- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:42, 23 April 2009 [1].
Epaminondas edit
Review commentary edit
Whilst this article may have fulfilled the FA criteria in 2006 when it was listed, I don't think it does anymore (compare to, for instance, Alcibiades). In fact, I don't think it even meets the current GA standards. Many paragraphs are completely unreferenced, and another editor has (at some point) highlighted some statements in clear need of a reference.
Further more, I feel there is considerable embellishment in the prose; the article starts by saying "Epaminondas is virtually unknown", and then presenting a description of him which is completely unequivocal: "Epaminondas received an excellent education; his musical teachers were among the best in their disciplines, as was his dance instructor." (no citation). If the literary sources are genuinely scarce, then these any statement such as this cannot be stated as a fact, but should be stated in the format "xxxx states that yyyy"
Obviously, I am sad to submit any FA to review, but I really think this one needs attention if it is to stay as an FA. I will assist where possible. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main editor on the article (who also nominated it for FA), User:Robth, appears to have left Wikipedia, so there might be no-one around to save this... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can add a few sources this week. Maybe it's enough for salvage. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't add much. The books in my library are from the 19th century. If someone can direct me to modern english sources I'd be grateful. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can add a few sources this week. Maybe it's enough for salvage. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys, this is the first FA I ever read in Wikipedia (when I was still wondering what are these golden stars at the top right part of my screen!), and one of the articles which "seduced" me, and made me love this project. I'll do my best sourcing the article, mainly through googlebooking, but I can't do much about the prose, although I know that Robth was a prose perfectionist.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My main difficulty concerning referencing in particular is to find the books Robth used, without adding pages; something which seemed not to be necessary at the time. I will see what I can do, but it needs time and work. Unless Robth reappears like phoenix!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have problems finding the books. If you have some useful suggestions I can help you sourcing. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will work on the prose and try and bring it back to standard. I will do what I can about references!! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have problems finding the books. If you have some useful suggestions I can help you sourcing. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My main difficulty concerning referencing in particular is to find the books Robth used, without adding pages; something which seemed not to be necessary at the time. I will see what I can do, but it needs time and work. Unless Robth reappears like phoenix!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To which version of the Hellenica do we link? There are currently links to perseus and wikisource. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed all the links to Perseus, because I think it's easier to read from. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To which version of the Hellenica do we link? There are currently links to perseus and wikisource. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, peacock words. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just a procedural remark. I now saw that since the opening of the FAR neither Robth nor the related projects (e.g. WP:GREECE) had been notified about the FAR. The notifications would have probably changed nothing (Robth is inactive for centuries), but it is a standard procedure. Anyway ... I'll try to start working on the article during the wk. But I promise nothing!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robth notified.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, agree with the FA criteria concerns - referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you wait a bit, until the ongoing rewriting is done?--Yannismarou (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway ... Could we have a one-week hold to finish the rewriting and "polish" the article?--Yannismarou (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, if there is serious work on it then that is always taken into consideration. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the rationale for using so many primary sources/2000 year old sources? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It helps the reader to verify. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And for a more than 2000-old personality, they are good sources, when combined with secondary ones.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are also very useful for filling in the gaps that modern writers choose not to write about... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the rationale for using so many primary sources/2000 year old sources? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Robth, altough retired, he will also do his best to add some page numbers, and work on the prose, as he stated in my talk page. Minister and Wandalstouring have already done a lot for the article. I expect to have finished most of my rewriting by Sunday (I go slooooooooowly!).--Yannismarou (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see lots of good work and progress here[2], and absolutely it shold be held. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, progress has definitely be made. I'm very optimistic that we can get this up to scratch soon, and save it from delisting.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, provided that the work on this article is completed. Great work bringing the article back up to standards! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet completed, but I hope it will be in a couple of days.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Mostly done with content and sources (I can't find anything more). My edits are now mainly style and MoS-orientated.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as proposer, since the article is now (pending finishing off) back up to standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinisterForBadTimes (talk • contribs) 17:15, April 17, 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.