Talk:Ancient navies and vessels

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

D1Engineer (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Meets word count, Needs and info box with pictures and more citations. The articles themself could use some work they dont seem to flow[reply]

Flows like an argumentative paper rather than informational. Language needs more scholarly tone. Seth4404 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of an

Asingh247 (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)A.J Singh[reply]

  Completeness:

   500 words per person:No
   Lead Paragraph:No
   4 Sections of content: No
   Minimum ammount of citations: No
   Images:No

Evaluation of Resources:

   Are the sources listed in the References of sufficient authority? Yes
   Are the sources listed in the References of accurate?Yes
   Conduct searches of the topic yourself. Do you feel like the authors found worth while articles or just easily available articles?Yes

Readability & Content:

   Is the information being presented factual in nature? Yes
   Is the information being presented objective? (No Bias) Yes
   Does the article flow effectively? Yes
   Does the article feeling like it is missing content? Yes

I do like how you made sections to make it more easy to read, adds a nice feel.You should get some pictures though, they just make everything easier and more pleasant to read.

Dmitry Borovkov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.57.10 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness: Needs more content to meet the word count requirement. 500 words per person: It seems that both authors need to add content. Lead Paragraph: Needs to be a little more specific. 4 Sections of content: four sections are created but not all have content Minimum ammount of citations: there are 2 but the rquired number Images: none Evaluation of Resources: Simply needs more sources but looks good so far. Are the sources listed in the References of sufficient authority?: both sources look good and go into great detail. Both are devoted to the topic. Are the sources listed in the References of accurate?: Yes, they look to present a lagre amount of information. Conduct searches of the topic yourself. Do you feel like the authors found worth while articles or just easily available articles? I think that these articles may have been easy to find but are also good sources. Readability & Content: It flows quite well and presents the information in factual manner. Is the information being presented factual in nature? Yes Is the information being presented objective? (No Bias) Yes Does the article flow effectively? Yes Does the article feeling like it is missing content? Yes the other two parts of Ancient Navies is missing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Concept12 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

Concept12 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:FNR.Triremis.RomanEmpire.BCE31.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:FNR.Triremis.RomanEmpire.BCE31.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 13:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

This article should be expanded with short paragraphs for (at least) the Greek, Phoenician, Assyrian, and Carthaginian navies. It might also be good idea to discuss different kinds of ancient warships in this article (e.g. bireme, trireme, quadrireme, quinquereme, decereme, etc.) Michael! (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, given the lack of attention to the Ancient Chinese navies - most importantly the Han Navy, the navies of the Indian subcontinent or Polynesian or Pacific Northwest Coast cultures' naval forces this article should have the aforementioned cultural areas' naval histories added to them or someone needs to tag this article for not representing a worldwide view and specifically being ethnocentric to the cultures of Western Eurasia and the Mediterranian. I will probably do at least some of this by Sunday and I would love to have my fellow Wikipedians help if they so wish. 自教育 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even being med centric no coverage of the ancient Greek and Carthaginian either.--KTo288 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]