Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/archive2

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2023 [1].

Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC), User:PericlesofAthens[reply]

Have you ever heard of March Madness? Well, it's 1 March (where I live; it's actually 2 March UTC ) and prepare for a whole lot of madness! PericlesofAthens have been working on this article for a bit (kudos on him for building this article from the ground up and taking it through GA), and after a depressing FA nomination in 2018, we believe things will go smoother this time around. Read this article, and you'll discover that Alexander isn't the only great thing about Macedon... Unlimitedlead (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead Thanks for the shoutout and kudos for nominating this article for FA status! Hopefully it will prove successful this time around. I'm not very active here anymore, but I'll be watching it closely whenever I'm around. With a quick inspection things look good, especially in regards to variety of sources used, thorough use of inline citations, and reliable sourcing for images. Pericles of AthensTalk 08:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: you previously expressed support for this nomination (back in 2018). Would you be interested in giving this article another review and offering your suggestions? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, you previously declared all images to be appropriately licensed in the 2018 nomination. I have since added three new images (one at the top, two at the bottom), so would you mind checking on this? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship[edit]

insert WikiCup points declaration I'll get to this soon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification.
  • I'm not sure what your position on duplicate links is, but there are a lot.
Removed them. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Could do with a bit of tightening, esp. first couple of sentences. At the moment reads "The earliest government of ancient Macedonia was established some time during the period of Archaic Greece (8th–5th centuries BC) by the Argead dynasty of kings who ruled over the kingdom. Due to shortcomings in the historical record, very little is known about the origins of Macedonian governmental institutions before the reign of Philip II of Macedon (r. 359 – 336 BC), during the final phase of Classical Greece (480–336 BC)."
Things I noticed: "some time during the period of" is a bit waffly; "kings who ruled over the kingdom" seems like it's willing to be repetitive to get links in; Ancient Macedonia is linked to from "the origins", which isn't where I would expect that to go; "the origins...before the reign of Philip" surely if little is known about government before Philip, then we not only don't know much about the origins, but a large part of the history?
What I might do: "The first government of ancient Macedonia was established by the Argead dynasty of Macedonian kings during the Archaic period (8th–5th centuries BC). The early history of Ancient Macedonia is obscure because of shortcomings in the historical record; little is known of governmental institutions before the reign of Philip II during the late Classical period."
Does that work in your opinion?
Yes; done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"These institutions continued to evolve" is similarly a bit weak: 1) repetition of "institutions", 2) the linking of "continued to evolve" to History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), a page which discusses almost nothing of the continued evolution of Macedonian government, is a bit odd.
Changed to "These bureaucratic organizations evolved in complexity under his successor Alexander the Great and the subsequent Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties of Hellenistic Greece (336–146 BC)." @PericlesofAthens: what do you think of this replacement? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead that looks fine to me! No complaints. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Fourth Macedonian War broke out, which resulted" you could remove the "broke out, which"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the lead is good, imo.
Sources (ooh I love a sources section) and Division of power
Note 1 ("write with apparent certainty and conviction") is WP:OR, no?
@PericlesofAthens: I do not have access to this particular source; any thoughts? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"was the first to" in two consecutive sentences. also "was the first to refute these ideas" which ideas? Granier's? Then didn't he just write what people had been saying before Granier? Not really a refutation.
I have since removed the "first to refute" part, but allow me to interpret: " Pietro De Francisci refuted these ideas" means that Francisci disagreed with Granier's theory (of a Macedonian constitutional government), and "advanced the theory that the Macedonian government was an autocracy ruled by the whim of the monarch..." does indeed mean that he continued expanding on what people were saying before. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead Sorry to chime in late here, but that is absolutely correct. Thanks for asking! Pericles of AthensTalk 12:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Institutions
"was divided into small tribal regions each having their own petty king" fairly certain a slight change in grammar/punctuation is needed here
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"an Eastern, Persian monarch" don't think both qualifiers are needed
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Yet it was his father" we sure this isn't MOS:EDITORIAL?
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "somatophylakes" is used before the bodyguard section to define bodyguard, after the bodyguard section to define bodyguard, but not in the bodyguard section to define bodyguard (or anything else, for that matter). Confusing.
Really? I thought after two previous mentions that the meaning of somatophylakes would be clear. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still quite confused. Is a somatophylax what you would call a proper bodyguard at all, or is it just a modern designation? Was "the agema of the hypaspistai" a proper bodyguard then (and incidentally is the agema or the hypaspistai the "type of ancient special forces usually numbering in the hundreds")? Is the "smaller group of men handpicked by the king either for their individual merits or to honor the noble families to which they belonged" the somatophylakes, or are they some other people? The article says that all of them "were not always responsible for protecting the king's life on and off the battlefield"—were they ever responsible for protection? I just think it's a little confusing. Rest looks good though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: "[royal] bodyguards" could be considered a modern translation of somatophylakes. Sorry, "of" was a typo for "or", methinks. I have changed the surrounding language a little as well. And no, they were not responsible for protection; the article states that the distinction was a formal, titular one of status. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the bodyguard section is a single paragraph, as is the royal page section. Perhaps combine them?
I take your point, but I think having one section discussing two very different roles would be confusing for readers. If you insist though, I will do so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The companions ... represented a substantially larger group than the king's bodyguards." but did they include the bodyguards?
If I'm interpreting the source material correctly, the companions and the bodyguards both comprised the King's court, but the companions did not include the actualy bodyguards. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The most trusted or highest ranking companions formed a council that served as an advisory body to the king." I assume this is the synedrion of the {{further}} hatnote? Perhaps name and link in article text.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is note 5 necessary in its entirety?
I am inclined to think so, as it provides more information about the whole Athenian democracy debacle, which is important to know but not important enough to be in the actual article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currency section is nice
Military
I'm not sure about this, but the section does seem to slightly lose focus. The emphasis seems to be much more on the army as a military force than as a government institution. That might just be me, though. I'll leave it at that, in case anyone else has any thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that the military, which was established, maintained, and tied to the Macedonian monarchy, is important enough to have substantial material written on it in this article. I agree, though: I will wait to see what other reviewers have to say. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 thanks for the support! Sorry that I'm late to the party, as I do not frequent Wikipedia very often these days. Your input, contributions to improving the article, and support are much appreciated, though. Also great job on @Unlimitedlead, who deserves a great deal of credit even if he somehow doesn't get this article over the finish line of the FA nomination. Looks like it's well on its way, though! Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Srnec[edit]

Why isn't the title just "Government of ancient Macedonia"? Srnec (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec Actually, I'm not sure. Would you like to me move it, request a discussion to move, or leave it be? Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, by all means discuss a page move here but, if one is agreed, pls action it after the FAC nom is closed so we don't disrupt the closing process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be moved. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec it is named as such because it follows the same convention as the other sub-articles for Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Are you suggesting all of the articles should be moved or retitled? I wouldn't be opposed to that, but just moving this one on its own seems illogical unless you are prepared to move several articles all at once. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so might also stir up unnecessary trouble between Greek and North Macedonia nationalists lurking here on Wikipedia, since they contest the region and name "Macedonia", so removing the distinction that we're talking specifically about the kingdom itself would probably disturb the hornet's nest again. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further, I see only one other article with a title like this one—History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). There more that use "ancient Macedonian": Ancient Macedonians (and the related List of ancient Macedonians and List of ancient Macedonians in epigraphy), Ancient Macedonian language, Ancient Macedonian calendar and Ancient Macedonian army. Now, I see how the latter could be ambiguous, insofar as Roman Macedonia was also ancient; and I could see how the people, the calendar and the language are not inextricably linked to the kingdom; but the army is certainly a parallel to this article and the history one. WP:SHORTFORM gives examples where it could go either way. I think the word "ancient" is enough to clarify and we can avoid parentheses. Srnec (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a move, but just giving fair warning that it might potentially stir the pot of the ultranationalists here. Then again it's been quiet for a while now, maybe they have migrated somewhere else to fight each other (hopefully, LOL). I guess the articles could always be temporarily locked again if that happens. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will review this when I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the historiography section, it would be nice to see a short gloss on the time period for the historians mentioned, such as works of Herodotus (5th century), Thucydides (5th century)..." and so on, or perhaps organize it by century such as The main sources of early Macedonian historiography are the works of 5th-century BC historians Herodotus and Thucydides, 1st-century AD Diodorus Siculus, and 2nd-century AD Justin. when a sentence contains many sources.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • made before Philip II of Macedon's reign is both rare and non-Macedonian in origin. suggest made before Philip II of Macedon's reign (r. 359 – 336 BC) is both rare and non-Macedonian in origin.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I think reign length templates for mentioned kings would be very prudent and useful for readers.
Understood. Will get to later. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main textual primary sources for the organization of Macedonia's military as it existed under Alexander the Great include Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus, and Plutarch, while modern historians rely mostly on Polybius and Livy for understanding detailed aspects of the Antigonid-period military.[ is this referenced by Sekunda 2010, pp. 446–447, the reference the note contains? If so, suggest citing it directly before the note.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Greek victory at Salamis in 480 BC suggest either changing the link to Battle of Salamis to encompass all of Greek victory at Salamis, or changing the text of such as After the Greek victory at the Battle of Salamis in 480 BC
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was his father Philip II who had already shown signs... phrasing seems somewhat strange, perhaps His father Philip II had already shown signs...
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • since there are very few means by which modern historians are capable of confirming their veracity (and could have been possibly lower or even higher than the amount stated) not sure parenthesis are the best option here, perhaps since there are very few means by which modern historians are capable of confirming their veracity, and the true number could have been possibly lower or even higher than the amount stated.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • were organized into chiliarchs suggest short gloss for chiliarch.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In around the Antigonid period military section, the article diverges from defining a term in English, giving a Greek name in parenthesis, and then using Greek therafter, to terms being labeled in Greek, defined in English, then used in English going forward. Not certain why this is so, but suggest standardizing to the first.
Understood. Will get to later. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure I see anything amiss here. Would you mind clarifying where exactly you see the issue? Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: Compare section from Division of power: the king (basileus).[6] From at least the reign of Philip II the king was assisted by the royal pages (basilikoi paides), bodyguards (somatophylakes), companions (hetairoi), friends (philoi) to this section: divided now into chalkaspides 'bronze shield' and leukaspides 'white shield' regiments; the ordering and format are swapped for unknown reasons from [English term (Greek)] to [greek term 'english term'. Maybe it's done because the terms are literal translations instead of general language, but it seems weird to me.
@Iazyges: Gotcha. This has been adjusted. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • followed by the Roman victory in the Fourth Macedonian War and establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia. suggest changing followed by to which led to to imply greater causation.
The proposed phrasing sounds awkward in my opinion. Do you have any other words/phrases instead? Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can think of; it's fine as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are either of the external links necessary or useful for the article?
Removed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Image_larnax_of_philip.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Alexander_III_Babil_Stater.jpg, File:Akedonya_Krallığı_Alexander_III_Kaunos_Tetradrahmi.jpg
For the first concern, which tag would be most appropriate for a photograph of an ancient object? {{PD-old-100-expired}}? Also, I have replaced the last two with File:INC-2032-a Статер Македонское царство Милет чеканка при Филоксене (аверс).png; is this acceptable?
That too will need a tag for the original work - old-100-expired will work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-en.svg: see MOS:COLOUR
That image is not in this article? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in a navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone ahead and removed several navboxes, including the one in question. They seem somewhat irrelevant considering this subject matter. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:D473-birème_romaine-Liv2-ch10.png: what's the copyright status of the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do not understand. The Commons page already has {{PD-US}} and {{PD-100}}. Is there something else that needs to be done? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are those meant to apply to the photo itself, or the artifact pictured? If the photo, when and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I belive it's the artifact pictured, but I'm not sure. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then because this is a 3D work we do also need tagging for the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: is PD-old-100-expired okay? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The image description suggests a publication in 2007, but being such an ancient artwork, who knows who else could have published it before this. Should I just remove the image :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest doing a bit of digging first, see what you can find. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The publication captions the image: "© 2003. Photo Scala, Florence/Fotografica Foglia". Any ideas on how this could help us? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was copyrighted in 2003, unless it was released under a free license it's almost certainly copyrighted. So you could reach out to that contact to see if they'd be willing to release it, or you could remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have removed that image, and I think that should be it for the image review! Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria @Unlimitedlead What? That has to be entirely incorrect. It is very clearly a very old-timey black-and-white photograph of the Roman relief, and the page for "File:D473-birème_romaine-Liv2-ch10.png" even clearly states that the original photographer was the French geographer Élisée Reclus (1830–1905). Reclus had been dead for 98 years before the year 2003. I think the picture can be restored swiftly and without issue. Any copyright claims on it are dubious if not absurd in my view. Pericles of AthensTalk 10:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of an earlier publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the image page says (as explained by the original uploader), it comes from the L'Homme et la terre ("The Earth and Its Inhabitants") by Elisee Reclus, published as early as 1876, translated into English and published various times in the 1890s, with the latest publication I've seen being 1905, the year of his death. This website also claims public domain status and Reclus as the original photographer: https://www.timetravelrome.com/2019/10/02/agrippa-victory-at-mylae/ Pericles of AthensTalk 19:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into that, Pericles. I have added the picture to the article again. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have done some and raised responses to others. Thank you. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Apologies, but more responses. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information discussed above on the Reclus image should be added to the image description page; once that's done this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be done now. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Hawkeye7 - pass[edit]

Well researched article. Awesome work.

  • Sources are high quality.
  • Coarelli (1987) Add Italian language and reformat the ISBN to match all the others
    Done.
  • Roisman (2010), Sawada (2010), Sekunda (2010) Link pointing to the (same) wrong book
    They are chapters from the same book: A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see. The link always takes you to page 401. Very well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: fn 10, 15, 19, 66, 102, 103. - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for the source review. I have an inquiry. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 Thanks for the review and your support! Pericles of AthensTalk 07:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7, just checking if your "support" is referring to the source review or is a more general support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I looked at enough of the article to issue a more general support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 21 March 2023 (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/Government_of_Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)/archive2&oldid=1147121065"