Talk:Battle of Gythium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Battle of Gythium was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 11 November 2006

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)