Talk:Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC)

Motives section

I replaced today a whole section previously deleted in July ... "The Motives" with the explanation "it was wrong". It's not appropriate to simply delete all of someone else's work. If you know that it's wrong, then you have access to references that you can cite... when you get the time. Furthermore, if there's something wrong with it that needs discussion, that's what this page is for. Twang (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The text presented had nothing to do with the motives. It was just a description of the battle. Nevertheless, motives that led to this battle should be added.

GK1973 (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Something is wrong with the casualties we propose for the Macedonian side. Where was this huge number taken from? Diodorus certainly does not state a number for the Macedonian losses, nor does Polyaenus or any other source I have read on the matter. Where did we find this number? It is very strange to propose that Philip's army sustained more casualties than the conquered... I will remove it until some source is given for this number. Diodorus states that there was great slaughtering, so I just substituted it with "relatively heavy", since this could mean anything from 100 to 1.000 men...

GK1973 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

Article meets quick-fail criteria. Main review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Well written. Identified problems addressed.

   b (MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced. However, the article is very dependent on the source by Cawkwell - this is the only major concern of the article. If possible, other sources should be introduced, even as supporting references. As there are a couple of other sources used in the article, it is not sufficient to fail, but the problem should be borne in mind for future improvement.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

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):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: PASS ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)