Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Granicus/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 September 2021 [1].

Battle of the Granicus

Nominator(s): AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first battle of Alexander the Great's invasion of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. When I wanted to find good information on this battle on Wikipedia, I found that this article had many problems. Since I've studied History and have been editing Wikipedia for years, I wanted to vastly improve this article. I've done so on 26 August and have made minor changes and additions since then. I'm also grateful to the other editors who have submitted improvements to the article since then. I feel this article is now as complete as it could be and is supported a large amount of quality sources. I wonder whether others agree if this could be a featured article. When I compare it with other featured articles on historical battles I think it is, except for some changes to the writing style (my command of English is good, but I'm not a native speaker) which the reviewers here might want. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up and providing a legend for the map of the battle
The OSM map should have a more complete caption
Suggest adding alt text
File:Charles_Le_Brun,_Le_Passage_du_Granique,_1665.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Spithridates_attacking_Alexander_from_behind_at_the_Battle_of_Granicus.jpg, File:Cornelis_Troost_001.jpg
File:Battle_granicus.png: source link is dead, and the permission statement doesn't seem to equate to the tags used. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

Article has not been through WP:GAN or WP:MILHIST/ACR. While not a requirement, such reviews can help bring an article up to meeting the FA criteria.
One source is Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a quite dodgy publisher that is just this side of self-publishing. What makes you think that the author has significant expertise on the subject?
There are citation errors for Russel 2016 and Heckel 2009.

I resolved the cite errors (first is a typo ; second wrong year) and I recommend to the nominator to use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to catch these in future. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA requirement is for a citation at the end of each paragraph at minimum outside the article's lead. I flagged a place where this requirement has not been met.
Also, issues with both duplicate linking and other MOS:OVERLINK (such as for Turkey or archers)
Article prose looks good to me.
I rarely say this but I think the lead probably should be expanded to make sure it touches on all the major points in the article. (t · c) buidhe 14:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chidgk1

I fixed a few minor grammar things - I think there are not many left - but still worth putting in GOCE queue as you don't have to wait long - mention it is for FAC

I wonder whether anyone has searched for archaeological evidence - or did I miss that in the article? Suggest you mail arkeoloji@comu.edu.tr - perhaps they can send out a squad of undergrads with metal detectors to search the old riverbed!

Consider adding the modern pic of the river to show how narrow it is Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Recusing to opine on this one.

It is clear that a lot of work has gone into this. It is also clear that it is some way from being ready for consideration at FAC. A non-exhaustive list of issues includes:

Widespread use of primary sources. They all need replacing with HQ RSs.
The lead does not adequately summarise the article.
The background does not adequately set the scene for the topic.
The prose and MoS-compliance need considerable work. There are a lot of minor grammar and MoS issues. The article needs a thorough copy edit.
The Aftermath does not state how the war concluded.
A map of western Asia Minor showing the locations mentioned would be helpful. And easy to create.
An article on a battle of Alexander's Persian campaigns with no mention of the weapons, tactics, equipment and doctrines? No mention of long thrusting spear or pike or stirrups (lack of) or wedge (formation)? Etc.

I recommend withdrawal and visits to GoCER and PR. Possibly followed by GAN and MilHist ACR. I would also draw the nominator's attention to the second sentence of the FAC home page: "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." Perusal of recent pre-modern battle articles which have passed FAC and of the comments made by reviewers on them may also be helpful in terms of identifying expectations. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I must concur with Gog, above. The article has bags of potential, but it needs input from experienced colleagues, and the steps suggested by Gog seem to me spot-on, though I don't know that I'd go to both PR and GAN these days – you could die of old age waiting for either, let alone both. One or the other would be my advice. Otherwise, I agree that Gog's suggested way forward is the way to go to get the article up to FA standard. Tim riley talk 12:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Thanks to all the reviewers, and to AVL for work on the article. Yes, strongly recommend following Gog's advice, for myself I'd suggest that MilHist A-Class Review is perhaps more likely to get a few pairs of eyes on it quickly than PR, but either will be of benefit if the reviewers show up. Just a reminder that per FAC instructions this can't be re-nominated here for at least two weeks after being archived, but implementing the recommendations will probably take longer anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.