I've supported above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: thank you kindly for your support! Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• tentative support - I like what I read - not seeing any glaring prose errors - the prose is good enough that I just slip into "reader" rather than "corrector" mode, which is a good sign. It appears comprehensive. I do wonder whether the History material is long compared with the rest of the material but then again, it is pretty convoluted. 85 kb of readable prose is pretty long, but I'm not hugely fussed by that. The only thing i'd definitely do is remove or drastically trim the see also section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: thanks for your support! I have followed your advice and removed about half of the links in the "See also" section. As noted above, the current size of the article has been reviewed by other active editors and a consensus has been reached that the prose size is appropriate. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but 85 kb is also a bit too high of an estimate since it includes the lead section. I just checked by doing the "page size" test, which always seems to include the lead section for some reason. The actual prose body is perhaps a bit closer to 80 KB in size. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• "Ancient Macedonians": is this commonly used as a proper noun? I would expect "ancient" to be an adjective modifying "Macedonian", and be lowercase – as it seems to be used in the article on ancient Macedonians.
• Lead implies that Alexander was mainly motivated in his invasion of Persia by desire for retaliation against an invasion which had happened 100+ years before he was born: is this accurate?
• Successor states mentioned in the lead in the paragraph before it is explained that Alexander's empire broke up upon his death: perhaps this should be reordered

Etymology

• Indo-European currently links to a disambiguation page. Would it be better to pipe it to Proto-Indo-European or Indo-European languages?

Rise of Macedon

• "Philip II practiced polygamy and married seven wives with perhaps only one that did not involve the loyalty of his aristocratic subjects or new allies." This clause is confusing. Does it mean that of Philip's wives, he married six for political reasons but the seventh perhaps for personal reasons?

Only read as far as the end of the section "Rise of Macedon" so far. I shall try to come back and finish the article off later today, but no significant concerns so far. Certainly the article is comprehensive and thoroughly referenced. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Pericles' reply

Lead

• Changed "Ancient Macedonians" to "ancient Macedonians"
• The Persian invasions of Greece during the first quarter of the 5th century BC witnessed events such as Xerxes' decision to burn Athens to the ground. The Athenians faced total destruction and subjugation yet prevailed at the naval Battle of Salamis. Meanwhile, as explained in the article, the Macedonians were allied vassals of the Persians and aided them during this invasion, yet broke this alliance once the Persians fled Greece. The Greeks had a long collective memory; the burning of the greatest city in the Greek world was not something they were just going to forget. Philip II and Alexander were no doubt eager to champion the Greek cause of invading Persia because it suited their political interests and enhanced their own prestige while at the same time placating their Greek subjects and allies, many of whom viewed the Macedonians as semi-barbarian. It was more or less a means of further cementing the Macedonians' Greek identity by addressing the chief concern of the Greeks, although the Spartans perhaps did not share this since they sometimes favored a loose alliance with the Persians. I'm not going to explain all of this in the article, since it is not the purpose of this article to do that. If someone wants to know more about the Greeks' heated obsession with vengeance and invading Persia, there are plenty of links to other articles that they can explore. This article is bloated enough and there is no need to expand it, least of all with a lengthy expose about the Greeks' reasoning behind the invasion of Persia.

Etymology

• Provided piped link to Indo-European languages as you've suggested

Rise of Macedon

• Yes, that's what it means. You and everyone else can read the "note" at the end of the sentence if you want to know more. In sum, Plutarch and Athenaeus argued that Philip's marriage to Cleopatra Eurydice was only for love and was spurred by a midlife crisis. The present-day historian Sabine Müller is skeptical about this claim. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• There is a "clarification needed'" in the Kingship and the royal court section.
• "The reign of Philip II (359–336 BC)" As the three dynasties are mentioned above, I think it would be helpful to specify "The reign of the Argead king Philip II (359–336 BC)"
• "Sparta was kept isolated" This sounds POV. It was no doubt Alexander's version. The Spartans would have said that even he did not attempt to conquer them.
• "in retaliation for the Persian invasion of Greece in the 5th century BC." This sounds more like an excuse than a reason, and I cannot see where it is supported in the main text.
• "In the ensuing wars of Alexander the Great, Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire" The second 'Alexander' could be replaced with 'he'.
• "the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." This appears to say that Greek civilisation started with Alexander. Maybe "a new period in Ancient Greek civilization".
• "The Macedonian kings, who wielded absolute power and commanded state resources such as gold and silver, facilitated mining operations to mint currency, finance their armies and, by the reign of Philip II, a Macedonian navy." This is out of place as it follows discussion of the results of Alexander's conquests. I suggest moving it up to follow "subordinate to Achaemenid Persia", apart from Philip's navy, which could be added to comments about his army.
• "the point where Macedonia enters the historical record, since very little is known about the kings before his reign." Presumably not just the kings - I would say "about the kingdom".
• "Historian Robert Malcolm Errington posits the theory" This is too wordy. What is wrong with "suggests"?
• "Alexander I was employed as an Achaemenid diplomat to strike a peace treaty and alliance with Athens, yet this proposal was rejected." This does not sound quite right to me. Maybe "Alexander I was employed as an Achaemenid diplomat to propose a peace treaty and alliance with Athens, but the offer was rejected."
• "The Athenian statesman Pericles promoted colonization of the Strymon River" Why did this affect Macedonia? Was the river in Macedon?
• "The latter was eventually besieged by Athens" Was Potidaea conquered?
• "their capture of Therma and Beroea" I suggest "their capture of the Macedonian cities Therma and Beroea"
• "Yet when Argos suddenly switched sides as a pro-Athenian democracy, the Athenian navy was able to form a blockade against Macedonian seaports and invade Chalcidice in 417 BC." This is an example of a stylistic quirk which I find very irritating, of the frequent inappropriate use of the word "yet", as if something surprising will follow, when there is nothing surprising about it. Another example is "Yet when Archelaus I was assassinated (perhaps following a homosexual love affair with royal pages at his court), the kingdom was plunged into chaos," It is not surprising that the assassination of the king plunged the kingdom into chaos. "Yet" is used 28 times in the article, and I think it would be helpful if you checked each one to see whether it is the right word in the context.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply by PericlesofAthens

• @Dudley Miles: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I have fixed the clarification tag and wording in that particular sentence of the royal court sub-section.
• I added "Argead king" before "Philip II" as you've suggested.
• I reworded "Sparta was kept isolated" to "Sparta remained defiant", which is true in any case.
• I have removed "in retaliation for the Persian invasion of Greece in the 5th century BC" from the lead section and instead have provided an explanation of the underlying reasons for the Macedonian-led invasion of Persia in the "Rise of Macedon" sub-section.
• Replaced that second "Alexander" with "he" as you have recommended.
• I reworded that sentence in the lead so that it now reads as "a new period in Ancient Greek civilization".
• I have decided not to shift the sentence about the powers of the Macedonian kings and the state resources at their disposal up to the place you have suggested (i.e. "briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia"), since I think it would awkwardly interrupt the narrative about Macedonia's early history. To be honest, this is the only suggestion of yours that I find strongly objectionable. Your other suggestions are superb, though. ;)
• I have changed "about the kings" to "about the kingdom" as you've proposed for the History section.
• I have changed "Robert Malcolm Errington posits the theory" to "Robert Malcolm Errington suggests".
• I reworded the sentence about Alexander I serving as an Achaemenid diplomat to Athens.
• I have clarified that the Strymon River was next to the Kingdom of Macedonia.
• I have clarified that the Athenian siege of Potidaea was ultimately unsuccessful.
• I have reworded the passage about the Athenian capture of Therma and Beroea.
• I have expunged many instances of the word "yet" from this article and most certainly every extraneous use of the word. There are still instances of the word "yet", which I'm not sure will irritate you or not, but I feel as though performing a Nazi-style Holocaust of each and every "yet" is perhaps a bit much. Lol. The word "but" is obviously a fine substitute in many of these cases, so I've decided to mix things up a bit by using that conjunction a bit more often.
• I look forward to further comments and suggestions. All the best, Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

More comments

• "led by Bardylis". Bardylis should be linked.
• Chalcidian League. As you have said that the League was dissolved in 379, it would be helpful to explain that it was later re-established.
• "The treaty stipulated that Athens would relinquish Macedonian coastal claims and Amphipolis in return for the enslaved Athenians as well as guaranteed that Philip II would not attack Athenian settlements in the Thracian Chersonese." There are several problems with this sentence. 1. I do not understand "Athens would relinquish Macedonian coastal claims". Athens could only relinquish its own claims, not Macedonian ones 2. What is meant by "coastal claims" - territory on the coast or the sea? 3. "in return for the enslaved Athenians" should be "in return for the release of the enslaved Athenians" 4. "guaranteed" should be "guarantees"
• "Meanwhile, Phocis and Thermopylae were captured," Presumably by Philip, but it would be helpful to say so.
• "Philip II was elected as the leader (hegemon) of its council (synedrion) and its commander-in-chief (strategos autokrator) of a forthcoming campaign to invade the Achaemenid Empire." I think this should be "the commander-in-chief"
• "The Persian aid offered to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC highlighted Macedonia's strategic need" As the aid has not previously been mentioned, I would say "The Persians offered aid to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC, highlighting Macedonia's strategic need"
• "Achaemenid encroachment, as Artaxerxes III" I suggest "Achaemenid encroachment, as the King of Persia, Artaxerxes III"
• " the assassination of Philip II in 336 BC" The date should be in the previous paragraph.
• "noting Philip II's choice to exclude Alexander" I would say "noting that Philip"
• "the relegated position Alexander was given as regent of Greece" What was he relegated from and what does "regent of Greece mean?
• "Nonetheless, Alexander III (r. 336–323 BC) was immediately proclaimed king" Why "Nonetheless"? Is there evidence that Alexander was suspected at the time?
• "the Illyrian king Cleitus of the Dardani threatened to attack Macedonia, but Alexander took the initiative and besieged them at Pelion" The grammar is wrong here. Maybe besieged Cleitus or besieged the Dardani.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply

• Bardylis is already linked in that sub-section, in the previous paragraph to be exact. Linking it twice in the same sub-section would be overkill.
• I have explained that the Chalcidian League had been reestablished in 375 BC, well before their war with Philip II.
• That sentence about "coastal claims" is a bit vague but the gist of it is correct; the Chalcidice peninsula was a contested territory claimed by both Athens and Macedonia, although it later formed part of Macedonia proper. There are also coastal territories along the Aegean, both to the east and west of the Chalcidice, that belong to Macedonia. For instance, the Strymon River empties into the Aegean to the east of Chalcidice and the territory between them was considered Macedonian. In either case I have reworded this troubling sentence, in order to avoid any and all confusion.
• I have specified that the Macedonians captured Phocis and Thermopylae, although I did not say Philip II, because it would be redundant to write "Philip II" twice in the same sentence.
• I changed "its" to "the" before "commander-in-chief", as you've suggested.
• I have reworded the passage about the Persians under Artaxerxes III providing aid to Perinthus and Byzantion.
• I have provided a link to "Regent of Greece", where readers can be redirected if they wish to know more about this historical office.
• I have reworded that sentence to "choosing instead for him to act as regent of Greece and deputy hegemon of the League of Corinth".
• I have reworded that sentence to "besieged the Dardani" instead of "besieged them", given that the clause of the sentence contains a singular noun (i.e. their king Cleitus).
• Once again, thanks for the comments and for reviewing the article! Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Further points.

• Have you not given a detailed account of Alexander the Great's overseas conquests because you do not consider them relevant to an article about Macedonia?. As Macedonia's importance lies above all (so far as I know) in the spread of Greek culture resulting from his conquests, I think it is crucial.
• "Leonnatus rescued Antipater by lifting the siege." Maybe "A Macedonain army led by Leonnatus rescued Antipater by lifting the siege."
• "The beginning of Hellenistic Greece was defined by the struggle between the Antipatrid dynasty, led first by Cassander (r. 305–297 BC), son of Antipater, and the Antigonid dynasty, led by Antigonus I Monophthalmus (r. 306–301 BC)" Presumably both dynasties founded by Macedonian generals, but it would help to say so. Also Cassander r. 305-297 and Antigonus r. 306-301: as they reigned at the same time, which territories did they rule over?
• " Antipater II killed his own mother and regent to obtain power" I thought at first you were talking about two different people - I would delete "and regent".
• "Demetrius had his nephew Alexander V assassinated and was then proclaimed king in Macedonia" Demetrius was an Antigonid and Alexander an Antipatrid so how were they uncle and nephew? Also you say "king in Macedonia". If this means part of Macedonia, which part?
• "which contributed to the rise of Rome now that Greek cities in southern Italy such as Tarentum became Roman allies". Perhaps "rise of Rome because Greek cites"
• "the queen mother and regent Olympias II of Epirus" I think "the queen mother and regent of Epirus, [[Olympias II of Epirus|[Olympias II]]" would be clearer.
• As a general point, I think the details of minor wars could usefully be cut down, as they sometimes become strings of names which do not add to understanding. I would be interested to know what other reviewers think.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply

• Per your suggestions, I have reworded the passages regarding Leonnatus, Cassander and Antigonus I, Antipater II, Demetrius and Alexander V, Roman allies in southern Italy, and Olympias II of Epirus.
• However, I don't think it's necessary to discuss the shifting borders that existed in Macedonia during the civil war between Cassander and Antigonus I, at least not prior to the fateful Battle of Ipsus. The "History" section is already bloated and verbose enough as it is; such details are better suited for the History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) sub-article. There's also little need to explain the fact that Alexander V was a nephew of Demetrius, given how much intermarriage occurred among the Macedonian nobility to cement marriage alliances between their clans. Again, it's another detail that's best left for the History sub-article.
• Your suggestion that Alexander's conquests aren't given enough weight in the article is contradicted not only by the presence of an entire sub-section dedicated to them, but also by the fact that it is a frequently recurring theme in the rest of the article (which I'm now assuming you have not yet read in full). There are plenty of links directing readers to other articles about Alexander the Great and his conquests. They can learn more about them in those articles. The chief purpose of this article is to summarize the major events as they pertain to the Kingdom of Macedonia proper, via Wikipedia:Summary style. As such, it would be highly inappropriate to meander into other topics and divert too much attention away from the main subject just to accommodate some readers who would like to know more about Alexander's eastern adventures.

• I disagree. Alexander's conquests created a large scale Macedonian empire and led to a long term Hellenization of the culture and language of large parts of the ancient world, especially Mesopotamia and Egypt, and they are a large part of why Macedonia was important in world history. A paragraph detailing his conquests would therefore be appropriate, particularly as you describe conflicts in these territories after Alexander's death. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion that we trim details about the "minor wars" that Macedonia fought in, because you haven't cited any specific examples. Which sub-section or sub-sections are you referring to specifically? What criteria are you using to pass judgment about any of these wars being minor ones instead of major conflicts, often with dire consequences for the kingdom? Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: did you finish your review of the article? It has been two weeks since you posted comments here. Do you have any outstanding objections? I'd like to wrap things up here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I will try to finish in the next few days. See also the comment above. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• "In 216 BC, Philip V sent a hundred light warships into the Adriatic Sea to attack Illyria, a move that did not go unnoticed by Rome" This sounds a bit odd. Was not Rome bound to notice?
• "Although the Macedonians were perhaps only interested in safeguarding their conquered territories in Illyria,[172] the Romans were nevertheless able to thwart Philip V's ambitions in the Adriatic" I am not clear what you are saying here. You have said above that Philip's attempt to conquer Illyria failed, but now he is safeguarding his conquests - and what ambitions did the Romans thwart? (I assume that he had conquered part of Illyria and wanted to conquer the rest, but this should be clarified.)
• "This assuaged the fear of Eumenes II that Macedonia could no longer threaten his lands in the Hellespont." The grammar seems to have gone wrong here. He feared that Macedonia could not threaten him?
• "The preference of certain male offspring over others is questionable" Which male offspring?
• "the king was at least occasionally pressured to oblige their demands." I think "agree to" would be better than "oblige"
• "Although Macedonian cities nominally participated in Panhellenic events on their own accord". "on their own accord" does not sound right.
• "Alexander the Great's royal squadron of companion cavalry were similarly numbered to the 800 cavalrymen of the sacred squadron". I assume this means that there were 800 in each, but it is not clear.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply

• @Dudley Miles: I'm glad to see that you are back. Per your suggestions, I have reworded the passages regarding Illyria, the Adriatic, Eumenes II and the Hellespont, the unclear rules in the royal succession of male offspring of Macedonian queens, queen consorts, or even slave women, the participation of Macedonian cities in Panhellenic conferences/games/festivals, the royal squadron of Alexander the Great versus the sacred squadron of Philip V, and changed "obliged" to "agreed" in that particular sentence about the powers of the king versus the Macedonian royal council.
• That being said, I did not belabor the point or go into a great amount of detail about the partial control of Illyria by Macedonia, since that is clarified in the very next paragraph that states "the Roman Republic negotiated the Treaty of Phoenice in 205 BC, ending the war and allowing the Macedonians to retain some captured settlements in Illyria." The article also never said anything about Philip failing to conquer all of Illyria or parts of it, only that his fleet of a hundred light warships were ordered to retreat once the Romans began patrolling the Illyrian coast. The article also says nothing of Philip being able to defeat Scerdilaidas of the Ardiaean Kingdom in Illyria. Indeed, the opposite was true, since Philip was forced to make peace with Scerdilaidas' successor Pleuratus III. I thought it was a tangential thing to mention, but perhaps this should be explained in the article to avoid confusion. However, I didn't want to get ahead of myself by mentioning all of this before explaining that the Treaty of Phoenice ended the First Macedonian War.
• As for your rebuttal about the article requiring more information of Alexander's conquests, I agree that it is not a minor issue, but the problem I have with adding substantial new material is the obvious disobedience of the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size. Again, if you or other readers would like to know more about Alexander or his conquests, then perhaps we could spruce up the already existing History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) article to accommodate this information. Literally every section of this article ("History", "Institutions", "Society and Culture", "Technology and Engineering", "Currency, Finances, and Resources") describes the profound impact of his reign on Macedonia and other regions of his empire. A detailed narrative of how he conquered Egypt and Mesopotamia is completely unnecessary when we have the article Wars of Alexander the Great (and for that matter it didn't take much to conquer Egypt after the Siege of Gaza). If you have very specific statements you'd like to add to the "Empire" sub-section that you consider highly relevant, please list them here (preferably in descending order of importance). Otherwise I fail to see why we should disobey WP:SIZE by adding more material to the article when it could be easily added to the History article I created for this very purpose. Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Further comments

• "In Macedonia, politics and religion were often intertwined." There is nothing specifically Macedonian about this as it is the case in almost all societies.
• "Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, a similar institution did not exist in the Kingdom of Macedonia." I found this comment unclear. "maintained ancestral cults" links to an article about the Ptolemaic cult of Alexander, but it does not say that the Ptolemies claimed descent from Alexander. Another point is that it would also be clearer to say that in Macedonia kings were not worshipped rather than referring to a similar institution.
• "The bedrock of the Macedonian economy and state finances were mainly supported by logging and by mining valuable minerals such as copper, iron, gold, and silver." In Macedonia itself or conquered territories? Also, what is meant by "bedrock of"? I would delete it.
• "By the reign of Archelaus I" I would add "in the late 5th century".
• "archaic, perhaps Homeric, funerary rites connected with the symposium" The linked article on 'symposium' confirms my impression that it was a drinking party in Classical Greece (or a banquet as stated in this article below). Is there evidence connecting it with archaic funerary rites?
• "bas-reliefs of the Alexander Sarcophagus" Perhaps "bas-reliefs of the late 4th century Alexander Sarcophagus"
• "The king was capable of exploiting the mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state, although these were often leased as assets". "capable of" sounds odd to me in this context. Maybe "Some mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state were exploited by the king, but they were often leased as assets"
• You said that you have moved a lot of material to History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). This is very helpful, but in my opinion there are still a lot of details in this article which belong in the sub-article. To pick a random example:

In 429 BC, during the height of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, Perdiccas II sent military aid to the Spartans at Acarnania, but the Macedonians arrived too late, allowing the Athenians to prevail at the Battle of Naupactus.[29] Athens retaliated the same year by convincing Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but the Athenians eventually declined to offer the powerful Thracian ruler any naval support in Chalcidice, perhaps out of fear of his regional ambitions.[30] Sitalces retreated from Macedonia due to a shortage of provisions for the army during winter.[31] In 424 BC, Perdiccas II helped to persuade Athenian allies in Thrace to defect and ally with Sparta.[32] In return, the Spartan general Brasidas agreed to help Perdiccas II put down the revolt of Arrhabaeus, a local ruler of Lynkestis (in Upper Macedonia), although he expressed concern over the massive Illyrian army allied with Arrhabaeus and over leaving Sparta's Chalcidian allies exposed to Athenian attacks while the Spartan army was away.[33] At the Battle of Lyncestis, the Macedonians panicked and fled before the fighting began against the forces of Arrhabaeus, enraging Brasidas, whose soldiers looted the unattended Macedonian baggage train.[34] As a result, Perdiccas II promptly switched sides and allied with the Athenians instead, blocking Brasidas' Peloponnesian reinforcements in Thessaly and forcing Arrhabaeus and other rebels to surrender and accept the Macedonian king as their suzerain lord.

This could be shortened to e.g.

Perdiccas II sided with Sparta the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, and in 429 BC Athens retaliated by persuading Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but he was forced to retreat due to a shortage of provisions in winter. In 424 BC Arrhabaeus, a local ruler of Lynkestis in Upper Macedonia, rebelled against his overlord Perdiccas, and the Spartans agreed to help in putting down the revolt. However, at the Battle of Lyncestis the Macedonians panicked and fled before the fighting began, enraging the Spartan general Brasidas, whose soldiers looted the unattended Macedonian baggage train. Perdiccas then changed sides and aupported Athens, and he was able to put down Arrhabaeus's revolt.

• The link to Arrhabaeus goes to a disambig.
• The sections on institutions, society etc seem to me fine, but there is nothing on Macedonia's importance in spreading Greek culture to the wider ancient world, and I think you need a section on this. Even the brief the brief control over Afghanistan of Alexander and his successors had a lasting influence with several towns named after him, and in Mesopotamia and Egypt the legacy was deep and long lasting, unlike Europe outside Macedonia's immediate neighbours where (so far as I know) the Greek influence was mainly due to contact with Athens. I think you need a section on Macedonia's legacy, its nature, where it was deepest and how long it lasted. I also think, as I have said, that you need a description of Alexander's conquests, although a paragraph would be sufficient for this. The article at present has too much historical detail and not enough on why Macedonia mattered. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pericles' reply

• @Dudley Miles: welcome again and thanks for the reply. I have clarified that it wasn't just politics and religion that were intertwined; in this specific case I made it clear that I'm referring to political and religious offices being combined. Many ancient societies had this feature but not all of them.
• Per your second suggestion above, the sentence now reads as thus: "Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, kings were not worshiped in the Kingdom of Macedonia."
• I removed "bedrock of" in that one sentence, although it seemed fairly clear to me, a "bedrock" implying that it was the foundation for the economy.
• I added "in the 5th century BC" in the sentence about the Homeric funerary rites and artistic trends.
• Yes, there is evidence linking the symposium to funerary rites, considering how Hardiman's work (Oxford, 2010) would have been scrutinized by his academic colleagues and editors well before the publication of the major compendium containing his book chapter. Aside from that, the very same sentence ends with the following: "were typified by items such as the decorative metal kraters that held the ashes of deceased Macedonian nobility in their tombs." Since kraters were more commonly used in banquets as vessels for watering down wine, I'd say that this is a sufficient example demonstrating the aforesaid connection to the symposium.
• I have amended the next sentence in question to read as thus: "For instance, trace colors still exist on the bas-reliefs of the late 4th-century BC Alexander Sarcophagus."
• Per your suggestion, I've reworded the somewhat awkward "capable of" sentence as the following: "Some mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state were exploited by the king, but they were often leased as assets"
• The link to the disambiguation page Arrhabaeus is intentional and I have made a (hidden) note of it in the article.
• Although it contains a couple typos that required fixing, I absolutely prefer your crisper paragraph about Macedonia's involvement in the Peloponnesian War and the Battle of Lyncestis. I have decided to place it in the article with very few tweaks. If you have any more suggestions about how to remove excessive details via Wikipedia:Summary style, I'm all ears, because it is difficult for me to spot this sort of thing. It certainly helps to lessen the already bloated size of the article, teetering along the edges of acceptable standards according to Wikipedia:Article size.
• As for your assertion that the article contains "nothing on Macedonia's importance in spreading Greek culture to the wider ancient world", I think this is totally hyperbolic if not flat out incorrect, considering how the article contains the following passages:
  • • "In addition to the agora, the gymnasium, the theatre, and religious sanctuaries and temples dedicated to Greek gods and goddesses, one of the main markers of a true Greek city in the empire of Alexander the Great was the presence of an odeon for musical performances.[287] This was the case not only for Alexandria in Egypt, but also cities as distant as Ai-Khanoum in what is now modern-day Afghanistan.[287]"
    • "Alexander the Great was allegedly a great admirer of both theatre and music.[284] He was especially fond of the plays by Classical Athenian tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, whose works formed part of a proper Greek education for his new eastern subjects alongside studies in the Greek language, including the epics of Homer.[285] While he and his army were stationed at Tyre (in modern-day Lebanon), Alexander had his generals act as judges not only for athletic contests but also for stage performances of Greek tragedies.[286]"
    • "It was in the more bureaucratic regimes of the Hellenistic kingdoms that succeeded Alexander the Great's empire where greater social mobility for members of society seeking to join the aristocracy could be found, especially in Ptolemaic Egypt.[274]"
    • "Foreign cults from Egypt were fostered by the royal court, such as the temple of Sarapis at Thessaloniki, while Macedonian kings Philip III of Macedon and Alexander IV of Macedon made votive offerings to the internationally esteemed Samothrace temple complex of the Cabeiri mystery cult.[262]"
    • "Following his visit to the oracle of Didyma in 334 BC that suggested his divinity, Alexander traveled to the Oracle of Zeus Ammon (the Greek equivalent of the Egyptian Amun-Ra) at the Siwa Oasis of the Libyan Desert in 332 BC to confirm his divine status.[note 38] Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, kings were not worshiped in the Kingdom of Macedonia.[268]"
    • "The Macedonian historians Marsyas of Pella and Marsyas of Philippi wrote histories of Macedonia, while the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy I Soter authored a history about Alexander and Hieronymus of Cardia wrote a history about Alexander's royal successors.[note 43] Following the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great, the Macedonian military officer Nearchus wrote a work of his voyage from the mouth of the Indus river to the Persian Gulf.[293] The Macedonian historian Craterus published a compilation of decrees made by the popular assembly of the Athenian democracy, ostensibly while attending the school of Aristotle.[293]"
    • "The comedic playwright Menander wrote that Macedonian dining habits penetrated Athenian high society; for instance, the introduction of meats into the dessert course of a meal.[299] The Macedonians also most likely introduced mattye to Athenian cuisine, a dish usually made of chicken or other spiced, salted, and sauced meats served during the wine course.[300] This particular dish was derided and connected with licentiousness and drunkenness in a play by the Athenian comic poet Alexis about the declining morals of Athenians in the age of Demetrius I of Macedon.[301]"
    • "In addition to literary contests, Alexander the Great also staged competitions for music and athletics across his empire.[285]"
    • "Macedonian rulers also sponsored works of architecture outside of Macedonia proper. For instance, following his victory at the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), Philip II raised a round memorial building at Olympia known as the Philippeion, decorated inside with statues depicting him, his parents Amyntas III of Macedon and Eurydice I of Macedon, his wife Olympias, and his son Alexander the Great.[311]"
    • "E. W. Marsden and M. Y. Treister contend that the Macedonian rulers Antigonus I Monophthalmus and his successor Demetrius I of Macedon had the most powerful siege artillery of the Hellenistic world at the end of the 4th century BC.[315] The siege of Salamis, Cyprus, in 306 BC necessitated the building of large siege engines and drafting of craftsmen from parts of West Asia.[316]"
    • "By the end of the conquests of Alexander the Great, nearly thirty mints stretching from Macedonia to Babylon produced standard coins.[324]"
    • "The only Macedonian cavalry units attested under Alexander were the companion cavalry,[242] yet he formed a hipparchia (i.e. unit of a few hundred horsemen) of companion cavalry composed entirely of ethnic Persians while campaigning in Asia.[246] When marching his forces into Asia, Alexander brought 1,800 cavalrymen from Macedonia, 1,800 cavalrymen from Thessaly, 600 cavalrymen from the rest of Greece, and 900 prodromoi cavalry from Thrace.[247] Antipater was able to quickly raise a force of 600 native Macedonian cavalry to fight in the Lamian War when it began in 323 BC.[247] The most elite members of Alexander's hypaspistai were designated as the agema, and a new term for hypaspistai emerged after the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC: the argyraspides (silver shields).[248] The latter continued to serve after the reign of Alexander the Great and may have been of Asian origin.[note 27] Overall, his pike-wielding phalanx infantry numbered some 12,000 men, 3,000 of which were elite hypaspistai and 9,000 of which were pezhetairoi.[note 28] Alexander continued the use of Cretan archers and introduced native Macedonian archers into the army.[249] After the Battle of Gaugamela, archers of West Asian backgrounds became commonplace.[249]"
    • "When his Macedonian troops threatened mutiny in 324 BC at Opis, Babylonia (near modern Baghdad, Iraq), Alexander offered Macedonian military titles and greater responsibilities to Persian officers and units instead, forcing his troops to seek forgiveness at a staged banquet of reconciliation between Persians and Macedonians.[98]"
    • "Continuing the polygamous habits of his father, Alexander encouraged his men to marry native women in Asia, leading by example when he wed Roxana, a Sogdian princess of Bactria.[103] He then married Stateira II, eldest daughter of Darius III, and Parysatis II, youngest daughter of Artaxerxes III, at the Susa weddings in 324 BC.[104]"
• You're perhaps right that this is still an area that is lacking and could use a few more statements to press home the idea of the Macedonian impact on the ancient world. As for this theme deserving its own entire section, though, such as "Legacy" or "Cultural influence", I'm not so sure about that. I'd like to hear what others have to say about making such a large addition to an already excessively large article per WP:SIZE constraints. I'd like to see a little more justification for it, before we go about restructuring the article. At the very least I think it would be wise to add a few more statements about cultural influence as opposed to a detailed narrative of Alexander's conquests, which as I've said before, belongs in the separate "History" sub-article if anywhere. I think a few sentences discussing the Hellenistic Greek influence in Alexander's empire and on the succeeding Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires would suffice. I'm all ears if you have very specific suggestions, like the one you had about towns named after Alexander in Afghanistan. I wonder, though, if this sort of thing is more suited for the article Ancient Macedonians than this article, since "Ancient Macedonians" provides much better coverage of cultural issues, just as my article Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) offers a much more detailed, in-depth look inside the institutions of ancient Macedonia. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Your comment on the symposium is very interesting. It is a pity this aspect is not covered in the Symposium article but that is of course not your fault. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• My comment on culture was worded badly. I was thinking of a summary along the lines (no doubt with errors) of: "Macedonia played a crucial role in making the Greek language and culture dominant for centuries in large parts of the ancient world. In Egypt the Greek language was a lingua franca, and Greek customs such as x and y were incorporated into Egyptian culture. Although the Ptolemaic regime ended with the Roman conquest in 30 BC, the Greek language was still widely used in Egypt until the x century." A similar summary of Macedonian infuence on Mesopotamia. The Seleucid regime in Persia and Afghanistan short lived, but influence seen in x and y lasted until z. Minimal Macedonian influence on political systems as the successor regimes claimed divine status, a concept abhorrent to the Macedonians and other Greeks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: hi again. Your suggestions here for the contents of a hypothetical "Legacy" section are certainly reasonable, but some of them seem like a rehash of information that is already found in various parts of the article. For instance, there is already a sub-section that describes Koine Greek as a lingua franca and another (the "religious beliefs" sub-section) that explains the divine status of Macedonian monarchs versus that of other Hellenistic kingdoms. I think it would make more sense to beef up those existing sub-sections than to create a new one that simply repeats what is already found elsewhere. No? Is there a way we could create a "Legacy" section that introduces new information instead? Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not see that there is significant coverage of Macedonian influence on the wider ancient world. The section describing Koine Greek as a lingua franca is exclusively about Greece. The religious beliefs section is also about Greece, apart from a passing comment at the end - which could be moved as it would be more relevant in a summary section about Macedonian influence, as an example of where the influence failed because Alexander had adopted eastern and Egyptian views on divine rulership. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply

@Dudley Miles: against my better judgment given size constraints in WP:SIZE, I've nevertheless been swayed by your arguments here and decided to create a new "Legacy" section at the very end of the article. I think the three paragraphs in place now are sufficient enough to explain the legacy of the Macedonians, but feel free to suggest changes or offer a critique of the existing material. It probably won't satisfy you entirely, but then again we can't have everything we want in life, especially since Wikipedia is not a textbook and its purpose isn't to educate our readers about everything involving Macedonia. If I so much as hear one word of complaint raised on this FA page about the size of this article due to the addition of this brand new material, I will happily rip it right out and stick it over in the History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Ancient Macedonians article. For any other reviewer coming across this debate between Dudley Miles and I, speak now or forever hold your peace, because I want to get this show on the road and finish this FA review (by far the longest one I've ever seen). As it stands now, I think the new section looks fairly good, but I could always use a fresh pair of eyes to spot a mistake or something needing improvement. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. A few days ago I watched a TV programme about the Chinese terracotta army which argued that Chinese ceramic and bronze sculpture in the time of the first emperor was strongly influenced by Greek art through the Macedonian conquest of Afghanistan. Covering such points would of course inflate this article far too much, but I think there is a major article to be written on the legacy of ancient Macedonia. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: thanks for the support! In my recent Featured article Sino-Roman relations, I discussed the potential Greek presence in northwestern China during the Qin and Han dynastic periods. If true the influence was tangential at best during the Hellenistic period. It seems as though the Greeks were somewhat appreciated by the Han Chinese during the Roman era, although the Chinese obviously conflated Greeks and Romans (if not all Roman subjects and citizens) as the same people of "Daqin". I don't fault the ancient Chinese for that, really, considering the distance between their empires and how most Greeks were under Roman dominion at this point anyway (at the very least, all mainland Greeks and Eastern Mediterranean peoples were Roman citizens by the early 3rd century AD). In either case, the Kingdom of Macedonia proper doesn't really have anything to do with hypothetical contacts with Qin or Han China, even if the Hellenistic Greco-Bactrian Kingdom of Central Asia was an offshoot of Alexander's conquests. Perhaps you're right about a "Legacy" article in general, although I have no immediate plans to write it. For now you and everyone else will just have to make do with the new section at the end of the article. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Third sentence: "Before the 4th century BC, Macedonia was a small kingdom located outside of the area dominated by the great city-states of Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, and was at one time briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia." (i) Is it fluffy like that throughout? (ii) Does this sentence mix location with political subordination?

  Then: "saw the rise of Macedonia, during which the kingdom rose to"—rise/rose. These are not good signs. Tony (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: ha! Good points. I have amended the article accordingly and removed the the fluff that has irritated you. I'm just imagining your eyes twitching with rage when you read those sentences, fists clenched, OCD levels going through the roof and into the stratosphere. Lol. In my defense, I wrote most of the article, but I left much of the original lead section intact. Perhaps that was a mistake! I should have reread it more carefully after making my own little changes a while back; perhaps then I would have noticed these useless textual artifacts from a bygone age (i.e. the now distant era before I edited the article, c. January 2017). In either case, I'm glad to see you again, Tony! I distinctly remember you reviewing my articles in the past, so it's nice to know that some of the old guard are still around. Kind regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time to go right through it; but someone (new to it and good at copy-editing) should. I concede that the lead is one of the hardest parts to write, but this needs to be a showpiece, doesn't it. (Really interesting topic.) Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Following Tony1's comments, I've recused as coordinator and taken a look at the article. I reworked parts of the lead, which was a little dense in places, and have read to the start of "Empire" without finding too many issues anywhere. There's certainly nothing glaring that I can see. I'm happy to continue looking (but please revert anything I mess up or that you don't think works) but it's a long article and might take a while. However, I really can't see any barriers to promotion at the moment. If Ian is faster than I am, and wanders this way, I've no objection to promotion on prose grounds. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: hello! Thanks for commenting and reviewing the article. I've looked over your recent edits and I find nothing objectionable about your tweaks of the prose. If you want to review the rest of the article, be my guest! However, it was really only the lead section that contained significant parts that I did not personally write. I wrote about 90% of the article's body, owing to the fact that about seven months ago the article was in an abysmal state with very few citations. I'm sure you've already discovered that the body of the article reads quite differently than the lead. Thanks to your efforts, though, the lead section is crisper and much improved. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: hello again! It has been more than a week since we last talked. Is something the matter? Or are you just enjoying a summer vacation at the moment? I'd like to get this review wrapped up relatively soon, seeing how I've had it open since the end of March and have thus far received support from most of the commentators here. If there are anymore outstanding issues to be resolved, I'd like to address them right away, please. Are you still combing through the article? Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, real life is rather rushed at the moment. I should return to this later today or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: hello. That's okay. If it has taken this long I suppose it doesn't matter if it takes a bit longer. I'm just a bit disillusioned by the whole FA process in general now, because I remember the old days when there was both a lot more commentator activity and a much speedier nomination process. I'm thankful to have received the supporting comments above, though, and I might nominate another article in the near future. Should I put that on hold for autumn, though? Perhaps summer is the worst time to do this, since everyone is busy with vacations, family life, establishing new jobs or getting their academic arrangements in order. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we might put this one to bed now... Note though that there appear to be quite a few duplinks in the article; pls check and rationalise as appropriate (you can use this script to highlight -- it boxes the initial instances in green and the subsequent/duplicate instances in red). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.