# Talk:Battle of the Eurymedon (190 BC)

What was the size of Hannibal's fleet as described in the article? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Livius (37,23–24) Hannibal had 47 ships, his opponent Pausistratos had 38. --Kryston (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
How many sailors do you think that was under Hannibal's control? Do you have an English link to the Livy reference? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea how many sailors were needed for a typical ship. Here is the link, that you wished: [1] Look for section 37.23. The numbers I have given aren't exactly like I told you above. According to Livius there are 36 Rhodian ships.
The Rhodian force consisted of thirty-two quadriremes and four triremes; the king's fleet numbered thirty-seven vessels of larger build; amongst them were three hepteres and four hexeres. There were in addition to these ten triremes.
My original number came from this article. I have to check the number with Graingers book, but this will take some time. And here is my second mistake: The Rhodian admiral was Eudamos. Pausistratos was the loser of the battle of Panormos. --Kryston (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

B class. Catlemur: I recently reviewed the article Battle of Myonessus and I noticed that the entire Background section, the first two paragraphs of the Prelude section, and the last paragraph of the Aftermath section of the two articles (Battles of Myonessus and Eurymedon) are word-for-word identical. While it may be important for each article to relate the general history of this conflict in order for readers to understand the context, it is tedious to read the same word-for-word description in more than one article. The Battle of Thermopylae (191 BC) article also repeats the Background section word-for-word, but it is a much better article because it also provides a unique narrative of events in the sections after the Background. There are times where a certain amount of word-for-word copy may be acceptable (within the same class of warships, for example). I am OK with this for B class, but would not like to see this for GA class. We can discuss if you want. Djmaschek (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

CONTRADICTION: The introduction implies that the Rhodian success was due to using the diekplous maneuver against the Seleucid seaward wing. But in the article it says that the Seleucid landward wing (Apollonius) suffered the most damage while the Seleucid seaward wing (Hannibal) was more successful. There seems to be a contradiction. Can you clear this up? Djmaschek (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Djmaschek: I fixed the contradiction. As for the word for word repetition I don't mind replacing it. I just don't know what should I focus on. Should I provide details about what happened on other fronts immediately before the battle? An example would be providing details of the Seleucid invasion of Pergamon in an article about a naval battle.--Catlemur (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Catlemur: Thanks for clearing up the contradiction. I don't think there's a guideline about word-for-word copy from another article, so it may be OK. But I personally don't like to see it for reasons I gave above. I am sometimes in a situation where I need to "borrow" a paragraph from another article. I usually edit it so it says the same thing in different words. Djmaschek (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Eurymedon (190 BC)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next few days...Ealdgyth (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead:
Perhaps one sentence in the last paragraph giving the longer term outcome to the battle - what the result of the Selucid navy being isolated meant?
 Done
Background:
We don't need to put "BC" after every date quite honestly. See MOS:ERA.
 Done
"whose rights were traditionally defended by Rhodes." - If the rights were traditionally defended by Rhodes, why was a Selucid getting involved? Did they control Rhodes at this point? It's not clear why the Selucids are trying to uphold Rhodian "rights" here.
They did not control Rhodes but what it boils do to is that the Seleucids believed that the Asia Minor states should have appealed to Rhodes for mediation and that Rome had no right to meddle into the region's affairs.--Catlemur (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Prelude:
"All while the Roman infantry would struggle to sustain itself, while remaining grounded in mainland Greece." This isn't a sentence - I think it's meant to be a dependent clause of the preceeding sentence?
 Done
Not a biggie - but "arrived at Piraeus too late" ... I usually have see "the Piraeus"? This was still Athens' seaport at the time, right? Might want to make that clear. Which side was Athens on? And why did the Roman fleet go to the Piraeus anyway?
Added a "the". Athens remained neutral in the conflict. The reason they arrived at the Piraeus was to repair their ships after a lengthy voyage from Italy and allow the crews to rest.--Catlemur (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows the only "concern" is quite obviously a scrape of wikipedia.
I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Apologies for only noticing the review now, I forgot to add this page to my watchlist. It should be ready now.--Catlemur (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries. I figured it got lost in the "thank goodness 2020 is over" haze... passing it now. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)