Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Gythium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masem (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 5 August 2007 (GA categorizing: fixing oldid per WP:UCGA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Classical GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)
WikiProject iconGreece GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 11, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are several instances of ambiguity. I adressed some spelling and grammar issues in my copyedit, but there are things I dont know how to go about. For instance, you say: "1,000 picked warriors from Crete". What do you mean "picked"? Also, you mention the "Union of Free Laconians". What is that? You also seem to repeat some words, more specifically "the defenders became reinvigorated. The siege was proving more difficult until Flaminius arrived with 4,000 Roman soldiers.[13] With the arrival of the new soldiers, the allied soldiers were reinvigorated"
2. Factually accurate?: It appears accurate enough.
3. Broad in coverage?: Some points could bear with expanding, for instance the aftermath section.
4. Neutral point of view?: OK
5. Article stability? OK
6. Images?: OK

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Druworos 11:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to agree. I'd also suggest smoothing out the lead - it reads rather choppily and is hard to get through, which is bad in the first thing a reader is confronted with. Adam Cuerden talk 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of now the article looks fine so it has passed. Lakers 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

This is just minor, but I readjusted the footnotes to show multiple references to the same source under one title, as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once. I also italicised the titles. Druworos 11:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]