Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Mycale/archive1

:Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a battle easily forgotten in the historical memory and scholarship of the Persian Wars. However, it still has a lot of interesting details, at least for those interested in MILHIST and in history generally. Also, its aftermath confirmed the isolationist policies of Sparta, led to Athens becoming a naval and general superpower, and eventually the Peloponnesian Wars. I wonder if anybody can see the parallel with recent events. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Why does {{tl|ancient seafaring}} have the same image seven times?
• The template probably has been that way for quite some time now. If you think it should be removed, I will remove it, since it isn't directly connected to the article.

• Don't use fixed px size
• I hadn't noticed this issue. Thanks for spotting it. Fixed sizes removed from all images which had them.

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• Done.

• File:Map_Greco-Persian_Wars-en.svg: see MOS:COLOUR
• Replaced with another image. Hopefully it is alright.

• File:Greek-Persian_duel.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Persian_army_formation.png
• Added US tags for both images.

• File:Mycale3_map.gif: source link is dead
• Added archive URL.

• File:Temple_of_Athena_Nikè_from_Propylaea,_Acropolis,_Athens,_Greece.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Replaced with another image, because there is no FoP in Greece.

{{u|Nikkimaria}}, thanks for the comments. I have posted my replies above. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Typos: "inolved", "foothils", "onboard" should be "on board" here (x 2)
• Fixed all.
• "metres" should be "meters" in AmEng - use "sp=us" in the convert template
• Fixed all instances.
• Instead of "tr:Doğanbey, Söke", link the English version Doğanbey, Söke
• Done.
• Decapitalise "Forefighter"
• Done.
• Use the ill template for "de:Schiffsmuseum Trokadero Marina" instead of a direct link
• Done.
• Don't see the value of linking to Wikidata
• Removed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Hawkeye7}}, thanks for your comments. I believe I have addressed all of them. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

: All good. Moved to support. Great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

A couple of fairly disorganised comments, after a quick read:

• Do we have an ancient source for the name Μάχη τῆς Μυκάλης? I don't think ancient historians generally gave battles definite names in this way.
• Removed, this was a vestige from the versions before I began working on the article.
• Some anachronism: I think {{green|a Persian army group}} implies a more formal level of organisation than existed at the time. Ditto, later, {{green|Tigranes could not have had more than 10,000 soldiers in his corps}}
• Rephrased both, and also my erroneous mention of "Persian regimets"
• {{green|a confederate alliance of Greek city-states was formed, generally referred to as the Allies}}: is this quite accurate? Classical sources fairly universally call them "the Greeks", despite the obvious shortcomings of that name. The capital, in particular, was a bit of a surprise: I haven't often seen it in this context.
• Changed all instances of "Allied" or "Greek allies" to just "the Greeks".
• {{green|Famously, the vastly outnumbered Greek army held Thermopylae against the Persians army for six days in total, before being outflanked by the Persians who used an unknown mountain path}}: famously is WP:PUFFERY, and the path wasn't unknown. It may have been unknown to the Spartans {{small|not to the Greeks -- after all, they stationed guards on it, according to Herodotus}}, but even then there's some debate as to whether the narrative of betrayal was a post facto means of saving Spartan blushes and turning the Thermopylae story into something other than the tale of an extremely stupid military blunder.
• Removed "Famously", and the mention of the pass used, because I don't think it was relevant here anyway.
• {{Green|An ostracon, a piece of pottery inscribed with an exiled leader's name}}: an ostrakon was inscribed with the name of someone (not necessarily a leader) the "sender" wished to exile; they weren't necessarily or even usually actually exiled.
• Image caption rephrased per this definition.
• It would be useful to have the map as early as possible in the article: we have a lot of islands, regions, cities and so on.
• Moved the Mycale map to just below the infobox.
• {{green|The historian J. B. Bury notes}}: Bury has been dead nearly a century, so it is a little disingenuous to present him as current scholarship like this -- I think his work needs an orig-date too. I'm also not totally convinced he's right, or honestly that he has anything on which to base this: the second Persian invasion is the earliest case study we have for the Athenians using their fleet and army together, at least as far as I know.
• Removed the statement by Bury about the Athenians using the fleet and army together. Only some analysis by Bury remains, because works about Mycale are very limited, see below.
• The "Background" section is extremely long (1,100 words) for a section that isn't, strictly, about the battle in question. Any way to cut it down, or at least give it a clearer structure? I notice that we have only four paragraphs on the battle itself -- less than on the prelude -- which seems odd.
• Mycale has been very under-analyzed. Most analyzes of Mycale focus on its background and aftermath, and negligibly or not at all on the battle, most of them say it is too minor historically. Evans' work is the only journal article or book chapter on the battle, most other authors haven't bothered to even go further than a paragraph or a sentence.
• The repetition of "the historian so-and-so" gets a bit tedious. Personally, per wise words from other editors, I'm in favour of dropping these introductions when they add little more than "this is exactly the sort of person you'd expect us to cite here."
• I was trying to avoid NOFORCELINK and introduce the scholars on first mention. I somewhat agree with your suggestion, but I'm not so sure about it.

:::And watch out for false title, you have a couple of examples. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{green|The historian George Cawkwell argues the major military lesson of both Mycale and Plataea was the repeated confirmation of the superiority of the hoplite over the more lightly armed Persian infantry}}: this is generally seen as an outdated view; the Persians weren't particularly lightly-armed, nor were hoplites particularly heavily-armed, and no ancient source points to a material difference in close-combat infantry "weight" (they do emphasise the Persian use of archery, but it's also not totally clear that this was entirely a Persian thing). Roel Konijnendijk's big book, Classical Greek Tactics: A Cultural History, is required reading here.
• I incorporated Cawkwell because I wanted to add all scholarship on Mycale (there isn't much), in accordance with my understanding of POV and DUE, please let me if it is wrong. I have read Konijnendijk, and used his work a lot in the Plataea article. However, he regrettably hasn't put out anything on Mycale yet.
• The "strategies and tactics" section seems unclear on what its purpose is, particularly in opposition to the "Formations" section which follows. Most of it seems to be trying to assess or explain the decisions made beforehand by the different sides, and perhaps has more to do with historiography than anything else -- I don't really see any attempt here to outline or explain either the strategies or the tactics used. We have two images that might be thought to illustrate infantry tactics, but I can't see much on either in the text itself.
• I have removed the "Strategics and tactics" subsection title. The underlying text has mostly general analysis of the battle. Would you suggest grouping this analysis some other way?
• I am sympathetic to the idea of a close reading/critique of Herodotus's account as a semi-mythical version of the battle, but need some persuading that this close reading needs quite so much space in an article on the battle -- to return to an earlier point, we spend at least twice as long picking apart Herodotus as we do on the supposedly main section.
• Most analysis of Mycale focuses on its background, aftermath or treatment by Herodotus (eg. Asheri, Badi, Immerwahr etc). But at least they have something to say on Mycale, and I thought their scholarship warranted addition here. Please let me know if I should do otherwise.
• Lots of the sources are a bit less than scholarly: general histories of Greece, very old works, or popular works. Is there anything cited to (for example) Goldsworthy 2003 that can't be found in a "better" source? It would worry me if so.
• I have removed Goldsworthy 2003, it wasn't being used to source anything very important. I wanted to get reviews from you and Choliamb because of your classical knowledge, so that you may have some sources you could suggest for this article. As I have said above, Mycale is woefully under-analyzed by scholars. It is the only major battle of the Persian Wars which does not have a journal article or book chapter (Artemisium doesn't have a book, at least I haven't found one, but many scholars have analyzed it adequately).

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi UC, thanks for these comments. I am currently traveling, and I will implement these by tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::I wouldn't feel any sense of rush: some of them will take some time to digest and read up on, I think, and it's better that we get it right than we get it wrong quickly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi UC, done with the travel, I can work on the comments now. I think I will get all of them implemented by 1 AM local time (in ~7 hours). Sorry for the delay. Matarisvan (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Hi UC, replies above, thanks for the comprehensive review! Matarisvan (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Forgot to tag you in the above reply, @UndercoverClassicist. Sorry about that. Matarisvan (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think you've done a good job on fixing the little things above, but I still have concerns about the big ones -- in particular, the balance and weight of material discussed, the coherence of the structure between and within sections, the comprehensiveness and the presentation of antiquated or popular scholarship as if it holds unquestioned authority. I don't think this is a matter of spot-fixes: I would suggest bringing the article back to the drawing board and looking at it as a whole.

:::::I do take your point that few sources discuss Mycale in itself in great detail, but much of the article isn't entirely or specifically about the battle -- when we discuss infantry tactics in the period, we should be bringing to bear modern scholarship on how Greek and Persian armies of the period operated, and how modern interpretations differ from those offered by a surface reading of Herodotus (in general, rather than specifically for Mycale). I'm surprised not to see any of the big, standard works of classical reference cited -- the Cambridge Ancient History, Brill's New Pauly, and so on.

:::::If I can throw something else in -- the article seems very inconsistent as to its view of Herodotus as a source, which is a problem given that he's our only real source. We have a lengthy picture late on as to how modern scholars have picked over his narrative, though I'm not sure we've really wrestled with the central issue of what Herodotus is actually trying to do here (rather than present an account of the battle {{lang|de|wie es eigentlich Gewesen}}), but this comes after we've proceeded as if there's no difference between the Herodotean account and the real battle -- see for instance when we uncritically repeat {{green|The Athenians were considered the most courageous contingent on the battlefield, followed by the soldiers of Corinth, Troezen and Sicyon.}}, or footnote the speech of Hegesistratos as an example of "rhetoric in the Battle of Mycale". Again, there is useful scholarship on what speeches do and don't mean in Herodotus that need not explicitly discuss this speech to be of value here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hi UC, I will implement your suggestions by the 11th, because I am travelling again today. I hope that is alright. Matarisvan (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Gog the Mild, I think I have somewhat resolved the issue of the false titles. I would be much obliged if you could do a full review.

:::::::@UndercoverClassicist, I would like to disagree with your assessment. I don't think the article needs a complete rewrite. I've used a source from the Cambridge Ancient History (vol 4), namely Barron 1988. I checked three volumes of the New Pauly in detail, and the others in passing, but they have nothing significant on Mycale.

:::::::As to your point on the "Battle" section being just 4 paragraphs long, I could move a lot of material (like battle site, ship fortification, formations etc.) to the section but I think it would not be the correct place for it. As for some examples of MILHIST FAs which have short Battle sections, chosen randomly from the MILHIST FA list, we have the Battle of Adys by Gog himself, which has 3 paragraphs; the Battle of Marais des Cygnes by Hog Farm has 5 paras; see also the Battle of Utica, again by Gog, with Background and Aftermath sections both longer than the Battle section. I think there would be more such examples, particularly from ancient and medieval MILHIST, where there are many gaps and a fog of war still persists.

::::::::Chipping in here as my name was mentioned. Adys, excluding the lead, is 2.258 words long, of which 506 are in the Battle section. 22.4%. Mycale has 6,100 non-lead words, 564 in the Battle section. 9.2%. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Note also that it starts with a short section called Primary sources. I wrote Adys 5 years ago and would do a better job of it now, but note that the "Armies" section attempts to define/describe "light infantry", "heavy infantry", "phalanx" and to describe how each type fought. (And none of the sources used to do this are writing specifically about the battle of Adys.) Further note that all of the numbers of troops mentioned are cited to modern HQ RSs.

:::::::I think Hawkeye7 has a much better understanding of MILHIST than the both of us, and would surely know how there are a lot of gaps in the MILHIST of all periods. As to your comment "I'm not sure we've really wrestled with the central issue of what Herodotus is actually trying to do here (rather than present an account of the battle wie es eigentlich Gewesen)": I think I have done both. Any additional sources you could recommend which deal with Herodotus' narrative structuring of the battle? I think I've used all of them here. (Even the fantastic Brill's Companion has nothing new to say about Mycale). Herodotus' actual text has also been added, though I'm not sure I can add "According to Herodotus" to all such statements, lest it get too repetitive like the historian bit, which I think is more essential. Matarisvan (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::We disagree; I appreciate your efforts in trying to meet me halfway, however. In particular, I think the insistence on avoiding sources about general topics discussed in the article (see: Herodotus, rhetoric in ancient historiography, Greek vs Persian infantry tactics) that don't specifically mention Mycale is a mistake, and holds back some of the analysis. I'll leave my review as it stands for now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@UndercoverClassicist, please excuse me if I came across as wanting to avoid the broadly general sources. Could you suggest some of these sources? As I said above, even Brill's Companion does not have anything on Mycale. I checked Classical Greek Tactics by Konijnendijk, and there is one passing mention of Mycale on page 191, nothing else. I have also used Zali 2015, which I think is somewhat similar to the sources you're speaking of. I ask you to excuse me again, and could you please suggest some of these sources? Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Sorry, I think you've misunderstood -- I'm suggesting that you use general sources to talk about hoplites, for example. When you're discussing what a hoplite was and how Greek infantry differed from Persia, you don't need a source that specifically talks about the hoplites at Mycale. Similarly, several sources talk about how all speeches in Herodotus serve all sorts of moralistic/political/artistic goals other than "recapitulating what so-and-so said at such-and-such time", and those are important reading if we're going to talk about any speech in Herodotus -- it isn't necessary for them to specifically talk about the particular speeches around Mycale. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@UndercoverClassicist, I have removed all the mentions of rhetoric and claimed hoplite superiority. As to your recommendations on Herodotus, I think I have used all the sources I could find which talk about his treatment of Mycale. I don't think I could general analyses of Herodotus, but I am open to checking out any sources you can suggest. Matarisvan (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I've had another look: at the moment, I'm quite concerned about how (in particular) the historiographical material is presented. I don't feel that we have the proper contextualisation, or really enough of a structure, and the result is a confusing mélange of historians from different times which is both tough going to read (FACR 1a) and liable to lead readers towards misleading conclusions about the nature and current status of the views expressed. I expect it will get better as reviews come in, but am going to put in an oppose at the moment: I think it is quite far from ready as it stands. Will try to come back in the next week or so with some more concrete suggestions that might help. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Recusing to review. Given some of the commentary above I will cherry pick a couple of areas for initial attention.

Lead

• "on the slopes of Mount Mycale, located on the coast of Ionia" → 'on the slopes of Mount Mycale, which is located on the coast of Ionia'.
• Done.
• "and the camp was assailed". Maybe 'and the camp was successfully assailed'? (Or 'and the camp was successfully stormed'?)
• Changed "assailed" to "attacked".

:::A reader is still unaware as to whether the attack/assault was successful.

• "The Phoenician ships were dismissed from the Persian fleet before the battle, which reduced its strength further." Further than what?
• Removed "further", though it meant a reduction from the 300-strong fleet.

:::I understand that. Butt he use of "further" implies some other, earlier reduction, for this one to be further to. And if "further" has been removed, then "which reduced its strength" becomes redundant.

Infobox

• "Ionia begins second revolt against Persian rule" is not a territorial change.
• Moved this to Result parameter.

:::Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". So the revolt bit can't go there either. Why do you feel that it needs to go anywhere in the infobox?

• Why are Herodotus's figures given when no HQ RS supports them?
• Removed.
• Why are the numbers of ships given when they are not involved in the battle?
• Removed.

Opposing forces

• "Historian Charles Hignett found the fleet size of 300 ships to be too large, even if this number included the Phoenician ships". 1. Does he suggest any other figure? 2. Does Herodotus's figure of 300 include the Phoenician ships?
• Hignett does not estimate the fleet size, but other scholars do.
• "Herodotus gives the size of the Persian fleet which wintered at Cyme at 300 ships ... Herodotus states that there were 60,000 soldiers in the Persian army." I am not very happy that the only figures for the size of the Persian fleet is from a primary source. Personally I have taken a lot of battle articles to FAC and never yet had just a primary source to support a number. Even if I have to say something like "Tipps follows Polybius in stating that 330 ships took part". If no modern source explicitly agrees with Herodotus's numbers, how do they meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria?
• The Herodotean numbers are not the only numbers for any parts of the ORBAT. They are just mentioned as a comparable which scholars deconstruct, analyze and come up with their own estimates.
• "Herodotus gives the size of the Persian fleet". Herodotus needs a proper introduction.
• Added "Ancient historian" before "Herodotus" on first mention.

:::False title alert.

• "as the third commander of the fleet". Does this mean he was the deputy second-in-command, or the third person to be appointed to command the fleet?
• I reckon it's the latter, but I'm not sure I should change the text because the source says he was the third commander.

:::Is there no other text which mentions him?

• Ok, so much of this is covered in the next paragraph, but the running order of "number of ships" → "commander" → "number of infantry" → "number of ships" → "number of infantry" is confusing. Something like 'Herodotus gives the size of the Persian fleet which wintered at Cyme at 300 ships but this is widely dismissed by modern scholars. The modern historian Charles Hignett describes this as incredible and Peter Green suggests 100 ships while John Barron arrives at a similar estimate. Similarly Herodotus's figure of 60,000 Persian soldiers is considered far too high with Hignett suggesting 10,000, William Shepherd 13,000, ..." may be easier for a reader. Then deal with the command structure separately.
• Apologies for this mess, I had not realized it. I had tried to arrange the ORBAT author-wise. Now changed to the ordering suggested.
• "Barron also arrives at an estimate of 100 ships". Full names at first mention, just surnames thereafter.
• This is the 6th mention of Barron in the text. Should I still add the full name?

:::No, my mistake. That first mention has a false title.

• At least one case of false title.
• I thought I had removed all of these. Could you point this one out for me?

:::"Historian Charles Hignett".

Just a starter. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Greeks

• Again the focus seems to jump around. As with the Persians I would recommend grouping similar themes: the number of ships, then the number of infantry (which in some cases will link back to estimates of the number of ships), then command structure. Or similar.
• Changed as suggested.
• A reader is going to be left thinking "What is a hoplite", which is not even linked in the main article. And anyway is significant enough to need explaining in line per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Similarly "light infantry" and "heavy infantry".
• I have glossed the meanings of light and heavy infantry, though I am not sure how to do so for hoplites; say, would something like "ancient Greek infantry" suffice? I have added the link on first mention in the body, it was already linked in the lead.

:::Anything linkable needs linking at both first mention in the lead and in the main article.

::::Hoplites, IMO no. Can I recommend to you an I article nominated for FAC and which was promoted seven days ago. See this section - Battle of Preston (1648)#Opposing forces - for an example of what level of detail I consider appropriate. Note that I carefully define even such "self-explanatory" terms as "pike". I am not saying that this article has to go into as much detail, merely demonstrating how another editor (me) handled a not-dissimilar issue.

:::::Note how the "Numbers" section in Preston deals with a range of estimates without just quoting each named historian.

• I can find no mention of what weapons any of the soldiers involved used? Is there any information on this? Similarly regarding whether any of them wore any armour or carried shields. If so, where and of what types. I would have thought there would be HQ RS information on this, although I may be wrong.
• There are sources who talk about the weapons and armor at Plataea, but there is nothing for Mycale. As I have said above, Mycale is the most ignored battle of the Persian Wars.

:::The source does not need to specify the exact unit or occasion. A term such as "Hoplites of the period typically wore ...' (or 'carried' or 'deployed in] or whatever) usually suffices to introduce a degree of generality. It would certainly stretch to assuming that, say, Spartan hoplites fighting in different places but on the same day! were similarly equipped and employed similar formations and tactics.

• I noticed later that a "shield wall" is mentioned several times. What is a shield wall?
• Jumping in on this, this is a specific area where Konijnendijk and co. would argue that the traditional view is misplaced -- that hoplites did not, at least intentionally, fight in shield walls, but rather as individuals with spacings of a couple of metres. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• I think the phrase is self-explanatory. As to UC's point, I haven't said the hoplites formed shield walls at all in the article, I have always written "Persian shield wall".

:::It is, IMO, definitely not self explanatory. The first thing it calls to mind is a wall or palisade made of shields, perhaps to protect a camp while the army is sleeping. Even aficionados are not likely to know if you are referring to something more like a testudo, a hoplite-like array of overlapping shields, shields carried by separate bearers (possibly of pavis-like proportions) or something else.

• The first paragraph discusses "marines". The second discusses the numbers of "hoplites" on each ship. Is a reader to understand that these are two different things? With the "hoplites employed as rowers" when on board ship.
• The exact word used is epabatai, but there is no article for these. I am looking to make a new one. Do you think I should do this now during the FAC, or after it's closed?

:::There is no need to create it for this FAC, so suit yourself. And if you did it would not answer my question.

• Is there any HQ RS estimate of the total number of Greek oarsmen? Who I assume were all freemen. You suggest that some modern sources suggest that some of them fought in some role. Any ideas in the literature as to what they all did? (At 200 per ship they add up quickly.)
• Evans says there were 170 oarsmen on each ship. There is no mention of the role played by them, but Evans says they probably did not participate in the fighting, owing to the lack of extra weapons carried onboard the triremes. Also, thank you for asking these detailed questions, I now realize there are some more details from Evans 2024 which I can add here.

:::"Evans says they probably did not participate in the fighting, owing to the lack of extra weapons carried onboard the triremes". Well, ok, but that seems a bit improbable. Was that normal. What exactly does Evans say?

That's probably enough to be going on with. I shall ponder and let you do the same. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Gog the Mild, I will post the replies by tomorrow end of day. Matarisvan (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Gog the Mild; hi Gog, please excuse the delay, I'm still travelling but I will be home tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:: {{u|Gog the Mild}}, please excuse my delayed replies. I reckon I've dealt with all of the points you raised. Matarisvan (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::My turn to apologise for the delay. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am going to oppose. It is clear that a lot of work and TLC has gone into this article, and that there is an FA within it. But it needs sufficient further work to make getting there on this nomination inappropriate. In addition to the points above there are other areas which need work. To take just one by way of example, the "Analysis" section is choppy and does not meet criteria 1a. It has an "X said Y" structure and I am not sure if naming each source is needed. The information could be presented as prose, without naming the source in the text, and using inline citations to specify where the information comes from. Currently it reads as "Flower and Marincola observe ... They note ... Balcer argues ... He further argues ... Historian George Cawkwell argues ... He further argues ... Cawkwell observes ... Cawkwell claims ... Burn argues ... Historian Muhammad Dandamayev ... Historian Paul A. Rahe argues ... He further argues ... Rahe argues ... Historian J. B. Bury argues ... He argues ... Historian Amir Mehdi Badi wonders ... Badi observes ... Historian Herman Tammo Wallinga says ...". This sort of thing is also common in the Reception sections of music, film and other creative type articles and it is possible that useful lessons can be drawn from how such things are handled in some of them. I note in passing six false titles in this short extract.

The nominator is a very experienced and capable reviewer, but this is their fifth FAC nomination without yet seeing a promotion. It may useful to look for common issues and see if such can be addressed prior to resubmission. I note that this article has not been to either GoCE or FAC and, crucially IMO, has not been mentored. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• "and therefore prevented the conquest of the Peloponnese". I think "thus prevented" would be better.
• "After Xerxes I was crowned the emperor of the Achaemenid Empire, he quickly resumed preparations for the invasion of Greece". 1. You should give the year. 2. "resumed" implies that you have mentioned previous preparation, but you have not.
• "A congress of city states met at Corinth". As you have just mentioned Persian perparations, maybe "In response, a congress of Greek city states met at Corinth".
• "namely Plataea and Thespiae". I would delete "namely" as superfluous and clumsy.
• "They also pointed out the poor morale and reduced seaworthiness of the Persian fleet,[b] the latter had occurred probably due to the long time it had spent at sea." "the latter had occurred probably due to" is clumsy. Maybe "which was probably due to".
• "They argue that Leotychides may have considered". Maybe "In their view, Leotychides may have considered" for variety.
• "They also note that the Greek fleet had already sailed for Samos when their ambassadors reported the dismissal of the Phoenician ships from the Persian fleet. 1. Do you need "They also note that"? You could delete these words. 2. "You imply that the Phoenicians and their dismissal have already been mentioned, but they have not.
• "Historian Jack Balcer observes the error of the Persians in dismissing the Phoenicians". This is clumsy and also states as a fact what you imply above is disputed.
• "Balcer notes how the original mission of the Greek fleet was not letting the Persian fleet reinforce Mardonius, and how the fleet took a bold decision to go on the offensive." Repetition of "how", both clumsy. Also Balcer appears to be giving his view, not stating facts as you say.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't generally like cutting off things in the middle of someone's review but I can't see this reaching consensus to promote anything soon. I note Gog's suggestion above re. mentoring; other options that might be beneficial for this article are PR and/or MilHist A-class review. If you pursue one or both of those I'd suggest pinging the reviewers above after actioning their outstanding comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{FACClosed|archived}} Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC){{Fa bottom}}