Talk:Cretan War (205–200 BC)

message: I've edited the article for grammar and style, which was quite needed. Beyond that, I think it's a great start for an article, but it could use some more work in a few areas. First, I believe that all articles are improved by the addition of a picture, if available. Second, the middle section describing the war itself is kind of sparse. Are there any specific battles that can be mentioned by name? Finally, I do not know what can be done about this, but I find it confusing to read about a war with so many combatants, and trying to remember who was on which side, who they were, and why they were fighting. I have a similar problem in writing my own articles, so that's not something I expect is easy to fix. But it's there. Thank you for requesting an assessment, and good luck! LordAmeth 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other major issue—perhaps more important than any particular question of content or organization—is the fact that the article doesn't cite its sources.  This really needs to be fixed.  Kirill Lokshin 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The introduction/summary needs to include a complete summary, specifically indicate the outcome of the war.  The article has a very casual style, for example the last sentence — "This lead to an Aetolian offensive that was easily squashed by Philip."  — I suggest a more encyclopedic tone.  The article could benefit from inline references as well. — ERcheck (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: The article needs citations to move up. Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I was left with a few questiosn following the reading of this article, where the inhabitants of Abydos really called Abysians? As well, the ending of the section reads rather poorly:
The people of Abydos fought bravely and heroicly until nightfall and forced the Macedonians to retreat. That night they sent their two most prominent citizens to Philip offering to surrender him the city. All the Abydosians after they surrendered the city felt ashamed that they had betrayed their fallen comrades so that night they all commited suicide Should this be true it definitly needs ot be re-written.--Dryzen 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abydos

message: This article has come along very nicely and lacks only inline citation in the Prelude section to pass.
I would suggest also working on the writing further. For instance, the word "then" is over used. For example, in the intro:
The Macedonian fleet was defeated by the allied fleet at Chios but Philip then defeated the Rhodians at Lade. Philip then swept through Asia Minor where he plundered and captured many cities Caria. Philip then attacked Athens which was convinced by Attalus to declared war against Macedon. Rome then declared war on Philip so Philip abandoned his Rhodian campaign which left Rhodes with their new Cretan ally Knossos to defeat their main Cretan enemies, Olous and Hierapytna and force them to sign a treaty favourable to them.
I'd also avoid passive constructions like the "war was fought," which makes the passage feel a little fuzzy to english readers. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nom on Hold

message: Someone added a coyedit flag. With this in place, it is a little difficult to justify a GA promotion. Does anyone know what kind of changes the editor who placed the flag would like to see? --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations! I've promoted the article. In your quest for FA, please consider the language suggestions above and the peer review process. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit Flag 

message: There's some confusing/contradictory wording:
:First Macedonian War came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Phoenice, under the terms of which the Macedonians were not allowed to expand eastwards.
and
:The Treaty of Phoenice prohibited Philip from expanding westward into Illyria or the Adriatic Sea,
I expanded the treaty article a bit, using the terms as reported in Livy, and they're not very illuminating on either point. It seems to me that the treaty may more accurately be described as a mutual peace between Rome, Aetolia, and Macedon, leaving Rhodes as the major power in the East left out, and thus Philip's natural enemy (with Carthage in the West occupying Rome). That is to say, the treaty was less about constraining Philip, than focusing his efforts. In any case, the wording above sounds like a contradiction even if strictly true, so I suggest a rewording describing the treaty more accurately. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty of Phoenice

message: * RSN noticeboard discussion
There is an excessive use of sources from the ancient world (Polybius and Livy) and inadequate use of modern, secondary sources.  This is an old FA, not up to current standards, and needs some work if it is to retain its FA star. BencherliteTalk 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of primary sources 

message: Is it POV to say Philip was the "antagonist" of this war? Brutannica (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Antagonist

message: Also, why is it called "the Cretan War?" Crete seems to play a fairly minor role, both in the politics and the fighting. Brutannica (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: "After the Macedonians captured Thyatira, they advanced to plunder the plain of Thebe," Thebe is linked to the mythical Cilician Thebe! Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonians plundered mythical city? 

message: I've found two separate mentions of corn in this article. Corn didn't esist in the Old World until it was brought back from the Americas by European explorers over 1,500 years AFTER the Cretan War. Please refrain from re-adding any mention of the plant to the article, this is the second time I've fixed it.  65.209.62.115 (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Corn?

message: Substituted at 12:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This article is no longer up to FA standards. Several entire paragraphs rely exclusively on Polybius or Livy and lack modern sources, especially in "Roman intervention". Among the latter, Hammond and Walbank are the best sources on Macedonia, but Walbank's Commentary on Polybius is missing, as well as Paul Cartledge's works on Sparta. T8612 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: FA standards