Talk:Sources of Indo-Greek history

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indo-Greeks (sources)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello! I am planning to conduct the GA review of this article. However, the first thing I notice is the NPOV banner that has been placed at the top of the page. I do not see any edit warring taking place, but I also do not see any discussion on why this banner was placed or how the author who added it would like to see the article changed.

I am going to wait a couple of days to see if anyone has a response to this comment. If I do not get a response, and if the banner is still present after a couple of days, I will have to fail this article on the criteria that major cleanup banners should not be present on a GA-level article. I will be watching this review page, so if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, Pmanderson placed the neutrality tag without providing any reasons. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't found anything seriously problematic in the article. To me at least, the content seems to contain decent amount of comprehensible prose, a healthy number of visual aids, and a plethora of well-written reference citations. Also, this article doesn't have a long history of edit-warring and/or POV issues. Just because one user places a neutrality tag without elaborating as to why shouldn't really hamper your ability to conduct a proper and meticulous GA review. I'll kindly remove the tag, because I am interested to see if this article actually passes. Good luck my friend and Happy New Year! Deucalionite (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I should have the full review up soon.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead could stand to be expanded quite a bit. WP:Lead recommends 3-4 paragraphs for an article of this size, but since a lot of the article size is taken up with the extensive footnotes, I would say that 2-3 paragraphs is probably sufficient.
   • The second external link (Indo-Greek history and coins) is dead.
   • The last external link (Files) is 1) a Yahoo group, and 2) requires registration - both of which make it not the greatest as an external link.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The web link to the text for Ref 25 (The greatest city in India is...) is broken.
   • References in English do not have to be marked as such.
   • I would like to see a source for the last half of the Numismatical sources section, discussing deductions made from coins.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall a nice article, and I agree with you that I could not find any POV areas. I have a few comments on prose/MOS and references, so I am placing the review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very bad article. There have been three major schools on the history of the Indo-Greeks: one based on Tarn's book of 1938; one based on Narain's book of 1951; one based on the work of Bopearchchi and Senior, in the past two decades. In principle, we should present all three; if we must choose one, we should choose the most recent, as current and based on the most evidence (and in general, as the middle ground between Tarn's picture of a New Alexander, the Saviour of Buddhism, and Narain's Indian triumphalism). This article, however, has been written by a dedicated believer in Tarn's most dated picture, who has no real understanding of the sources or the issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. This is the explanation that probably should have been posted on the talk page when you added the POV tag to the article. However, what's done is done, and I thank you for commenting before I passed this article to GA status.

I have no background in this subject, and so I really cannot tell which side of the coin is the correct one. However, I do believe that the response posted above indicates possible unstability in the article. PMAnderson, I would agree with you that presenting all sides of the story fits with the ideals of Wikipedia. Do you plan on conducting work on the article to correct this? Also, could you possibly point me to a discussion on the user who created the article that proves they have "no real understanding of the sources or the issues"? I don't mean to be rude or accusatory, but at this point you come across as somewhat of a tag-bomber who's also throwing personal attacks at an editor you don't like. If I didn't have a vague memory of reading someplace that PHG (the original creator of this article) has been sanctioned for POV work in this area, I may have written your concerns off as simply the ravings of a disgruntled, vindictive enemy *grin*. Again, I'm not trying to be accusatory or rude, just trying to see the whole picture here.

Deucalionite, what are your thoughts on the subject, now that PMAnderson has responded? Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, do read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/PHG/Evidence, and the section from the main article talk page which was the genesis of this article (a POV fork). If you have no background in the subject, the rest of the discussion, which is intensely allusive, is likely to go right past you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson, just because I do not have a background in a subject does not make me stupid. I can follow the discussions in both of those links just fine. As for what makes me qualified to review this article (from your comment on my talk page): It has been sitting at GAN for over a month, with no one interested in reviewing it. I am working on reducing the backlog and so I thought I'd take a swing at it. If you (or anyone else with a background in the subject) had simply failed the article with a message stating your concerns, this discussion never would have happened. Thank you for the diffs you provided - they make it clear that there is currently an ongoing dispute that spans hundreds or thousands of articles on WP and probably places this article squarely in the categories of POV and unstable. That being said, I would like to wait for the nominator to reply to this discussion to see his take on the subject. Yes, this article will probably end up being failed for POV and instability, at which point I would suggest that you begin a discussion on it at the main Indo-Greek page in order to have it re-written, merged, or whatever else you would like done with it. Dana boomer (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No one suggested you were stupid; one reason I haven't edited this article at length because I'm also rusty; I haven't picked up the relevant books in the past year. But you will see a more serious reason here at FARC: observe the ongoing discussion between PHG (occasionally supported, as now, by Greek nationalists), the Indian nationalists, and Sponsianus, each for their favorite authority. That was enough for me: if I can clean up a few crumbs here, without disputes, I'll do it, but more is not worth the hassle. In the meantime, readers should be warned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, since the nominator hasn't responded to either my review or the above comments, I am going to fail the article. The article is being failed (as discussed above) on claims of POV writing and the entire article being a POV fork, inherant instability and the presence of a cleanup banner. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Greco-Roman sources

This list is from Tarn, Index II. It is the principal sources he used; this therefore covers India, Bactria, the provincial organization of Seleucid Syria, and Alexandria. Pseudo-Aristeas is cited because Tarn argues it has a common source with the Milinda-panha, and so on.

Those which are mentioned here should be quoted in full, and without interpretation; many of the references here are literally single sentences, or less:

• Appian. Syria 13. (Evidence, as is one of the passages from Livy, that an Apama was connected with Alexander in antiquity.)
• Arrian 7.1.5-6
• Athenaeus V 222b, 11 467a,b
• Diodorus 18.7,9
• Herodotus Book III: 17, 94, 106-8
• Isidore Parthian Stations 18,19
• Justin 15.4.20, 16.6.3-5
• Livy 1.48.7, 35.47.5,36.17.5, 37.54.11,18, 38.17.11
• Metz Epitome §79-84
• OGIS' 253 (gift from Phillipus to Antiochus [IV],mentioning "saving of Asia" which Tarn interprets as Eucratides saving it from Demetrius). 166 BC
• Periplus of the Erythraean Sea 41, 47, 49, 62
• Pliny, all Book VI: 22, 47,48, 52, 55, 61, 71, 88, 92, 96-101, 107, 110, 117, 147, 149, 152, 160
• Plutarch
  • Alexander 62, 64
  • Crassus 31, 33
  • Sulla 13
  • Moralia 328F De Alex. for. aut virt., 821D, E (Menander's ashes divided)
• Polybius 10.31.4-11, 10.48.2-8 31.9 (11)
• Letter of Aristeas 187-294
• [Pseudo=]Lucian Macrobii 218-220
• Ptolemy, 6.10, 7.1.6,42,46,47, 55
• Stephanus of Byzantium, s. Arachosia, Arma, Daidala (all the existence of placenames)
• Strabo: 2.73, 11.508-517, 15.686,693,698,723-4, 16.781
• Trogus, Prologue, 41-2

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Indo-Greeks (sources) → Sources of Indo-Greek history – The current title is meaningless. 216.8.171.148 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Moved by ChromaNebula. Jafeluv (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)