Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pericles

Pericles

After the first failed nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pericles/Archive1) many things happened. The article was rewritten once again by Druworos and me, but it faced a failed GA nomination. Me and Konstable, who was the one who did not pass the article, initiated further improvements and about a week ago the article easily passed GA nomination. Pericles in now rated as an A-Class article by three Wikiprojects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) and remains, of caurse, a GA. The article has until now gone through four peer-reviews: 2 thorough peer-reviews (Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles and Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/Archive 1), 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Military history (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Pericles) and 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Biography (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pericles). I thought it was the right time for this second nomination.--Yannismarou 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article had 43KB of prose as of 22 August 2006

• Strong support. This is an outstanding article! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I like the combined use of Cite.php and the conventional reference label approach to separate footnotes and references. However, just scanning, I did find what looked like the work of a gremlin ("literary" was misspelt "literally"). Does anyone have time to independently copyedit this article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This was obviously a typo. Although I've gone through the article again and again for such typos, it is inevitable to miss something.--Yannismarou 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The article has been twice copy-edited during this candidacy from Robth and Konstable. I hope these copy-edits are sufficient.--Yannismarou 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Rlevse 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well done, --Riurik 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, all the issues from the previous nomination and the various peer reviews look to have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a great read! Gaius Cornelius 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The timeline is too wide and takes a lot of space. Could you fix it? CG 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought to hide the timeline with a navbar and remove it to "See also section", as Kirill had proposed in a previous peer-review. Do you thing that's better? If you think so, listen to that: The problem is that I probably do something wrong with the navbar and, when I do hide the timeline (replacing: div class="NavContent" style="display:none"; font-size:normal; style=text-align:center" with: div class="NavContent" style="display:none; font-size:normal; text-align:left"), I then have to hit twice on "hide" (and not on "show") in order to see the timeline. That is why I haven't yet made the edit. What I may do wrong? Am I typing something wrong?--Yannismarou 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant Object. This is tremendously well researched, and that alone almost brings me to support it. There are, however, a variety of problems that need to be addressed here. A list of issues I spotted follows; in several cases, I've just picked out examples of things that need to be fixed throughout:
  1. Odd cause-effect statements. From the lead: "Eager to reinforce Athenian intellectual prowess, he prompted an ambitious building project"; I don't understand how Pericles's desire to "reinforce intellectual prowess" led to the public works program, which is most commonly cited as an example of a progam intended to boost civic pride and increase employment. Several of Pericles's actions are attributed to his intrinsic characteristics, which strikes me as a little overly speculative. Someone needs to go through and make sure that all the cause-effect statements in the article are accurately describing the relationship in question.
  2. Balance of historical opinions: The arguments of critics of Athenian democracy is well presented, particularly in the case of Paparrigopoulos. There is, however, an equally active body of historians defending the Athenian radical democracy and its creators; Donald Kagan, used here as a source, certainly ranks high among that group, and others can be found easily.
  3. Accuracy issues: Some of these are just omissions of relevant events. The Peace of Callias, for instance, ambiguous and tricky issue though it is, should be discussed; the events in the Aegean in the late 450s (revolts in the empire, the Egyptian disaster, etc.) Pericles's leadership during the turmoilsome period from the Athenian defeat in Egypt to the mid 440s seems to have played a critical role in the establishment of the Athenian Empire as it existed in the 430s, so a fuller discussion of the events of that period seems appropriate.

About the peace of Callias a few comments: We do not even know if it really existed. Wade-Gray is the first historian of our century who believed in its existence and Badian has published a study as well. But most researchers do not recognize it. And if it existed indeed what was Pericles' role? Why have no clue! All I can write is mere speculations and Badian's hypothesis that Pericles broke the Peace in 450, although it was agreed in 463. You're right about the Egyptian disaster. It is a serious omission. My only fear is that the article is becoming gigantic! More and more and more information. I'll try to do my best.--Yannismarou 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I'm also puzzled by the claim that "Even after fining him, the Athenians remained true to the Periclean strategy and did not depart from it until long after his death."; this would be an unusual assessment of Athenian strategy in the 428-425 period, which was marked by the rise of aggressive leaders who broke with Pericles's strategy in a number of cases.

These aggressive leaders did not radically alter the Periclean Grand Strategy and they avoided over-extension. That is what Platias-Coliopoulos point out. This happened later after 415 BC. I quote from Platias-Coliopoulos:"It therefore becomes evident that the Atheniasn lost the war only when they dramatically reversed the Periclean grand strategy that explicitely disdained further conquests". And I quote from C. Gray: "For Sparta to succeed, Athens had to be weakened by plague, had to suffer lossed in men and prestige in the expedition to Sicily (415-413 BC) and ... then had to commit major errors in lack of vigilance in the naval campaign for control of the Dardanelles". Hence, the emphasis is in the period after 415 BC. After all, until the end of the Archidamian War Athens had the upper hand. Some modifications of the Periclean Strategy until then donot constitute a radical change. The Athenians did not attempt conquests in foreign countries, for istance. I think this is a weel-argued a citated claim, based on researchers' argumentations and I donot see why it is unusual or why it should be changed.--Yannismarou 07:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Language. Odd and awkward word choice at a number of points: "an ambivalent symbolism", "defalcation", "Thucydides predicates that..." and a number of other odd word or phrasing choices are scattered throughout. Awkward or incorrect word order is also a significant issue. Someone needs to go through this and pick all these out.

So that's what jumps out at me. This is very good as a whole, and I'm confident that these issues can be addressed. --Robth^Talk 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Response to Robth. I've already made some comments on Robth's remarks. After having implemented some of his suggestions, I'd like to give a more thorough answer point by point:
  1. You mention the cause-effect statement of the lead; hence I'll comment on that. I donot know what other speculative statements you find, but I donot think I attribute Pericles' actions to his intrinsic characteristics. As far as the lead is concerned, I rephrased and citated it, although I'm not absolutely right with you. Pericles did not promote art only for the reasons you mention. There was a real interest to further reinforce the intellectual brilliance of his city.
  2. I added Kagan's comments concernig Pericles' reforms and also Samons' reasoning for his actions. I want just to point out that, even as it was, the comments were not one-sided. One paragraph was devoted to Pericles' arguments and one to Cimon's (-oligarchs') point of view. Paparrigopoulos is critical towards Pericles only there. Hence, only two sentences ("According to Paparrigopoulos, history vindicated Cimon, since Athens, after Pericles' death, sunk in the abyss of political turmoil and demagogy. Paparrigopoulos maintains that an unprecedented regression descended upon the city, whose glory perished due to the anterior populist policies of Pericles.") consist a criticism of Pericles on behalf of Paparrigopoulos. All his other comments give an explanation of his actions, just like Samons. Anyway, I hope the relevant section seems now more balanced. I also mentioned Kagan's belief that Cimon adapted himself to the new conditions and promoted a political marriage between Periclean liberals and Cimonian conservatives.I just want to mention that during the previous nomination I faced the opposite criticism: That I am POV in favor of Pericles! I feel confused!
     • It's sometimes possible to overcompensate and present too much of an opposing view while trying to achieve balance; in any event, the current presentation strikes me as well balanced, so this issue appears to be resolved. Thanks for clearing that up. --Robth^Talk
  3. I've said a few things about the peace of Callias. I just want to insist on the fact that we donot even now if such a thing existed and what was Pericles role. Grote, Wade-Gery, Gomme, Badian say it existed. Vlachos, Walker, Wilamowitz, Pohlman, Mayer and Schwartz say it did not exist! Ancient writers contemporary to Pericles do not mention it. Isocrates mentions it but Demosthenes doubts about it! Where is the historical reality?! We donot know! Anyway, I mentioned Badian's disputed claims and his reference to Pericles and I also mentioned Kagan's claim that Pericles used Callias as a symbol of Athenian unity.
     I also mentioned (in the section "First Peloponnesian War") the Egyptian disaster and its result as well as the debated role of Pericles. Kagan and Aird believe that Pericles initiated the excursion both in Cyprus and Egypt, while Beloch hold Cimon responsible for both decisions. In the section "Military achievements" I added Kagan's belief that Pericles' vehement insistence that there should be no diversionary expeditions during the Peloponnesian War may well have resulted from the bitter memory of the Egyptian campaign, which he allegedly had supported. Thereby, I connect the devestation in Egypt with the later policies of Pericles.
     During the late 450s I do not have in mind any important revolt in the League. The revolts in Euboea, Thebes, Samos and Byzantium are all mentioned. I am not aware of any other arousal in the Aegean against the Athenians during this period. After all, I created an article about the First Peloponnesian War and all the events of this war are in detail mentioned there. I think Pericles' role is adequately developped and more details will harm the whole article. I also added (in section "Prelude of the Wr") Ehrenberg's opinion that another fact that may well have influenced Pericles' stance just before the eruption of the Peloponnesian War was the fear that revolts in the empire might spread if Athens showed herself weak. The coinage decree is also mentiones and, hence, I think there is a clear image of the Athenian empire in the 430s.
     I also clarified the events concerning the revolt of Byzantium and the Pontic Excursion (Section "Samian War"). I think that the wording is also better now.
     • You're quite right about the doubts about the Peace of Callias, but its massive significance if it did exist would seem to me to justify mentioning the possibility. Events of this time period are all but impossible to pin down, and it's best to just acknowledge that. I would mention the possibility of the peace, note that there are scholars on both sides of the question of its existence, and devote a sentence or two to explaining how it would fit in to the overall picture of this period.

     As far as revolts in the empire, I was referring to the revolts of Miletus and Erythrae in 454/3, which continued down to 452/1 or thereabouts. These aren't mentioned in the ancient sources, but have been established based on fragmentary inscriptions and the Athenian tribute-quota lists. These, along with the Egyptian disaster, have been cited as possible pretexts for withdrawing the treasury from Delos, and should probably be mentioned. Keeping the article short is a good goal, but it's important not to omit significant details of this critical period of Pericles's leadership.

     The treatment of this period is coming along, but it isn't quite there yet. The magnitude of the Egyptian disaster is far from clear in the current text, and the crisis of the empire in the early 440s isn't readily apparent. --Robth^Talk

  4. I've already explained why I regard Platias-Coliopoulos' position as basically correct. Nevertheless, I made clear that this is their opinion and I also referenced the altera pars, stating Ehrenberg's remark that the Athenians engaged in several aggressive actions soon after Pericles' death. I hope that now this topic is clarified.
     • That looks good now; my opinions on the subject have been largely shaped by Kagan, who considers the Aetolian campaign and Pylos/Sphacteria to be departures from the Periclean strategy, so I was initially surprised to see that statement; but, as I said, looks good now.
  5. I rephrased all the mentioned "awkward word choice". "Defalcation" was really wrong-"embezzlement" or "misappropriation" are the right legal terms. I also tried to make better a few other points in terms of prose. I hope it's now better!

I hope I have resolved most of the things that obliged Robth to Reluctantly Object. I hope he can now, at least, Reluctantly support! - I'm just kidding!--Yannismarou 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still not quite ready to support, as my interspersed comments above indicate. I still have some qualms about the prose, but this may be a classic case of {{sofixit}}; I think I'll have time to copyedit it myself tonight. This is definitely coming along, so keep up the good work. --Robth^Talk 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • OK! In terms of content I think I now fully understand your concerns. These are my comments:

1. I made clear Athens' disaster in Egypt and citated these remarks( Section:"First Peloponnesian War"). I also mentioned the possible connection of this defeat with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I think this topic is covered now.

2. I mentioned and citated the revolts in Miletus and Erythrae. I subsequently emphasized on the turmoil in the empire after the defeat in Egypt and the tension in the Aegean, using Kagan and Sealey as a source. I also mentioned the possible connection of these revolts with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I hope that this topic is also covered now.

3. As far as the prose is concerned, I'd just like to mention that most users agree that the article is "outstanding" and "a great read". My point is that I believe we've already achieved a very good level of prose. Nevertheless, I donot argue that I'm infallible and, hence, I'm sure that your contribution in terms of prose improvements would be valuable; especially, from a person who has already nominated 3 FA, among which one of my favorites and a source of inspiration, Epaminondas. After all, I think that it would be better for the arrticle to attempt these minor additional improvements instead of turning it down as a FA. That is why I feel convinced that you will indeed choose the first solution and you'll make the prose improvements you regard as necessary, so as to express your support.--Yannismarou 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just gave the article a run-through, focusing mostly on prose issues but also clarifying a few things and tweaking the presentation of the First Peloponnesian War a bit. This was a very good article at the start of this review and has improved even further during the review; I'm very pleased to give it my enthusiastic support. Superb work. --Robth^Talk 06:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, pal!--Yannismarou 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article. --mav 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly ObjectSupport While quoting from Thucydides' orations is a neat idea, they should not be described as Pericles' without qualification. Septentrionalis 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • English usage should be followed in the use of names; for example, Josiah Ober should be spelled out.
  • Similarly, Areopagus should be so spelled; this is the English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How should the quotes be described? Your proposition? I describe them as Pericles', but in parenthesis I point out that they come from Thucydides' work. After all, the whole story about the authorship of Pericles' orations in Thucydides is described in the section "Oratorical Skill".

Thanks a lot for informing me this is the English Wikipedia. This was a valuable information. Realising that I may avoid exile to the Βικιπαιδεία. In the article Areopagus of the English Wikipedia, first line, it says Areopagus or Areios Pagos. Isn't this the English Wikipedia as well?

I'll correct the names and Areios Pagos as well (which redirects to Areopagus by the way) tomorrow morning. But are these issues so important to justify an absolute objection with no further qualification of the article?! I'm astonished. I respect the well-grounded and creative criticism, like this of Robth, but this one no!

Anyway ... As far as the quotes are concerned? What exactly would satisfy you?--Yannismarou 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If I had an obvious solution, I might have imposed it. The present text is actively misleading. Perhaps you should unwind a little and let other people think on it; and do read WP:OWN. I'm sure this will be a featured article; it's not quite there yet. Septentrionalis 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented a possible solution to the attribution issue, and have changed Areios Pagos to Areopagus (Sepentrionalis is right that this the common English usage). Does this way of solving the attribution problem look good to everyone? --Robth^Talk 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, Yannismarou has done most of the work on the article, but there have been other people working on this article - including me a couple of weeks ago when I did some major work on POV-language and balance issues (which caused it to fail the first FAC). I never had a feeling that Yannismarou was ever trying to own the article.--Konstable 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Septentrionalis' issue with "spelling out" names, I have went through them all and have expanded first names in all the first time a person is cited, and just left last names for any subsequent citations of the same person. What do you think of that?--Konstable 05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to further clarify the attribution issue, by rephrasing the ends of the quotes like that: "Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)". Is Robth and everybody else happy with this suggestion? By the way, what Robth and Konstable did, it could easily be done by Septentrionalis, instead of objecting. I read WP:OWN. Now I suggest you also read {{sofixit}}. I strongly believe that all the concerns of Septentrionalis mentioned are now addressed:

1. The quotes of Thucydides are described as Pericles' with qualification: A further note is added by Robth in all the quotes and clarifies that "Thucydides records several speeches which he attributes to Pericles; whether the exact words are Pericles' is uncertain." Robth and I rephrased the end of the quotes as I already mentioned ("Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)"). This solution conforms also with the title of the Wikipedia article about the Funeral Oration, which is Pericles' Funeral Oration.

2. Areios Pagos is replaced by Areopagus by Robth.

3. Konstable did all the spelling out of all the names throughout the article.

Thereby, unless Septentrionalis is going to make some other suggestions then his objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of "record" in this context is an improvement, but it is still misleading; Thucydides himself disclaims the stenographic accuracy which this will suggest to a modern reader. (Pericles' Funeral Oration is English usage, even by those authors who argue that it is not Pericles' words, and that Thucydides indulged his habit of making the speakers say what was in his opinion demanded of them by the various occasions even more than usual to make the case for the war. Isn't Kagan one of these?) But I think in the interval I have come up with a solution. Septentrionalis 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article, especially the notes, could still use a thorough proof-read. I think I know what note β means to say about Agariste, for example; but I'd be guessing. I corrected note δ, which ascribed a statement from Plutarch to Aristotle. This sort of thing should be fixed before articles are brought here; however, I would not be dealing with this sort of thing if the article had major flaws. Septentrionalis 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be unfair! Most things were fixed before the article was brought here! And you should recognize that! I think the meaning of the note β is clear for the common mind and well-citated. The note you say is not ascribing a statement of Plutarch to Aristotle. The first ref concerning Aristotle was just transferred to the end of the sentence so that it does not interrupt the reader. The ref of Plutarch comes exactly to the next sentence. Thus, checking both refs the reader does not get confused and learns what both writers exactly say. I'm happy however you decided to contribute! Keep up the good work, pal!--Yannismarou 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm, and attacking the people who are trying to improve the article, is not helpful. The note reads: "β. According to Plutarch, Agariste was Cleisthenes' granddaughter, but she was his niece, rather. " [1]"; This is not English; and this article will not be our best work until it is written in the language of this Wikipedia. Nor should the reader have to click on references to see what the article has failed to say. Septentrionalis 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No it does not say that! I have changed the wording long before you made this comment. I don't see it as making any sense on your part to quote old versions of the article and changing your comment from "Object" to "Strongly Object" after everything you have pointed out has been tended to. If you want a personal qualm with Yannismarou, go ahead and have it, but the article is not Yannismarou's regarding on what you may think. I have put a lot work into it too, so have some others. If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out.--Konstable 06:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support I would, however, like to see the Legacy subsection expanded somewhat.UberCryxic 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I enriched a bit this section with a few more assessments. But I wouldn't like to overexpand it. I think that it is OK as a closure of the article.--Yannismarou 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment people will probably yell at me but... there are too many references cited inline. The text is almost unreadable because there are so many. Can they be moved to the end of sentences where possible. Its^[1] tough^[1] to^[1] read^[1] when^[1] they^[1] are^[1] everywhere.^[1] -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I am concerned, I'll not yell at you! You're right! I'll move the refs at the end of the sentences wherever possible.--Yannismarou 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I placed almost all the refs at the end of the sentences. In the very few cases (4 or 5) I kept them within the sentence, I thought this was necessary for the accuracy of the article and the right emphasis. By the way I thought Christine for your baby!--Yannismarou 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That is so much better, way more readable. I added your entry name to the list, Thanks! -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh and... Support Nice article. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Much improved since the last nomination. Well done. My one quibble is with the timeline at the end of the article. I'm not sure if it's customary to list events on timelines in the present tense; all those present participles are throwing me off. Other than that, great job. The Disco King 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Wow. Mithridates 15:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a good article; with some polishing, it could be a great one. I seriously regret seeing Yannismarou react to suggestions that it needs that polishing with defensiveness and claims that his vast improvements are being ignored. I don't know how much the article has improved; I haven't seen it before.

Remember, the purpose of this department is to put articles on the Main Page, where they will seen by people who have never seen Wikipedia before, and don't know or care who did what. They will judge the article they see as a finished product, and compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's.

• I donot speak about my improvements. I speak about the improvements made by me, Konstable, Robth and Wandalstouring. It is not your obligation to have seen the article before the nomination. But you're definitely obliged to watch all the improvemnets done during the FA candidacy. Something you're obviously not doing. Otherwise, you'd have seen, for instance, that Konstable rephrased note β according to your suggestions and you wouldn't have turned your Objection to Strong Objection.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand how nervewracking this must be, but I earnestly recommend that Yannismarou take a break and walk away from Pericles. I predict that if he does, he will find the proof-reading done, and the article, with substance largely unchanged, wearing a gold star.

• Your argumentation is is lame. In order to have a proof-reading, you must point out which points need proof-reeding. By not providing such an explanation, you're contradicting yourself and you are demolishing your own arguments.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment stands, until Pericles is polished; but I may set him an example. Septentrionalis 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to comment:Further to what I already remarked I must point out that I wasn't sarcastic. I really was happy you contributed and I really think you did a good job, clarifying note δ. And I really want you to contribute. Sincerely, my only intention was to thank you. If my wording was wrong or misleading, please accept my apologies. But where is the sarcasm? Hence, I donot understand why you turned object to strongly object. The problem is you took it personal and because of that (misinterpeting a comment of mine that you regarded it as sarcastic) you decided to fight against this article with all your nerve.

But, pal, this is not personal! So many users contributed to this article! Opposing it, you're not opposing me, you're opposing a great job made mainly by them. Because without them this article wouldn't be GA or A-Class. Without them, this article wouldn't have 11, if I'm right, supports.

You speak again and again and again for a proof-reading. So, do it! Instead of attacking me, dedicate your time in doing it! But you'll find nothing wrong. I bet on that.

During all these months in Wikipedia, I've never insulted anybody in Wikipedia. Neither you. And the remarks which could be regarded as offensive towards you (though they weren't), I erased them as you can see. Despite that, you keep this offensive agains me, telling I must abstain. Well, I won't. I'll keep improving this article and I expect you to do the same thing, because when I say I want you to contribute, I mean it and I am not sarcastic.

After all these, I repeat what Kontsable said: All your concerns have been addressed, "If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out." Your proof-reading argument is groundless and based on no actual examples from the article.

Your vindictive and groundless strong objection cannot be typically erased. Nevertheless, unless you are going to make some other suggestions, then this strong objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I correct: 13 supports, Septentrionalis.--Yannismarou 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that Yannismarou's post was not intended as sarcasm, and remove the strongly. I will remove my objection when the article is polished; but I do not intend to do all of that myself. Septentrionalis 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that you accept you'd added the strongly because you thought I was sarcastic? But I had the impression that we are evaluating articles here not the level of sarcasm of the X or the Z user! Probably I'm wrong. You tell me that "we're writing for the readers" and you are right. I tell you that we are also evaluating for the readers. The readers "compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". I donot think that sarcasm is the right criterion for the evaluation of an article. We are not adding or removing the strongly, according to the sarcasm of the X or the Z user.--Yannismarou 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have spent some time on the article. I have fixed several solecisms and one downright error. (We do not know when Pericles was born, as a note admits; to say, as the text used to,[2] that he was born in 495, is therefore wrong.) All these are minor, but Yannismarou is rash to bet there are no more; what are his stakes? Septentrionalis 17:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What I know for sure is that the messing up of the citations is no polishing. When I checked the article I saw you had turned a (ref name="Pl3"/) to (ref name="P13"/) for no reason and an important citation was lost because of your negligence. And since you were lecturing me that this is an English wikipedia why you placed "engonos" next to "granddaughter"? I'm Greek you know and I know that Engonos=grandson-granddaughter, so "engonos" is redundant. And one more thing; most of the polishing you did was already copy-edited by Robth. The fact that you did not like the previous version, it does not mean that it necessarily needed polishing! You have confused the personal taste with the polishing!--Yannismarou 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When you demand a polishing, you must be the first one who is careful and avoids mistakes, which, by the way, I had to polish!--Yannismarou 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't telling you; articles are addressed to the readers. We're not writing for ourselves; we're writing for the readers, many of whom aren't Hellenists. I apologize for the Plutarch footnote; but wouldn't Plutarch, Pericles [[3]] be just as useful anyway? Septentrionalis 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is useful, you unintentionally removed it and I restored it. This is the story!--Yannismarou 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're writing for the readers, we are also evaluating for the readers. For instance, we are not adding or removing the strongly according to the level of sarcasm of another user! This is obviously a wrong criterion. As you told, the reader of an article "compares it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". If we want to attract him we cannot judge an article and modify our assessments based on the sarcasm of the X or the Z user. This is obviously a wrong criterion. I am afraid you want the others to write for the readers, while you donot follow the same rule, when you evaluate or reassess an evaluation of an article.--Yannismarou 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, I have proofread the whole article several times in the past, including once yesterday when I found no errors apart from some minor one-word grammatical mistakes. Apart from me and Yannismarou who haven't voted on this page, there are 13 other people here - all who have read critically through this article. You yourself admitedly don't see any errors right now, and the one you found and corrected was a minor omission that was clarified in a note anyway. Then there are the people who have been working on this article over the past week - me, Yannismarou, Druworos, Wandalstouring, and a whole bunch of minor editors. How is it even possible to get even more people to review this article? What reason do you have to think that there are more errors serious enough that this does not qualify as a featured article, when so many people have read through this article and either found no errors, or minor errors that have been fixed?--Konstable 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong; we now have 16 supports.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Telex 08:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Some P. Erson 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Certainly better than many of the current FA selections. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: I've adapted this article's use of quote boxes into the FA Joan of Arc. The editors of this article should feel proud of their work. Durova 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your nice words. I also feel obliged to thank you on behalf of Druworos, Konstable and Robth who have done such a great work for this article during the past months.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've been reluctant to speak so far because of my minor contributions to this article. I'm not about to stand here and say it doesnt have minor language issues. Yannismarou is not a native speaker, and neither am I at that. But I'd like to urge anyone that feels confident enough with the English language to go in there and fix them, rather than complain about it. I'd do that myself (in fact I did for the first couple of paragraphs a few days ago), but I simply dont have the time to deal with the enormity that this article has become. And dont feel bitter towards Yannismarou if he gets a bit defensive. He has put so much work in to this, he should be entitled to sign his name under it. Druworos 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Druworos, Konstable and Robth (and Septentrionalis as well-he also contributed) are native English speakers, they went in and fixed any remaining issues and I think the article has no minor language issues now.--Yannismarou 06:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've given this another copyediting run-through, and cleaned up a number of small errors, particularly in the last few sections, that I'd missed on my first go-round. I also implemented a slightly different solution to the Pericles-Thucydides-attribution issue, since I don't believe that had been resolved just yet. Do these changes address all the concerns raised? --Robth^Talk 21:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I gave the article another detailed proof-reading according to Septentrionalis' suggestion and I clarified a series of issues:

1. I clarified: a) the circumstances under which the Samian War took place, b) the circumstunces under which Cimon returned to Athens in 451 BC and the assessments of modern scholars, which contradict Plutarch's biography.

2. I added: a) the assessments of modern scholars concerning the rivalry Cimon-Pericles, which contradict Aristotle, b) more inline citations in slightly under-citated parts of the article ("Samian War", "First Peloponnesian War", "First year of the war (431 BC)", "Last military operations and death", c) more references.

After this proof-reading and since Robth has copy-edited once again and has taken care of all the minor language issues, I hope that Septentrionalis' concerns are finally addressed.--Yannismarou 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Yannismarou's comments on my talk page; [4] and I think my comments are duly addressed. Thank you. Septentrionalis 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support and strongly recommend closure. This is a great article, which has passed an exhausting review. All issues have been addressed. :NikoSilver: 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support My issues have already been solved. Wandalstouring 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Having re-read the article and fixed any language issues I could find, I can safely say that the single thing I can think of that may have made this article unfit for FA has been adressed. Druworos 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, quite heartedly too. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)