Talk:War against Nabis

message: I'm not sure how relevant this is, as it's already A-class, a judgement I largely agree with. However, there a
*In the lead, the paragraph beginning "Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta, had signed a treaty with Rome in 205 BC." is rather choppy; the paragraph after it opens with a monster of a sentence, and so on.  As the part of the article that will be seen first, it could stand to be a little better. It's by no means awful, though, but it'd be a good start towards the likely FA objections.
*Comma use is very poor. A lot of necessary commas are missing, and in many cases where a comma is there it's set in a place where you could either have a comma there and at another place in the sentence or neither comma at all, but not just one of the two. For instance, All of the Greek leaders except Aristaenos, thought that they should attack the city, as capturing it was their purpose in going to war. - you can set off "except Aristaenos" with commas either side or leave out both commas, but can't just have the one. I'll put this on my watch list and lend a hand later.
*The Prelude section could be expanded a bit, or the relevant section in the lead shortened: There's very little new information in it, so it seems repititious. 
* In short, the whole thing rather needs a couple more copyedits. Factually, it's fine and strong, but the language is poor. It's ... borderline GA, but as it's currently A-class and, I presume, you want it to reach FA, I'm putting it On Hold, to try and help out with copyediting. Adam Cuerden talk 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been nine days, but not much copyediting seems to of occured, should this be failed or what? Homestarmy 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: There is clearly strong opinion about this - which I find surprising. Perhaps I should clarify a little more:
*The main problem with this article is that it does not read correctly in native-English; the prose is not grammatically correct and reads "fuzzily" - particularly to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Given this it fails criteria 1. a) of WP:WIAGA.
*The article does not make clear the exact reasons why this war took place. Was it Nabis who started this war by taking the Spartan throne? - if so, then please make it clearer. If not, then again, simply make this a little clearer.
*The lead is an important section in any article, but this one is not referenced at all with inline citation - a requirement for criteria 2.(b) for GA.
*This article was nominated weeks ago and received suggestions which were not acted upon (see the comments above by two other reviewers). Thus the On-Hold period was terminated as a GA failure.
*Images exist on Wiki-commons relating both to Ancient Rome, Sparta and other such combatants - I did not fail the article because it did not include them, but I was suggesting that they would be useful for users, particularly, children, foreign learners and the impaired. THIS IS MY SUGGESTION only, and not a reason why I failed the article.
:I checked the images on wikicommons. If it is acceptable to put images of WWI trench warfare into Operation Anaconda you are welcome to use the content of commons to spice up this article. Wandalstouring 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be pointed out that your third point isn't quite correct.  The lead is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, not a section with unique content in its own right; the consensus is that it should not, in general, contain inline citations (as a need for them would imply that it contained material not given—and referenced—in the body of the article).  This is why FAs don't usually have citations in the lead section. Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I recieved a message about this discussion, and may I say, the Good Article review page might be a better place to resolve this conflict? (Also, sometimes inline citations in leads are necessary for extremely controversial topics in my experience.)Homestarmy 12:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Ernst Baltrusch writes in Sparta 3-406-41883-X (a series of scholarly works in German) that Nabis is credited for his social reforms. I couldn't find out what these reforms were, but it seems they were connected to military strength and reducing social unrest(that at this time heavily affected Greece). Furthermore he claims that Nabis officially used the ancient title of Spartan kings and not tyrant on his coins, while in scholarly works he is mentioned with that title. Wandalstouring 12:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that we should mention what Nabis called himself and what others called him, especially since tyrant was a title. Wandalstouring 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social reforms and title of Nabis 

message: Well written: The article needs a thorough copy-edit for spelling and grammar.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Passed
Broad in its coverage: Passed
Has Neutral Point of View: Passed
Stable: Passed
Pictures: Passed
This is a good article in terms of content, but has a lot of spelling mistakes, as well as some grammar mistakes. These need to be sorted out before it can be GA. Druworos 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA hold 

message: Try an NPOV approach on Nabis reforms and be more specific on who makes what statement (unreasonably high). Show reforms with more background on the political situation, highlight the rivalry between Argos and Sparta if you explicitly mention Argos rule. Wandalstouring 19:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV violation in Nabis' reforms, etc. 

message: Megapolis redirects to Megacity and there it talks about big cities with over 10 million inhabitants so what is the Megapolis in this context, especially since you refer to it as the Megapolis. Wandalstouring 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megapolis 

message: Plautus#Historical_Context contains some secondary sources on the time and Rome. Wandalstouring 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some useful background information 

message: I noticed the article specifies the battle name in greek "Greek:Λακωνικός Πόλεμος", can the word "greek" be wikilinked to the appropriate language? I would do it myself but there appears to be four variants of the Greek language. Thanks. — Tutmosis 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Koine Greek. Wandalstouring 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clarifying. — Tutmosis 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the war in greek 

message: The article still has some language issues that must be worked out before it can pass GA. Druworos 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: Whatever the language issues are, they didn't matter, as in a 5 to 1 decision with not a single person actually voting delist in the articles Good Article review discussion, this is now a Good Article. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13. Homestarmy 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: #"During the Second Macedonian War Sparta had been granted control over the city of Argos as part of games of power amongst hostile third parties."  Who granted Sparta this control?  The Romans?  Why?  Why did they change their mind?  
:The Macedonians gave it to them and the Romans didn't make them leave when they switched sides.Should we write this more in detail? Wandalstouring 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A coordinator has nothing to decide on such issues (I'm one of them). Sorry, but I see no reason for the war's name in modern Greek. Koine Greek and Latin would be OK because that's the language of the primary sources. Wandalstouring 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions about opening section 

message: The first map is a great map--but for the wrong date, since it shows the standing of various powers in 200 BC, on the eve of the Second Macedonian War.  What we need is one for 195 BC, with Macedonia beaten back.  If we can't get one like that, I think a simple line map would do, but one that includes all the places named in the article: Argos, Sparta, Laconia, Gytheum, etc.  Semperf 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a running map request, but not yet any reaction.Wandalstouring 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  But it seems to me that what is most important is that there is a map that allows readers to see where the places in the article are.  Not everyone knows where Argos is, for example, or where Gytheum is.  We need maps in the article that explain that.   Semperf 14:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no requirement for FA and as long as there is no such thing, we can not display it. Wandalstouring 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the FA is besides the point.  What we should be doing is trying to create as good an article as possible, and having maps that actually contribute to people's understanding will help create a better article.  If worse comes to worst, someone can just take a pre-existing map, download it, and photoshop in the necessary details.  Semperf 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone doesn't do it. I need a solution. Wandalstouring 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well at the moment we're at a bit of a stand-off then.  How about this as a compromise: let's move the c. 200 map from the sidebar and into the text in the "prelude" section.  (Thus the map appears with the right historical moment in the narrative, in the same way that the 188 map below goes with aftermath section.)  For the sidebar we should see if we can find a map of ancient Greece that includes lots of place names, but does not have (e.g.) political divisions.  (I still think it's important that a reader be able to see where Argos and Gytheum are--that's the reason maps are important!)   Semperf 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. By the way there is an illustrator who will create some images for this article and I have written you a comment about the importance of English in scientific literature. I think this might be shocking for you, but honestly, in all fields of science lots of hot stuff gets never published in English. Wandalstouring 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be great if you could get a map: it doesn't have to be too complicated.  Here's a map that almost (but doesn't quite) work:   Semperf 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we keep it not very complicated, I might ask my personal cartographer. He is a bit stressed by a life outside of wikipedia and an ongoing work on the Battle of Chalons, so it might take several weeks/months, depending on for how much we ask. So what do you suggest should be implemented? some names and locations (which)? borders? troop movements?Wandalstouring 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that place-names is enough. But maybe there is a good enough map somewhere aleady. Is there anyway in which maps are indexed?  Semperf 02:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commons Atlas is the general storage for all wikimaps. However you often find national material that is not on commons and the index isn't that good. Wandalstouring 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea, got one. Wandalstouring 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  map for the lede 

message: saying that the only reason for the war was liberating Argos is close to lying. Rhodos, Pergamon, Macedonia and Rome were happy if someone didn't rule the whole Peloponnese and thus Achea and Sparta were busy there. What bothered all of them were the bases of the Cretan pirates. Mind to implement the difference between reasons and casus belli. For example Alexander the Great's casus belli was revenge for the Persian invasion of Greece(Macedonia had been a Persian ally), nuff about silver, beautiful women and ruling the world. Wandalstouring 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fair point, I wouldn't mind deleting the term casus belli completely, since it is likely to cause more confusion than clarity in an outside reader.  The following clause does call this a pretext, which is closer to the point.  Semperf 18:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it because it perfectly reflects the meaning of casus belli as a justification for a war. Some people confuse this today. Perhaps We leave casus belli in the infobox and say that it was justified under the following pretext or the like. Wandalstouring 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good.  I'll do it now.  Semperf 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for the war 

message: I've changed the maps as we discussed above.  Semperf 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  maps 

message: I like the idea of external images generally, but am not sure that these ones are especially helpful to this article.  While there were wars in which the differnce between Roman style of warfare vs. the Macedonian phalanx was important, in this warfare the important struggles seem to have been sieges.  Semperf 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I had them just placed to end this endless request of imges of Spartans. As soon as I find some free siege machines I will replace it. Wandalstouring 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: external images

message: What does everyone think about a straw poll to decide the name. We can have the preposed names and everyonr votes for which one they want and give a reason why/ What do you all think? Kyriakos 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. I think the debate is failing to solve this at present, I think we need to see if a consensus can be reached or at least where everyone stands:
=====Spartan War=====
*vote here
=====Laconian War=====
*vote here
*support - popular among ancient scholars and their translators Miskin 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: *vote here
*support - popular among ancient scholars and their translators Miskin 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Laconian War

message: *Support because as pointed out it is not a purely Roman and Spartan affair and referring to it purely as "Spartan War" or similar only makes logical sense if you are a Roman (ie you know Rome is the other adversary) - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War against Nabis

message: *Comment.  No hyphen and lower-case "war" (since this is not the "name" of the war, like "First Punic War", but a description of what's in the article.  semper fictilis 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman-Spartan War

message: *Support as my first choice as the most likely to cause confusion in someone without knowledge of ancient history.   (I think "war" should not be capitalized) semper fictilis 22:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman War against Nabis

message: Is there only one person in the article with a name close to Philopoemen? There are three names in the article as Philopoemen, Philopoemon, and Philiopoemon, and I don't want to change them all to the working wikilink name of Philopoemen, if they somehow refer to different people or groups. Been there, done that. Michael Devore 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philopoemen

message: "All consequent Spartan attempts to recover the losses..." should say "subsequent".  "Consequent" implies a more direct cause-and-effect.  I'd edit it myself but I'm reluctant to jump into an FA without an edit history on the page.  (user CouldOughta, not logged in).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.203.48 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Consequent?" 

message: I can see this has been the topic of discussion in the past, but the conclusion of those discussions and the title that now stares out at everyone on today's main page both seem a little odd. As acknowledged, "War against Nabis" is not a formal title found anywhere in reliable sources for this conflict – yet it is not only used as the title but is capitalised in text as if it were a proper name (and the article for Nabis himself refers to the "eponymous" war, again as if this was a formal name or title for it). Obviously, without a common or clear formal name for this war, we are left with working out a more descriptive title; but in that case we should have something more generally and genuinely descriptive, such as "Roman-Spartan War" (which does generate a few search results), which, per WP:TITLE, will be broadly clear to and understandable by the average informed reader. Not only is the current title at first glance and in itself utterly unclear (who or what is Nabis?) but the lead doesn't help much as it doesn't get round to identifying Nabis until the last paragraph. The only justification for it seems to be that the phrase "war against Nabis" crops up in quite a few sources, but this is only in the context of very general prose text such as "the Romans were debating whether to wage war against Nabis", "in their war against Nabis" etc etc. N-HH talk/edits 11:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The two external images linked in the Preparations section lead to dead links. I don't know enough about the subject to recommend replacement images, but equivalent images, or the same images on alternate sites, should be linked. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External images links are dead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on War against Nabis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030002124/http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/00281/romans/03.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/00281/romans/03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is heavily sourced to the ancient sources of (especially) Livy and Polybius and Smith's very dated 19th-century source.  The reliance on these ancient and dated sources runs afoul of the quality sourcing requirements of the modern FA criteria. Hog Farm  Talk 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources are not good enough for the current FA standards