Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ionian Revolt/1
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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 17:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
A 2009 promotion on the Sweeps listing that has accreted significant uncited text since promotion, much of which borders on original research. Most of what is cited is only cited to Herodotus, and the modern standard for these articles is to rely less heavily on the ancient sources. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Expanding on this, the Manville section in "significance" is almost totally uncited and smells strongly of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to me. The same is true of the even longer and highly essayistic Myres section, and the "In modern literature" section (is that really all of the cultural impact of the revolt?). On a less serious note, I am distinctly not wild about Tom Holland as the major secondary source behind Herodotus, nor the fact that the third-most-cited source is over a century old. Major cutting and reworking needed: I don't think it would be particularly difficult (all of the facts here should be easy enough to find in secondary literature), but I would delist in the absence of an editor willing to take that job on any time soon. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 6 February 2024 (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.