Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Battle of Alexander at Issus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [1].

The Battle of Alexander at Issus[edit]

Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It's rather short for an art article, but a week of library-searching leaves me confident it neglects no major information. User:Johnbod commented that the use of sources with extended discussion (as opposed to the current structure, which incorporates information from five or six primary sources interspersed with tid-bits from all over the place) would be desirable, but – as John himself noted – this is not readily available in English. I don't see it as a huge problem; tapping into a large array of sources has given me the impression that what's here is quite thorough. I look forward to criticism and will respond as quickly as I'm able. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that image, as the article subject, will need a long descriptive alt though—see WP:ALT#Placeholders. I'm more worried about the four gallery images, which illustrate a few additional details and similarities to other works. (Yes, there's an appa guideline for that.) --an odd name 08:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the links, and have added alt texts to the gallery. I agree with AnOddName about the infobox alt text; a whole Description section is provided for the same purpose. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline 1c: High Quality Reliable Source, use of Britannica 10:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC), 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Resolved 2c at talk Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1c:
An unsigned tertiary source by a non expert is not a high quality reliable source. We can do better than this:
"^ a b c d e "Alexander the Great (king of Macedon)". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-09-23."
"^ "Albrecht Altdorfer". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2009-10-05."
"The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia, Part 20. Oxford University Press. 2004. ISBN 0753457849."
Replaced Kingfisher. Working on Britannica. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure I agree about the need to remove Britannica. I don't think their respectability or reliability can be questioned; they're one of the leading encyclopedias in the world. Could you elaborate on why you think the refs to Britannica are a problem? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although non-specialist tertiary sources are not ideal, I would have thought that the content here was fairly uncontroversial, and Britannia does use expert contributors. I'm no expert on history, but unless the facts as presented are open to challenge, I wouldn't object to the ref given simply because it's a tertiary source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest reason is that dog doesn't eat dog. The second biggest reason is that without a signature, there is no quality to the source. I'm afraid that this is not a shifting issue regarding Highest Quality RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the commentary of others, I'm going to leave Britannica be. The sourced material is not contentious, and Britannica is respected. I'm also unsure of what you mean by "dog doesn't eat dog." —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica being the world's other credible English language encyclopedia, we should produce research independent of theirs. The fact that its an unsigned Britannica article amplifies the issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the main, Wikipedia is not credible. Therefore, it's perfectly fitting we should source to a credible encyclopedia. Since Britannica is credible, that the article is not signed should not be a problem. Plenty of credible sources do not sign their material – half the news sources on the Internet, for example. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • microcomment I'm almost ashamed of this nitpick. Gulf of İskenderun reads as an anachronism to me. Iskender is Turkish for Alexander, and the town now called Iskenderun was formerly known in the west by the Greek version of its name, Alexandretta. I assume that the area would not be known by these names prior to the Macedonian conquest, so would the link be better as Gulf of Issus? Please ignore if you think I've got too much time on my hands, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources in other languages discuss the painting in more depth, then it seems to me that the article can't be optimal unless some of those sources are used. Everyking (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not necessarily that those sources present new information, it's that they give a more extended discussion. I'm quite sure what's here is comprehensive, but it would be preferable to source what's already there to more consistent sourcing. That's what's not possible in English. Since I don't think the German sources will provide me with significant new information, it doesn't seem worth it to secure such a source (somehow; I think I'd have to import it) and then translate it, just so that the bibliography can seem more linear. Why am I confident that what's here is comprehensive, even though I've not seen the German sources? Because I've read so many English sources and incorporated what's relevant from each. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: There are certain drawbacks to using other-language sources anyway, especially if they are to be used to source large swathes of the content. In particular, most readers on the English Wikipedia would be unable to fully utilise the bibliography. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm only saying you should make the effort to incorporate foreign language sources if they will allow the article to be significantly improved and expanded. You can't justify excluding superior sources just because they're in another language. Articles are supposed to be comprehensive, not just comprehensive in terms of everything that's been published in English. If your argument is "there's nothing much more we can add to justify the effort", then that's probably reasonable, but if your argument is simply "English language sources are more convenient", then I must object. Everyking (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think his argument is basically that incorporating foreign sources would lend no additional value or comprehensiveness to the article, and personally I think that barring a reason to believe otherwise, we should trust the nominator's judgment. Can you point out any specific weaknesses in the article's coverage of the topic? –Juliancolton | Talk 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I had written quite a bit of the article at GA stage). There does indeed seem to be a surprising shortage of material on the painting in English, to judge from Google/books/scholar and Wood's bibliography as at 1993. But I'm sure there is more tucked away somewhere. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism, Issue 9 of Studies in the fine arts, Reinhild Janzen, Publisher UMI Research Press, 1980, ISBN 083571120X, 9780835711203 must be relevant, and the Paris exhibition catalogue Altdorfer and Fantastic Realism (ISBN: 0847854108 / 0-8478-5410-8) Maurice Guillaud, Jacqueline Guillaud, Rizzoli, 1985, especially if the painting was in the exhibition. But I don't believe there is nothing more to be said - for one thing, what the Hagens have about the painting being cut down in size is not I think in yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added about the cut down, good find. Albrecht Altdorfer: four centuries of criticism definitely sounds relevant. I'll see what I can do to find a copy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Given that the subject of this article is an artistic work, citing facts about Alexander the Great to Britannica isn't really a big deal. None of the facts cited to the Britannica are contentious.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Historical Setting"
  • "The Battle of the Granicus, fought in May,[8] was Persia's first major effort to confront the invaders, but nonetheless resulted in an easy victory for Alexander." Why nonetheless? Seems clumsy.
  • "A core vanguard of traitorous Greek mercenaries" By definition, mercenaries fight whomever they were told to fight. Is there a good reason for this POV? Again, "renegade Greek mercenaries". In my opinion, "Greek mercenaries" will do. Their ethnic origin is relevant primarily in informing the reader that they would have been hoplites, nearly the equivalent of Alexanders heavy infantry, although the Macedonian hoplites were notably superior to their mercenary counterparts.
    • Consider how it would read without "traitorous". The layreader (who, perhaps, knows more about art than war), might be confused: "why were the Greeks fighting the Greeks?" Strictly speaking, the adjective is not needed, but it makes the text clearer. That the mercenaries were traitorous is not really disputable, but if you can think of a better term I'm happy to apply it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk
  • "a counter to Nabarsanes' mounted conglomerate" A cavalry force is not normally known as a 'conglomerate'.
  • Other than the above, I really like the concise description of the battle. I'm not well enough informed to comment on the rest of the article, but the "Historical Setting" is FA-worthy. Relevant image, excellent map (arrows would be nice), tight prose just a little theatrical at times, as noted above. Dhatfield (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
  • The issue above is all that's remaining on the image front. Steve Smith (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done all but one (uploaded by someone else). I can easily upload a new (and better) version myself. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I still don't see a source for the electronic versions. Steve Smith (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean that you cropped them? We still need the source of the original image. Steve Smith (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied that it's in the public domain as a US government work, but the "permission" field of the description template is currently confusing (not least because it refers to "purposes stated below" without providing them). I'd suggest just replacing that with a note that permission is not required, as the work is in the public domain. File:Battle issus initial.gif Steve Smith (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautifully written, lovely content in the text. But I find much wanting WRT the images.

  • Hands up who can read the small text on the map? AD, do you have control over the text size alone (larger would be great), or can you enlarge the whole image? (The icons are just big enough as is, so bigger text would do it.)
  • The Alexander image is superb, so why so small?
  • I've upsized the two in Background and relocated the Triumphal one. Is it OK? The St George one is a slight problem in that it's hard to make out even at my larger size, yet if you click on it, the image is humungously large and of poor res. Is the original that dark?
    • I found the new layout overbearing. I don't think the St George one is going to be clear without clicking on it – it's just the way the painting is. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The women on the battlefield: can't make it out, and can you use the sizing that is best for very vertical pics? Eubulides knows how ("upright"?
    • I've applied "upright". I can't see too much difference though. Have I done something wrong? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be too many pics squashed in and made small to fit. Have you thought of a gallery at the bottom for some, to which you could refer in the main text? Nile River and sign suspended look cluttered and untidy, for example. Put them down the bottom and enlarge Darius? Fictitious mountain and island down and larger, then we could have the women beneath the soldiers, both on the right and larger, and the text isn't squeezed in the same way. Tony (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I quite like the current format. For the most part, the text isn't squished too much, and it's not atypical for art articles to have a large number of images (example, example). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll concede, though, that the sign and Nile images were cluttered. I've removed the sign image altogether, since it was too small for the gallery. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on refs
  • Is it Bunson or Bunston? Pinakotek or Pinakothek?
  • In notes but not refs: Jean
  • In refs but not notes: Ansell; The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia. • Ling.Nut 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Battle_of_Alexander_at_Issus/archive1&oldid=1078807606"