Battle of the Eurymedon has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 18, 2009 Good article nominee Listed October 18, 2010 Good topic candidate Promoted January 22, 2024 Good topic removal candidate Demoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Maritime / Classical 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Phoenicia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can we get something in here about the Eurymedon pot? It's really funny AND completely relevent to this topic. Deutschebag17 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Battle of the Eurymedon River → Battle of the Eurymedon —Battle of the Eurymedon River is an unusual title. Most river battle articles today, as pertaining to Eurymedon River would either be worded as, Battle of Eurymedon River, or Battle of the Eurymedon, but most articles on Wikipedia are like Battle of the Granicus, not Battle of Eurymedon River, so it would be reasonable to change the name of this article to Battle of the Eurymedon. The term ‘the Eurymedon’, already means it’s a river. If anyone agrees, or disagrees, please respond below, thank you. --Ariobarza (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the article uses original source materials such as Thucydides and Plutarch (which are important content vehicles), it does not use modern secondary sources for any respective dating of events that would bring this article up to contemporary standards (using a 1948 reference as primary information, makes this article obsolete). Additionally, it does not cite specific claims with any of the sources (i.e. using a Reflist)... Should anyone be able to contribute any of these, it would greatly improve the reliability of this article... Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet"

   1. "In Plutarch's memorable words..." This sounds like a statement of opinion. It should be reworded.

• • • Reworded to avoid POV

1. 1. Did the Persian ships carry the same compliment of marines and troops as the Greek ships? if both sides used the same type of ship it could be concievable to infer troop strength from the ship estimates. If not, the differences in the the two sides' ship design should be at least briefly mentioned to explain why troop numbers are never discussed.

• • • I have clarified this point - the Persian complement was probably the same as the Greek.

1. 1. Is there any ballpark for casualties? If none of the references have any figures, then this should be stated in the text since it is a very important part of the battle.

• • • The only estimates refer to the number of ships lost; I have stated in the text that there are no estimates for troop casualties.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "There are no estimates for the size of the Persian army." - Needs a ref. Also, is there even a ballpark figure in any sources, or is it that not a single one of them mentions a number?

• • • There is no estimate for the Persian army in any ancient text. Some modern writers might have made estimates, but I haven't seen any. I've changed the sentence so that it refers only to the ancient sources.

1. 1. "that his men were exalted by the impetus and pride of their victory, and eager to come to close quarters with the Barbarians" - This quote needs a ref.

• • • Done

1. 1. Is there any way that the primary references can be put into one of the ((citation)) templates? I don't know if there is one specifically for them but it might look better.

• • • As I said in the review for Wars of the Delian League, I will look into this matter.

1. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

5. Overall:

   On Hold for a few issues. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All points have been addressed to my satisfaction. The article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]