Talk:Themistocles/GA1

GA Review

Here from WPLBGT article alerts. I'm a novice GA reviewer; constructive criticism of my review technique is very welcome. I'm about ot ask editors listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors to review what I've said here and to help me make the decision on passing or failing the nomination. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a very strong, clear, and informative article. It is excellently cited throughout, the format is good, and it is well illustrated with relevant images. The tone is usually neutral and the approach and coverage are balanced and encyclopedic.

I know that "In popular culture" sections attract some opprobrium, but this article's is short and to-the-point. I have no objections to it.

• I almost deleted it because it doesn't really say much - poor old Themistocles doesn't seem to get a look-in in popular culture (unlike, say Leonidas). I still think it could go if anyone particularly dislikes it! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Who can compete with the abs of Leonidas? *g*

Point-by-point review of GA criteria

Criterion 1: The article is broadly well-written, in clear prose, with correct grammar and spelling. It generally complies with Manual of Style formatting and style requirements. I have a few suggested prose changes that the nominator should review:

• "Themistocles's role in the Greco-Persian Wars can still reasonably be thought of as "the man most instrumental in achieving the salvation of Greece" from the Persian threat." This sentence is a little clunky to my ear.
  • Very true! I must have changed direction mid sentence. Fixed.

• "The life of Themistocles is reasonably well attested in the ancient sources, especially compared to some near contemporaries. He is one of at least 50 ancient figures given an extensive biography by Plutarch in his Parallel Lives" This juxtaposition seems faintly contradictory: few are as well documented as Themistocles, but here's more than 50 others who are documented just as well?
  • Superficially true, but 50 people (at least 6 of whom were probably mythical) from 800 years of history is not really that many. "near contemporaries" is the key phrase in making this comparison accurate. But I'll try and reword to make this more obvious!
    • Point taken; I think your rephrasing adds clarity.

• "Fellow-countryman" is redundant: countryman (or compatriot) conveys the same meaning.
  • True. Fixed.

• "Plutarch indicates that, on account of his mother, Themistocles was considered something of an outsider" - because she was a foreigner, presumably? This could be made more explicit.
  • Fixed

• "alien & legitimate": why ampersand rather than 'and'? Is it a direct quote? Even if so, I'd suggest removing quotes, replacing the & with an 'and', and leaving the cite in place.
  • It is a direct quote, but I've replace the ampersand.

• "he could infight, he could network, he could spin...and crucially, he knew how to make himself visible" - needs a full stop; also would benefit from author attribution in the body text (e.g. "In the words of Holland, "he could...").
  • Full stop yes; author attribution in the text is (IMO) not necesary. It's clear I'm quoting, and a click of the reference number will show it's from from Holland. I only tend to directly attribute to an author in the text when something is controversial - obviously that can't be passed off as "accepted fact". But I don't think that this is such a case.
    • Yeah, fair enough - there is a cite right there.

• The whole article's rather comma-heavy: "The Athenians and Spartans, refused however, and murdered the ambassadors" - you can definitely lose one in there. Similarly "Eventually, after threatening to sail with the whole Athenian people into exile in Sicily, he persuaded the other Allies, whose security after all relied on the Athenian navy, to accept his plan" - this would be much better off as several shorter sentences, or with some of its clauses dropped.
  • I like commas! You are right about those two examples however, and I have fixed them.

• Possessive apostrophes for names ending with s: you have "Miltiades'" at one point, and "Themistocles's" at another. I'm a huge fan of the latter, you can justify either, but you should be consistent throughout.
  • I much prefer the latter too. I've used s's throughout, except in quotations where the author has it as s'. I'm not sure whether to change this or not - I suppose it doesn't really make any difference, but I feel I shouldn't directly alter a quote.
    • Ahh, I see. Well, I think you're right not to alter verbatim text in this respect. Anyone else to whom the variation within the article gives a nervous twitch can be referred to this discussion :)

• "Darius's son and successor, Xerxes I had": Here you're actually missing a comma: should be "Darius's son and successor, Xerxes I, had".
  •  Done

• "should be instead distributed": Split infinitive.
  • Fixed

• "Themistocles avoided mentioning Persia, perceiving that it was too distant a threat for the Athenians to act on": 'deeming it too distant a threat' rather than 'perceiving that it was too distant a threat', perhaps? 'Perceiving' sounds as though he was definitely correct, which is hard to determine for a counterfactual.
  • Exactly the word I was looking for when I wrote it!

• "all too aware": could be more elegantly phrased.
  • Fixed

• "with Athenian fleet fully committed" - with the Athenian fleet fully committed.
  •  Done

• "asking that the Ionians in the Persian fleet to defect" - Should be "asking the Ionians in the Persian fleet to defect".
  •  Done

• "At any rate, this was exactly the kind of news that Xerxes wanted to hear; that the Athenians might be willing to submit to him, and that he would be able to destroy the rest of the Allied fleet. " This sentence repeats the contents of the previous two and is thus redundant.
  • Fixed

• In the "Aftermath of the Persian Invasion" section you repeat "in the aftermath of the invasion" in successive sentences.
  • Fixed

• "bringing his political career (at least in the contemporary Greek sense) to an end" - I wasn't sure what was meant by "the contemporary Greek sense" here.
  • I've just deleted this, as I couldn't really explain what I meant either!

• "The historical novel Farewell Great King by Jill Paton Walsh follows the life, unto death, of Themistocles. It is based primarily upon the Life of Themistocles and Life of Aristides from Plutarch." Title should be italicized; the phrase "unto death" sounds like a relic of Britannica 1911 and jars with the tone of the rest of the article.
  •  Done

Criterion 2: the article is factually correct and verifiable. It is well-referenced, with one or two minor exceptions (see below); the references are to reliable sources (or, where to primary sources, indicated as such). The reference section is readable and appropriately laid out. There are two trivial cases where POV is not entirely neutral; these are fixable. BLP does not apply.

• Thucydides quote at end of lead should have a cite.
  • WP:LEAD does not require citations in the lead, and I'd prefer to keep them in the main text. Additionally, it is clear that quote is attributed to Thucydides, who only wrote one book; if the reader disbelieves the quote from the lead, it is relatively trivial to find the reference within the text.
    • • WP:LEADCITE says that "There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads", which always makes me chary of this. I tend to take the view that adding a cite to the lead does no harm, and potentially does good: seeing that quote made me go "Thucydides said that, huh? Where? When?", and I can't imagine I'm the only reader that combative :) The fact that Thucydides only wrote the one book (slacker! *g*) puts a different complexion on this, but isn't something the general, non-classicist reader will know necessarily. I didn't. My hunch is that a direct quote needs a citation, though there doesn't seem to be anything overt in WP policy to back me up (I'm assuming "copyrighted text must be attributed" doesn't apply, given the age of the material). So... I'll leave it up to you. Thought I'd explain my reasoning, though.
• "Diodorus provides an apt rhetorical summary of Themistocles's achievements" - calling it "apt" strays rather close to POV.
  • This is a tricky one, because I want to close on that quote, because it is so....apt? I do feel the need to justify why I am ending on that quote (as opposed to any other quote), and the reason I am doing so is because it is so apt. But you are right, to say that is POV. I will try and re-word for clarity.  Done
    • Your change looks great.
• "Eurybiades, who was evidently not the most inspiring commander": this is a bit POV.
  • Whilst I take your point that this sounds POV, it is found in both Plutarch and Herodotus (and is referenced accordingly). However, I will make it more explicit that this derives from them.  Done
    • Your rewording is fine.

Criterion 3: the article is broad in its coverage, with ample detail on Themistocles's life and times and the military and social context in which he operated. Nonetheless each paragraph refers to him specifically.

Criterion 4: the article is neutral, pending the two POV issues pointed out above.

• ( Done)

Criterion 5: the article is stable and free from edit wars. All reversions in the last year relate to vandalism.

• NB: it's worth noting that the article was expanded more than five-fold on March 20. Its stability in its current form is therefore less than a week old. Nonetheless, it has been edited by others since, and I see no reason to assume edit conflict is likely. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6: the article is well-illustrated with appropriate images, all with suitable licenses. I have three caveats about image captions:

• Image caption: "Modern statue of the Themistocles in Piraeus" - the Themistocles?
  •  Done

• Image caption: "An sluicing tank for silver ore" - should be a sluicing tank
  •  Done

• Battle of salamis.png has no caption
  •  Done

I will put the article on hold pending the changes suggested above. They are all minor and should be easily fixable within a week. I am more than happy to answer any questions. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! I think/hope I have either fixed the problems you pointed out, or at least addressed them above. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - and thanks for making those changes so promptly. I've made a few additional responses above. I'd still like to wait for a second opinion before signing off on this, being so new to GAN, but this is looking encouraging. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update, March 29: The editor I initially asked for a second opinion seems to be busy, so I'll ask elsewhere for someone to sign off on my review. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update, April 3: following another editor's review of my review, I'm pleased to pass this as a good article. Good work, everyone who built the article. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)