Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010 was published Peter Krentz's The Battle of Marathon and in 2014 Dennis Fink's The Battle of Marathon in Scholarship, a synthesis of all the studies about the battle written from 1850 to 2014; the article was written before these books, so his historiography is outdated in a lot of points. I think this article doesn't respect the point 3a of criteria, because a lot of aspects of the battle aren't treated at all (e.g. the reconstruction of the battlefield) or are treated too superficially (e.g. the shield signal: all theories about it are summarized in "although many interpretations of this have been offered"). Also the parts about the prelude, the date and the significance can be extended. Some of the points I mentioned have already been reported in the article's talk. --Epìdosis (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a drive-by comment, but do remember that the criteria for Good Articles are much lower than those for Featured Articles - I'd point out this note specifically on 3a, that seems to address most of your concerns (or at least my reading of them). Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Has the main contributor been informed about the reassessment? Aside from that, I concur with Parsecboy. I think that the third criteria→"broad in its coverage" means the article covers the main aspects of the theme, not incorporating the newest publications on the topic. I'm leaning towards keeping the article.--Retrohead (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I informed the main contributor. I think the reconstruction of the battlefield is a primary element and it isn't treated at all. --Epìdosis (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out, again, that the note on 3a states that it "...allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail..." - that the article has room for improvement does not bar it from GA. Your objection would be perfectly suited to a FAC review for this article, but we're not at FAC level, we're at GA level. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that not being totally up to date on scholarship prejudices the status of the article, particularly at GA level. If the title was Historiography of the Battle of Marathon, it'd certainly be very different but I think the article still does all the things a casual reader would expect of it. I've made some edits to clean up some rot on the article (mostly template issue and image spacing), but I think it would be a real shame to see it removed from the GA lists for something so minor. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't feel the publication of new works should be weighed very highly. As for the remainder of the points, they seem to be things which could be handled via editing and improving the article. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]