Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

"Institutions" section lacks sources, rewriting that, possibly the "History" section as well

After creating and expanding the "Culture and society", "technology and engineering," and "currency, finances, and resources" sections, I've decided to continue work on the other sections of this article. I'm just letting others know that I am currently forming a draft to replace the entire "Institutions" section, which has entirely lacked citations since its addition in January 2006. If someone has access to material from WP:Reliable sources to rescue at least parts of that section then speak now or forever hold your peace, because non-sourced statements lacking even the most basic citation have got to go! This article is too critical to leave in such a hobbled state, even if it is a (largely) thankless job that will never amount to "Good" and certainly not "Featured" article status thanks to the ongoing WP:edit warring driven by the perennial nationalist wrestling match between two present-day peoples calling themselves Macedonians. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the "Institutions" section, I am also considering a near full rewrite of the "History" section as well, since there are entire paragraphs floating around there that lack a single citation from any source, let alone a scholarly one. Thankfully my task will be aided by some paragraphs that are already cited, which I plan on retaining almost in full to respect the work of those who came here before me (I do intend to move that big block quote from Herodotus into a footnote, though). We are also fortunate to have such a brilliantly-crafted article for the Rise of Macedon (give kudos to User:MinisterForBadTimes for that beauty), so perhaps instead of reinventing the wheel, so to speak, I can instead scour at least some of the statements (along with their attached citations) from that article for use in this one. What do you guys think? I intend on moving swiftly, within a matter of weeks if not days, so your input, even objections, for my aforementioned plans would be appreciated and welcomed soon if not now. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I just realized that the entire institutions section mostly lacks reliable sources, or there is minimal citation. I will see what sources I can get about it. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A question. There is scholarly research about the pre-Roman ancient Macedonian institutions, from M. Hatzopoulos, who analyzes facts about the institutions and their aspects. Does this, combined with Errington's sources, suffice? Note: it is in English language. "M. B. Hatzopoulos: Macedonian Institutions Under The Kings" [1]-- SILENTRESIDENT 16:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm using a number of different sources at the moment to write my draft, but primarily citations from Carol J. King's book chapter in the Companion to Ancient Macedonia (2010) edited by Worthington and Roiswell. Any additional material would be hugely appreciated. Thanks for the link! Perhaps we can salvage a few things that are already written in that section, but to be honest much of it can just be rewritten with reliable sources (better than having no sources at all, which is the current state of affairs in that section). Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now completely replaced the institutions section with my draft containing 100% cited material from scholarly sources. I've retained the original pictures of that section and plan on adding more of them. I've introduced the topic of the military entirely, since there was no section on it before! Pretty shocking for an article about the Kingdom of Macedon (renowned for its military if nothing else). I've utilized that book by Hatzopoulos (1996) a bit and I also plan on mining it for further citations. I'm combing through Errington (1990) at the moment, however, since there are a few too many sequential citations by King (2010), Sawada (2010), and Sekunda (2010). Still, better than nothing! Which is exactly how this section of the article existed beforehand. It's looking better already. Your thoughts? Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, using the work done on the Rise of Macedon seems like a very good idea. Thanks also for all the hard work you're putting in. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome! The only problem I will have is verifying the citations used in Rise of Macedon, since not everything is available on either Google Books, JSTOR, or Archive.org. Since it has not been vetted as either a "Good" or "Featured" article as of yet, any material gleaned from "Rise of Macedon" should be double-checked just in case (most people are not anal retentive...even I make mistakes and typos from time to time when citing and referencing source material). Alexander the Great is a fairly stable "Good" article to scour for additional material. Unfortunately the same can not be said about the articles Argead dynasty, Antipatrid dynasty, Antigonid dynasty, Wars of the Diadochi, and Macedonian Wars. Since none of them have passed GA status I won't be consulting any of them and will instead investigate sources on my own for building on these topics. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

To have the articles pass GA status will only be beneficial to everyone, and especially the readers. I think it will be great idea to expand this discussion on their respective talk pages so we can see where we are now and what more needs to be done to pass GA status. -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The facade of the Ancient Macedonian Tomb of the Palmettes, 3rd century BC, Mieza, Macedonia, Greece; decorated by colored Doric and Ionic moldings, the pediment is also painted with a scene of a man and woman reclining together.

Agreed. We should certainly branch out and see what can be done in other articles, but as for this one, I'd like for others to take the initiative and try to find some decent images for the "History" section once I have it partially rewritten. I've been able to find a good amount of images, but something tells me there's more than meets the eye than what is available at the Wikimedia Commons page for Ancient Macedonia. I was able to find the recent pictures put into the "Architecture" section (see to the right here) showing the Tomb of the Palettes, not because it was located in the Commons page for Ancient Macedonia, but because I had to hunt and search for it. I just recently added it as a category within "Ancient Macedonia" at Commons, but beforehand it was located at a completely different category page: "Macedon", which completely slipped my notice before. Who knows what else is hidden, lurking, and waiting to be found at Commons? If you guys could find more brilliant finds like this, I think we'd have a great set of images for a decent "WP:Good articles" candidate. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Fresco of a Macedonian soldier wielding a spear and wearing a cap, from the Tomb of Agios Athanasios.
• 
  Paintings of Ancient Macedonian soldiers, arms, and armaments, from the tomb of Agios Athanasios, Thessaloniki in Greece, 4th century BC
• 
  Fresco from the Tomb of Judgment in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, showing religious imagery of the afterlife.
• 
  Fresco from the Tomb of Judgment in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, showing religious imagery of the afterlife.
• 
  Paintings of Hellenistic-era military armor, arms, and gear from the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, dated 2nd century BC.
• 
  Paintings of Hellenistic-era military armor, arms, and gear from the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, dated 2nd century BC.
• 
  Paintings of Hellenistic-era military armor, arms, and gear from the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, dated 2nd century BC.
• 
  Paintings of Hellenistic-era military armor, arms, and gear from the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, dated 2nd century BC.
• 
  Paintings of Hellenistic-era military armor, arms, and gear from the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in ancient Mieza (modern-day Lefkadia), Imathia, Central Macedonia, Greece, dated 2nd century BC.

I'll start adding potential pictures to a gallery here for later use. Feel free to add pics to the gallery here so that we can use them once the History section is expanded fully! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have never seen these pictures before, this can be a very neat addition to the article. However I have the impression that only a handful of the armor frescos / paintings should be added to the article, otherwise it will get cluttered and we don't want that. For example, using this [2] instead of [3], [4] and [5], still gives the readers access to the same picture but without cluttering the article. -- SILENTRESIDENT 07:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course! There's no need to be redundant. This is just a pool of potential items that can be used. Once one variant has been used, the others aren't necessary. On another note, I noticed in the "Rise of Macedon" section of this article some charming individual (won't bother hunting him/her down in the article history tab and finding out who it was) decided not only to incorrectly cite Olbrycht's chapter in A Companion to Ancient Macedonia (2010) by saying it was written by the editors (!!!) Roisman and Worthington and published a year later in 2011, but also managed to completely plagiarize Olbrycht. Using Archive.org, I found Olbrycht's chapter and read the cited pages to find that this person not only wrote their words verbatim without producing quotation marks, but then thought it would be a great idea to exacerbate things by copying it over to the article Philip II of Macedon as well (looks like I'll have to fix that article too). I've put Olbrycht's input about the possible Persian influence on Philip II into the appropriate sub-section on "Kingship" within the "Institutions" section, but it has no business being in the "History" section of this article, as it breaks from the narrative flow of chronological events. Quite frankly, there's no room for much else if we are to keep this article at a reasonable size per WP:Article size. In either case, the "Rise of Macedonia" section has absolutely no other cited statements, so once again the entire thing can and should be rewritten. I'm handling that right now in my user page draft for this article. As noted above, I'll be using citations from the article Rise of Macedon, but they will be supplementary compared to the sources I have at hand. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The person(s) who wrote the "Etymology" section did a good job, so I do not plan on rewriting anything there (only going to fiddle with their citations to conform them with the Harvard style of notation found in the rest of the article). However, the only other section of this entire article that I haven't rewritten (in full) thus far is the "Hellenistic era" sub-section under "History," which I plan on tackling sometime tomorrow. It's been a busy week-and-a-half and this article is already starting to look like GA material. Now if only we could settle once and for all that divisive issue about the first sentence of this intro, this article would then be considered stable enough for such a candidacy. Thankfully the keyboard warriors seem to have gone home for the time being, and no doubt some time in the future this issue will arise again, but if this period of little to no edit warring keeps up then I think I will certainly nominate this article for GA status. However, I need help from all of you! I suck at editing my own work and I always need a fresh pair of eyes to scan over things and make sure I haven't made obvious or even terrible mistakes. If anyone's up to the challenge, please step up to the plate now! Unfortunately the Guild of Copyeditors usually operate very slowly (at least for my tastes), so I don't think we'll get much help from them. I might alert them about this article, though. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the lead section a bit today, but overall it's fairly well written. In that regard it is similar to the etymology section. Therefore I do not plan on editing the lead any more than I already have, just in case anyone might be concerned with that. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Focus

This is an article about the ancient kingdom. That is the focus of the article. We mention language as a component of the kingdom. As such, I think we've made a good effort and have an appropriate length and content for the paragraph on language and dialect. It focuses, as it absolutely must, on language as a part of the kingdom and society without getting into peripheral issues like the precise relationship between Ancient Macedonian and Greek. It is succinct and accurate about language use as it relates to the kingdom and its politics. The Pella curse tablets aren't related to that issue. They are just another piece of evidence for the relationship between Ancient Macedonian and Greek. Unless they have a specific relevance to the governance of the kingdom, a special link to them is uncalled for in the language section. Multiplying links to peripheral articles that have little specific relevance to the ancient kingdom confuses the reader and masks the best links. --Taivo (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Remember, this is not the article where the relationship between Ancient Macedonian and Greek is relevant or even important. That discussion, and the evidence for the multiple views, is relevant at Ancient Macedonian language. It is not relevant to the governance or official language use within the ancient kingdom. --Taivo (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning is highly pedantic and punctilious but it is at least sound and solid reasoning. Can't really argue too much about this, since I'm more concerned with the overall narrative flow of the article than the policing of "further information" links. In either case, a link to the Pella curse tablet, judging by its content, is more relevant in the religion sub-section anyway. I've since placed it there instead. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has been expanded and rewritten! Also: copyediting, article size, and potential GA candidacy

Well, I did what I set out to do roughly two weeks ago: expand and rewrite this article where it lacked citations (including whole sub-sections that featured no sourced statements at all). I think it's looking fairly well but I need some serious feedback about the massive amount of new content that I've added. I need to know if there are any potential disagreements in academia about any topic discussed in this article, in order to demonstrate scholarly consensus and reflect the whole of scholarly debate. I've noticed several types that I've made and fortunately was able to correct them, but I'll probably need a good copy-editor or two who's up to the task of finding any other potential mistakes. Lastly, this article is starting to look like solid GA material and a suitable candidate for Wikipedia:Good articles. However, Wikipedia:Article size might be a potential obstacle. This article currently has about 16000 words in the main body of prose (minus the introduction, infoboxes, picture captions, titles, and further information links), while the Wiki guidelines state that an article over 10,000 words (50 KB) should perhaps be split into several topical articles as related, satellite articles for the main one. Related articles that already exist include Rise of Macedon, Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Macedonian language. Perhaps others could be created, but the Wiki guidelines also explicitly state that certain articles that are highly technical or focus on grand, sweeping topics are exceptions to the rule and can contain over 10,000 words of prose. I think an article about an ancient kingdom that existed for over 500 years and was one of the most influential of all time probably deserves a good 6,000 words over the preferred limit. Do you agree? Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, that's over 16,000 words describing the etymology, history, government, military, language, religion, social class, visual and performing arts, literature, education, sports & leisure activities, technology, architecture, finances and currency of this long-lived ancient kingdom in the Greek world. By default most articles simply do not have the same breadth as this one, and yet I've managed to make it shorter than articles such as the Roman Empire (a Good Article) or History of the United States for instance. It is only slightly longer than History of the Han Dynasty (a Good Article). Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You have done a very fine job, congratulations. I do notice a few very minor infelicities, and don't have time to copyedit them at present, but could I suggest that you wait for a copyeditor to come along? A week or two won't do much harm in the grand scheme of things. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! If the issues of this article are very minor perhaps they will be drawn out in a GA review. In my recent experience the GA review process takes roughly three months now. Wikipedia's not like it used to be! Oh, the glory days; how I miss them. It would be a very different situation, however, if I had jumped the gun and decided to nominate this for FA status. That is a whole other ball game in terms of the expectations about quality of the prose, sources & citations, structure & organization, etc. I currently have Sino-Roman relations as an FA candidate, so I don't think I would nominate this article for FA status anytime soon anyway. Perhaps I never will, seeing how it would probably be voted down on account of the article size (they are usually very picky about that). It's most certainly GA quality, though. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You have done excellent job. This article was never in good condition enough for it to be ever nominated for GA in the past (at least not in past 5-7 years if I remember correctly) but you changed that and now it has a good chance of becoming GA. Congrats. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 13:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Will start review after I get home. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Pericles' reply section

Fantastic! I can't wait to see your input on the matter. I just want to preface whatever comments you have with the point that I do plan on creating an article called History of ancient Macedonia. I realize that the article is rather large per Wikipedia:Article size, so I intend on creating that branch article for the history section using Wikipedia:Summary style. I hope to accomplish this sometime before a possible Featured Article candidacy, which might never happen or if it does it will certainly be way down the road (i.e. months from now if not a whole year to demonstrate article stability given the recent bouts of Wikipedia:Edit warring). Thankfully there has been no edit warring in about a month and the talk page has become very quiet as of late, compared to early January when there was a sudden and inexplicable flurry of activity, debate, and RFC voting in regards to the wording of the lead section. It's the unfortunate perennial issue driven by two different camps of nationalists: Greek versus FYROM POV pushers, yet it's also fueled by academics who have wrangled over the ethnic identity of the ancient Macedonians and the classification of their language as either a dialect of ancient Greek or a language very close to Greek. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've found myself with some time, so I'll begin now (I am on my phone so please forgive mistakes. )Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

It's all very good, the only real problems seem to be towards the average reader not knowing things because of a lack of foreknowledge, but that tends to arise with articles subject to POV wars. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• First paragraph is pretty good, the only change I would recommend is towards "periphery" it seems like a word that is uncommonly enough that the average reader might not know it, perhaps "nearby" or "on the outskirts of".

• "With the innovative Macedonian army", sort of unclear, are the soldiers and officers particularly innovative, or are their tactics or weaponry? I'd recommend expanding it (I from foreknowledge know about the pike and cavalry tactics they had and their use of 5m spears, but the average reader may not.

• "when the kingdom rose to control the entire Greek world" perhaps change to "during which the kingdom rose to control the entire Greek world".

• "and subdued them, while keeping Sparta in check." I'd recommend making a different sentence for the sparta piece, as it implies that Sparta must have been either already under the Macedonians and therefore felt intimidated, or else we're threatened by the show of force, but does not clarify.

• "His son Alexander the Great pursued his father's effort to command the whole of Greece through the" perhaps change "pursued" to "continued".

• "through the federation of Greek states" perhaps "by controlling the federation of Greek states"

• " Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire, conquering a territory that came to stretch as far as the Indus River" perhaps "Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Empire, in doing so he conquered territory that stretched as far as the Indus River".

• "were spread to the ancient world." I'd recommend changing it to "were spread throughout the ancient world", as the ancient world isn't given a definitive location, unlike "the Greek world".

Body

• "Another legend propagated by Justin" all the other (uncommonly) named historians are given a short introduction, but this one, who has a very common name, doesn't. I would recommend adding a short introduction for him.
• "There is much greater evidence for the reigns of Amyntas I of Macedon" this one implies that he was the 6th king of Macedon, is that true? If so it should probably be mentioned."

Break

• "Athens responded by sending a naval invasion force that captured Therma and laid siege to Pydna, although they were unsuccessful in retaking Chalcidice and Potidaea, and so sued for peace with Macedonia." Perhaps some more context should be given, the way it is laid out it, it doesn't explain how long they sieged it for, and why failing to retake it would force them, or persuade them to sue for peace.
• "War resumed shortly after with the Athenian capture of Beroea and Macedonian aid given to the Potidaeans during an Athenian siege," is this war considered a "continuation war" like with the Finnish during WW2, or is it an entirely different war?
• "yet by 431 BC the Athenians and Macedonians concluded a peace treaty and alliance orchestrated by the Thracian ruler Sitalces of the Odrysian kingdom" Doesn't give context, how was Sitalces involved? Did the alliance follow immediately after the treaty, or was it part of the treaty?
• "Archelaus I maintained good relations with Athens throughout his reign, relying on Athens to provide naval support in his 410 BC siege of Pydna, but also providing Athens with timber and naval equipment." The but also part gives off the connotation that it was a tributary relationship, unless this is true, I would recommend you change it to "Archelaus I maintained good relations with Athens throughout his reign, relying on Athens to provide naval support in his 410 BC siege of Pydna, and in exchange providing Athens with timber and naval equipment."
• "He improved the financial system and currency of his kingdom." Kind of vague, is it known how he did it? I would presume that it was by purging the mints of corruption, and reducing inflation, but I don't know for certain.
• " of four different monarchs claiming the throne: Orestes of Macedon, son of Archelaus I; Aeropus II of Macedon, uncle, regent, and murderer of Orestes; Pausanias of Macedon, son of Aeropus II; and Amyntas II of Macedon, who was married to the youngest daughter of Archelaus I.[61] Amyntas III of Macedon (r. 393–370 BC), son of Arrhidaeus and grandson of Amyntas I, succeeded to the throne by killing Pausanias." Somewhat confusing as it labels the four as monarchs, but doesn't label all of them with their areas of control during the power struggle, perhaps "Pretenders" or else a more substantial rewrite to "of four different claimants to the throne:"
• " marrying seven different wives and perhaps only one of them for non-military purposes" Should go on to explain that this means that the marriages were done to attain an alliance, or else loyalty, as the average reader may not know that.
• "The Greek members of the League of Corinth revolted yet were soon quelled by military force and diplomacy" Perhaps "The Greek members of the League of Corinth revolted, but they were soon quelled by the use of military force, alongside diplomacy." P.S. Will continue soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Break

Sorry for a lot of inactivity.

• " Although there is little evidence for royal pages in the Antigonid period, they did exist at the end of the dynasty when fleeing with Perseus of Macedon to Samothrace following his defeat by the Romans in 168 BC." Perhaps "Although there was little evidence for royal pages throughout the Antigonid period, evidence for their existence was shown at the end of their dynasty, when they were fleeing to Samothrace alongside Perseus of Macedon, after he was defeated by the Romans in 168 BC."
• "The assembly was apparently given the right to judge and pass sentences for those charged with high treason" perhaps "The assembly was apparently in charge of judging cases of high treason, and assigning punishments for them."
• "At the death of Alexander the Great the companions immediately formed a council to assume control of his empire, albeit temporarily and followed quickly afterwards by open rivalry and conflict" perhaps "After Alexander the Great, his companions formed a council to control the empire, however it was soon destabilized by open rivalry and conflict between its members".
• "Philip II hired engineers such as Polyidus of Thessaly and Diades of Pella capable of building state of the art siege engines and artillery firing large bolts." perhaps "Phillip II hired engineers such as Polyidus of thessaly and Diades of Pella, who were capable of building state of the art siege engines, and artillery that could fire large bolts."
• " cavalry composed entirely of ethnic Persians." Is there a reason ethnic is included in the linked part?
• " Alexander continued using Cretan archers and for the first time a clear reference to native Macedonian archers is made, although after the Battle of Gaugamela archers of Asian extract became commonplace and were organized into chiliarchs." perhaps "Alexander continued the use of Cretan archers, but around this time a clear reference to the use of native Macedonian archers is made. After the battle of Gaugamela archers of Asian ethnicity became much more common, and were organized on chiliarchs."
• "The veteran, top tier Antigonid-period Macedonian infantry from at least the time of Antigonus III Doson were the peltasts, lighter and more maneuverable soldiers wielding peltai javelins, swords, and a smaller bronze shield than Macedonian phalanx pikemen, although they sometimes served in that capacity." I don't know if it's just me but "top tier" makes me feel like I'm on 4chan, perhaps "elite" would work better.
• "Macedonian kings continued to fund and equip the navy." Perhaps "Macedonian kings continued to expand and equip the navy."
• That's all the suggestions I have. Congrats btw for having almost 1/4 of the article scroll bar be citations and refs. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Pericles reply #2

Lead section reply

I'm happy to announce that I've addressed each of your points here except for two of them, which I find a bit problematic. Replacing "periphery" with "nearby" is not a better solution, since the word "nearby" suggests that Macedonia was outside of ancient Greece (a POV statement that is most certainly not supported by the majority of academia). "On the periphery" has virtually the same meaning as "on the outskirts of", yet the latter is more often used to describe areas of individual towns and cities, not entire regions and nations. Unless you can think of a better solution, the phrase "on the periphery" is still the best choice out of these three.

The other item that I did not address (although I did slightly reword it) was the sentence "Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire, conquering a territory that came to stretch as far as the Indus River." I changed it to "Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire and conquered a territory that stretched as far as the Indus River." Your suggestion (i.e. "Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Empire, in doing so he conquered territory that stretched as far as the Indus River") has a couple problems. The first is that it contains two variations of the word "conquer" in the same sentence; it's best to avoid using the same verb twice in a row (whether it be past tense or present continuous). Your sentence would also require a semi-colon placed after the phrase "Achaemenid Empire" for it to make grammatical sense, if not a period separating it into two sentences.

In either case, thanks for pointing out the other items that needed work. The lead is looking better already! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Body section reply

• I have specified that Justin was a Roman historian.
• I've also clarified that, depending on which chronology is chosen (with either Perdiccas I of Macedon as the first king or Caranus of Macedon as his predecessor) there were either five or eight kings before Amyntas I of Macedon. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Break #1 reply

• My source, Joseph Roisman (2010), also does not explicitly state exactly how long these cities were besieged, yet at least makes it clear that the entire conflict lasted from 433 BC to 431 BC, when Athens and Macedonia were finally reconciled by way of negotiations staged by Sitalces. Also, keep in mind that Athens, upon sending all these forces into Chalcidice, were most likely spending huge sums of money to maintain the war effort there. If you fail in a siege it is often disastrous, unless you have other cities falling to your forces. Roisman makes it clear that "what saved the [Macedonian King Perdiccas II] was the Athenians' eagerness to focus all their efforts on regaining the Chalcidice and Potidaea, which forced them to make peace with him" (p. 147). He slightly contradicts himself, though, by explaining in the same paragraph that the Athenians reinforced their siege at Pydna with 2,000 hoplites sailing there on 40 ships (Pydna being to the west of the Chalcidice, along the Thermaic Gulf). Given what my source says, I'm not sure how to make any of this any clearer than it already is, aside from Roisman's input that "the king's efforts at mobilizing allies and forcing Athens to fight on more than one front appeared to bear fruit" (p. 147). I've decided to provide Roisman's assertion here into the article. I hope it clarifies things.
• I'm not sure if I'd characterize these outbursts of hostilities as something akin to the modern Continuation War. Roisman simply says the truce was broken shortly after the initial peace talks.
• I have provided further context as to why the Thracian ruler Sitalces of the Odrysian Kingdom was involved in the negotiation process between Athens and Macedonia.
• The peace treaty and alliance were a combined settlement. It's basically implied that one does not become an ally with another until hostilities between the two have formally ended. Rewording this to make it even more explicitly clear is perhaps an unnecessary level of detail, especially given the current size of this article.
• That's a very good point about the statement regarding Archelaus I of Macedon and Athens! I have amended the article accordingly, using your reworded suggestion.
• I've specified how he improved the kingdom's currency by increasing silver content and issuing new copper coins. Great suggestion!
• Roisman asserts that the period between 399-393 BC is very unclear and we can't make strong judgments about any of these four kings. All of them except Orestes managed to mint new currency that imitated that of Archelaus I, albeit in a debased form. There is no clear information about civil war or territorial exchanges between them, and not all of them were simultaneously proclaimed king (for instance, Aeropus II only became king after killing Orestes). I've decided to specify in the article about the ambiguity surrounding this period, with little evidence aside from the numismatic proof (and the implied written histories' input on the matter).
• I have made it clear that Philip II's marriages, perhaps barring one of them, were used to ensure the loyalty of subjects as well as friendship of new allies.
• I reworded that part about the League of Corinth. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Break #2 reply

@Iazyges:

I'm happy to announce that I've addressed each and every one of your bullet points and concerns, rewording the article accordingly. If there's anything else that I can do, please say so! Do you think the review is now finished? Or do the sub-sections within "culture and society" need further copy-editing? Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good. Passing now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thank you so very much for taking the time to review this article! It was a pleasure working with you. Cheers, buddy! Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SilentResident reply #1

Body section reply

I have nothing to add to the above responses by Perikles thus far, as I find them satisfactory from my part, except perhaps the section about Philip's polygamy. Can we include link to the article of the Wife which King Philip II married for reasons other than securing loyalty and bolstering alliances? Perhaps if we edit the following section:

"Although Macedonia and the rest of Greece traditionally practiced monogamy in marriage, Philip II divulged in the 'barbarian' practice of polygamy, marrying seven different wives with perhaps [ARTICLE_OF_QUEEN|only one that] didn't involve the loyalty of his aristocratic subjects or the affirmation of a new alliance."

that could be good to go. While it is not necessary to mention the Queen's name, a link to her article (if it exists), couldn't hurt. While the Queens of Macedonia were not having as much power as the Kings did, the absence of any links to Macedonian queen pages is not reflecting the Kingdom's affairs, given the historical records which mention of various Macedonian Queens and the influence they had in public affairs through their husbands. -- SILENTRESIDENT 03:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added "Cleopatra Eurydice" as a hidden link, since my source Sabine Muller (2010) makes it clear that it was his final, seventh wife that perhaps was wed for reasons other than military concerns. However, Muller, has her doubts about this assertion by ancient historians Plutarch and Athenaeus that this was a marriage of love between a young woman and a man going through a mid-life crisis. Muller's views are expressed later in the "Rise of Macedon" section that this was most likely a marriage with military concerns, because she was the daughter of Attalus (general). Also, since "Cleopatra Eurydice of Macedon" is already linked in this same section, I was able to sneakily provide the hidden redirect link "Cleopatra Eurydice" because redirect links are accepted and are not considered as over-linking/double-linking. In either case, I think the article does a good job covering the women of Macedon who are crucial to understanding its political history, particularly Alexander's mother Olympias, if not Roxana and Lanassa (wife of Pyrrhus). Feel free to raise further concerns, though, because I did not consciously consider women's issues when writing this article; perhaps it deserves its own little sub-section within the "Culture and Society" section. There is a book chapter dedicated to Macedonian women in that Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia, for starters. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't think there is anything else that could be of any concern yet or that it needs any further attention, (at least in the sections reviewed thus far by Iazyges). The new changes are very reasonable and balanced. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S.

@PericlesofAthens: congratulations for the successful nom. Just one thing: there are many Errington 2010 short footnotes, but no Errington 2010 in the Bibliography. All other short footnotes check out. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thank you so very much for pointing this out! It was a simple typo, an artifact that came about from too much copying and pasting of the Harvard-style citation tag. I actually noticed this problem before and fixed many of them, but apparently I didn't find them all! The other citations should be fine, though, to the best of my knowledge at least. Cheers! Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, PericlesofAthens, all other citations are fine (verified with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations for the excellent job! First time this important article gets a Good Article status! -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts

Just on the art section really. i don't have refs (yet anyway). My impression is that most scholars rather assume that M court art continued to mostly rely on imported artists and styles. Although M is very important in having a high proportion of survivals at top quality in metalwork and painting, the question of how distinctly "Macedonian" these are remains largely mysterious, from a lack of comparators in the rest of Greece. Perhaps not very. This book seems interesting - concentrating on the frequency of masculinized imagery of hunting, war, and the abduction/rape of females. Can't work out how much she sees this as especially a M thing, from the few early pages I've read. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod:: Excellent! I'll be sure to check out Cohen's work. The art section isn't that detailed, but then again I was trying to flesh out other sections and it lost my attention after a while. Still, her point here should definitely be included. Thanks for bringing it up! Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Small error

In the first paragraph of "Involvement in the Classical Greek world", it says "From 176 BC onward, the Athenians coerced some of the coastal towns of Macedonia along the Aegean Sea to join the Athenian-led Delian League", fairly sure this should be 476 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.177.131 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! It was indeed an innocent typo...either that or someone managed to vandalize the page a bit without my knowing. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)