Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Salamis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Salamis

[edit]
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has just passed a GA review, I think/hope it also fulfills the A-class criteria. I'd eventually like to get it up to FAC, and figure that this is probably the next step in identifying any flaws/problems etc. Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; this would be an excellent article to see go through FAC, and would provide valuable experience for me as at some point I wish to expand on the Battle of Zama and also make it a featured article. Here are some comments, concerning the A-class review.

  • I don't think the sources section is actually necessary. Your sources will be made available through the bibliography; explaining yourself is not really necessary, especially for an article on Wikipedia (I know that some books normally go through the sources used). The heavy reliance on Herodotus might or might not be a problem; there are various second hand sources on Salamis, and people might prefer if you intersperse those in the references, or use them to back up Herotodus (it cannot be said that Herodotus is entirely a reliable source on his own; a more subjective view from a modern author may be a better "testimony").
    • I've turned the two sources sections into a 'Further reading' section.
    • As for Herodotus, trust him or doubt him, he's pretty much the only first hand source for the battle. There's an extent to which, if you reject his testament, then there's nothing you can say instead. I have included some modern views on more contentious points, but for some things (for instance the 'two bridges over the hellespont'), I don't think there's much that a modern opinion can bring. I do fully admit that it's a limitation, but it is inherent in the subject!
  • Some facts, like Athens' victory at Marathon may be obvious (especially if one were to click on the wikilink), but stuff like that should still be sourced to avoid any problems in the future. You can never have too many references (unless they are becoming redundant and you are cluttering the article).
    •  Done
  • An example of the above is the sentence, By early 480 BC, the preparations were complete, and the army which Xerxes had mustered at Sardis marched towards Europe, crossing the Hellespont on two pontoon bridges. <- That should be referenced, especially since it specified that two pontoon bridges were used.
    •  Done
  • The links to main articles shouldn't be put in the middle of a section; they should be put under the section title.
    •  Done
  • The entire last two paragraphs of background needs referencing.
    •  Done
  • Is it possible to spread the table of ships across three columns? The huge white space to its right seems awkward.
    •  Done
  • Another sentence which really needs a reference (although, like I said, everything more or less should be referenced, really) is, Salamis started a decisive swing in the balance of power toward the Greeks, which would culminate in the complete conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. <- That's a bold statement, especially since the link between Persian power just after Salamis and Persian military power during the invasion by Alexander the Great is not very obvious.
    • I wasn't necessarily implying any causal relationship here, just that following Salamis the "Greeks" (loose usage) were generally in the ascendency, and the Persians generally in decline. However, I've altered the sentence to be less ambiguous and more relevant.

Apart from anything else anybody else might say, if the articles touches upon my suggestions then I would be happy to support. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 04:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support JonCatalán(Talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - many sentences at the end of paragraphs in this article are unreferenced; these need to be. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Done

Support Well written, meets criteria. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on references (this version) - some issues that will kill you at FAC if not addressed:

  • Consistency, consistency...
    • "Herodotus VI, 43" - what book?
      • He only wrote one! However, I've clarified this is the bibliography
      • Most, not all, of these Herodotus refs have links to the page...if you've added the link for one, add it for all. (Refs 5, 7, 49, 54, 55)
        •  Done
    • "Author, page(s)" should be what your citations go by. Not "Title, page(s), author, publisher, ISBN" or "Roman numeral here".
      •  Done
      • Speaking of "Roman numeral here", please expand refs 37 and 38's citations to include an author and page number.
        •  Done
    • Just add all of your books to the bibliography, even if there is only one reference to the book. This will clean up the references section a lot.
      • ...or am I wrong, and you do have all of them in the bibliography? If you do, then the only thing you need in the refs is "Author, page(s)". If there is more than one book by the same author, use "Author, Shortened (if possible) book title in italics, page(s)".
    • Refs 33 and 34 - if you are going to translate one of the refs (34), please translate both!
      • They are both translated!
    • References 65 through 68 need page numbers.
      • I didn't add these refs, so I don't know the page numbers, but I'll work on it.
  • Did I put this ref in the right spot? (does it come at the end of what you paraphrased from that?)
    • Yes, that works.

Hope this helps! Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the WP:lead is far too long and contains lots of unnecessary details that should be only part of the article. You can cut it or I can help you.
  • In the last section about the importance of the battle you have very far reaching assumptions presented as communis opinio. There are two possibilities, you undermine each of them with three independent sources or you state that these are viewpoints of a single historian. I doubt very much that the Greek alliance liberated Macedon. They revolted on their own accord and Athens took the gold mines. Same for Thrace, point me to the source that shows a Greek army or fleet moving to Thrace to liberate these poor fellows from the Persian yoke and not take any land. The discussion about the impact must be made on a much broader basis. Essentially, Greek art was deeply influenced by the Persian experience and there were philosophers in the occupied Greek city states as well as Greeks being thaught by these foreigners. I think Holland confuses military might and culture too much and I know archaeology professors who state the opposite. Just take a look at Bunte Götter (soon coming to Harvard) to see how the Greeks incorporated the foreign elements they were confonted with into their culture. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. I think there are two issues here. First is the the ill-advised use of liberate. The problem here is that I'm not sure what word best describes what happened next. Conquered? Re-conquered? Colonised? De-Persified? Liberated? Certainly the Greeks probably didn't liberate Macedon; but the Macedon only became liberated because of the Greek victory. The Allied, and then the Delian league spent a long time reducing the Persian garrisons in Thrace - as you say, it wasn't a 'liberation' in the conventional sense. But what was it then? Anyway, I will change this to make it more clear.
      •  Done - Is that any better? Yes, I would slightly tweak the wording, but it's OK.
    • The second issue is the significance. Namely, how significant was it.
  • I agree that the second issue is more important, especially, because it's about speculations. I strongly argue to seperate the speculations from the article and make it clear that there are two conflicting views regarding the importance of the event. Currently, the presentation of both views isn't fair and bordering to a WP:NPOV issue. I would also stress that the first naval encounter at Artemisium didn't go well instead of the many land victories. Next it needs to be discussed how many of the Persian ships were triremes.Wandalstouring (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As regards the significance; having just read it back, it doesn't present the issue in the correct fashion, I agree. That's not because of my personal point of view, just the way I wrote it. I will change it to balance the presentation of the two points of view.
        •  Done
      • However, the problem remains that I don't have access to a source which claims Salamis isn't important. So referencing the counter point of view is difficult; do you know of any?
  • Third issue: I suggest to put more emphasis on the cultural impact (I still didn't have time to work through the whole article properly). Aegina is a good example, they installed new gable sculptures for their temple after this victory that was especially due to their brave intervention. I don't have the books ready because it was 2 years ago that I was in classical archaeology, but this should be mentioned, because it's confirmed by archaeology. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this would be good. However, I know very little about it. Also, wouldn't this work better in a more general article (like Greco-Persian Wars)? Since the cultural impacts are likely to have been more long-term, and connected with the whole 'Persian experience' rather than specifically Salamis? I'm not denying that there would have been specific cultural legacies of Salamis, just that most of the cultural effects were not so specific. In either case, the 'Significance' section should be about the significance of the battle within the war. A new 'Legacy' section (as with Battle of Thermopylae/Battle of Marathon) might be a better place to put cultural information.
      • Aegina is a the most direct impact of this battle, so yes, it belongs in the article and not in the superstructure. The general influences belong in the superstructure, but since you start the debatte about the influence of the Greco-Persian Wars at the end of this article, you have to mention the cultural impact in art and philosophy. Drawing conclusions about the effects without regarding the culture is a screwed up analysis. I agree that we should keep this and the speculations as brief as possible.Wandalstouring (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth issue: I remember reading that the supply of the gigantic Persian army was by sea. Thus without supremacy at sea the supply line was threatened and the Persian had to retreat in order not to loose the army to starvation. That was also used as an explanation for Artemisium. The defeat of the Persian seapower would force them to be independent of their naval supply and thus reduce their numbers. I don't know in which book it was, but we should search for this before submitting it to FA. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth issue: I like that you start discussing the reliability of your main source first, however, you should at least mention the other primary sources, even if they are less important. This gives the reader a well rounded picture. Besides the literary sources are the archaeological verifications of Herodotus claims important. Have there been found any shipwrecks attributed to the battle? Wandalstouring (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support

  • WP:UNLINKDATES Throughout. Found at least one instance of this, make sure there aren't others.
    •  Done
  • "Although Themistocles has laid claim to lead the fleet, the other city states with navies had objected, and so Sparta (which had no naval tradition) was given command of the fleet." Awkward, I don't think using the historical present is wise there.
    •  Done; 'has' was a typo (for had); sentence modified to clarify anyway
  • What are the numbers in parentheses in the ship table? Explain those please.
    •  Done
  • A couple of terms are linked twice, please take care of that.
    •  Done

Besides that I found little issues not addressed above, so please fix those and it'll be looking great Joe Nutter 02:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Do

  1. Page numbers for refs 65-68 (or whatever these become)
  2. Fix hyperlinks in the references
  3. Add ndashes to references
  4. Sources which play down the significance of Salamis
  5. Source suggesting supply of the army by sea (?)
  6. Add other primary sources in 'Sources' section
  7. Briefly discuss 'Legacy' in a new section including Aeginetan temple.

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Salamis&oldid=1138360933"