Talk:Roman–Persian Wars/GA1

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 3, 2008, compares against the

1. Well written?: Refer to second opinion

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

1. In some cases like
   Aturpatakan
   .

   • These terms are used by modern scholars. Farrokh, for instance, speaks about the "Azerbaijani forests", and "Syria" does not link to the modern country. Wherever clarification is needed, as you asked for Marc Antony in 36 BC, I'll do my best to provide it. I'll check also the Iran linking.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • Have I linked somewhere present-day Iran and I miss it? I see a link of the Iranian empires, but I cannot find a wikilinking of Iran. Again I may just miss it.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You can link to

   Aturpatakan(Azarbaijan).--Seyyed(t-c) 18:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Yes, but Wikipedia's article is "Atropatene", and this is the term I also see used in scholarly books; Aturpatakan in Google Book related with Mark Antony gives almost no results.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Please clarify this sentence:With both empires preoccupied by barbarian threats from the north, a largely peaceful period followed, interrupted only by two brief wars, the first in 421-422, and the second in 440. I think you mean
   Uar, confederations of of steppe warriors or Eurasian nomads of Migration Period instead. My suggestion is this:At this time northern territories of Roman empire were occupied by invasion of Eurasian nomads while Persian eastern borders were threatened by Hephthalites
   .

   • No, I do not mean that. If you go to the
     WP:SS I did not go into details here. Information can and will be found in the relevant article.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
     ]

   What do you mean when you say barbarian threats?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This is something indeed needing clarification. I'll check the sources.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok, my mistake; I thought you referred to the two brief Roman-Sassanid wars, and I missed your point. Yes, I think your phrasing is fine. I'll incorporate it.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. All parts of the article have sources, but according to
   References
   , some part of the article is based on the Primary sources. For example In 298, however, Galerius crushed the Persians in battle, capturing the Persian treasury and the royal harem, an utter disgrace for the Persian monarch. The resulting peace settlement saw the Romans gain the area between the Tigris and the Greater Zab. The Roman victory was the most decisive for many decades: all the territories that had been lost, all the debatable lands, and control of Armenia were now in Roman hands

   • This is inaccurate. Look better at note 33 of the section you provide. Both primary and secondary sources are provided, and this is done throughout the article. After all, such a long discussion had taken place in Pericles' FAR, when a faced such a criticism again. I invite you to read the relevant discussion. Anyway, the article in question faces no such problem. Per References as you say, all citations include secondary sources!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes you're right. I missed Frye's name.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. You should add sources in few cases.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

1. I think it's important to mention Trajan captured Susa, winter capital of Partians, in 116AD.

   • In most of the sources (doing a googlebooking, maybe you have more material), I do not see this distinction between summer and winter capital. All of them give Ctesiphon as capital, unless Ctesiphon was threatened or captured. Maybe this happened during the Achaemenid period? I see Rawlinson says that Susa was captured in 116 AD, but I do not see further recent scholarly sources verifying that. Do you have more sources? Are we sure Susa was captured?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure. Can you check these two articles:ARSACIDS and MILITARY ARCHITECTURE OF PARTHIA UNDER THE ARSACIDS --Seyyed(t-c) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   First one says nothing about Susa; second one is strictly about architecture.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Due to the fact that the issue of this article belongs to
   Late Antiquity
   era, there should be a section which discuss about historiography and historical sources.

   • Primary historical sources are provided. I am not sure such a section is necessary. It will make the article longer without an obvious reason. After all this is not a source research essay like Geatrex-Lieu's work. Such analysis could possibly take place in
     Roman-Parthian Wars
     articles.

   I think it's necessary. You can use some sources like A Textbook of Historiography which includes several chapters about Greco-Roman historiography and references to Sassanid ones[1]. There are some other sources likeRoman Historiography, Historiography at the End of the Republic: Provincial Perspectives, etc. Therefor there are few sources which discuss about Iranian historiography I propose using Encyclopedia Iranica:PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD and EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD--Seyyed(t-c) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   And the article is just 77.5 kb. Thus you can add a section without making a long article.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I created such a section, although it is almost impossible to summarize the historiography of 1000 years in two paragraphs. The section needs improvements of course; not yet perfect.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. Thank you for your work so far.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion: (as requested)

From a first complete read through;

• General, there are lots of short sentences. This means that it is sometimes difficult to read.
• Then occassionally a very long sentence (for example; Climax: ...The war initially went the Persians' way, partly because of Phocas' brutal repression and the succession crisis that ensued as the general Heraclius sent his nephew Nicetas to attack Egypt, enabling his son Heraclius the younger to claim the throne in 610 AD....)and (Aftermath ...The Roman Empire was also severely affected, with its financial reserves exhausted by the war, the Balkans now largely in the hands of the Slavs,[87] Anatolia devastated by repeated Persian invasions and the empire's hold on its recently regained territories in the Caucasus, Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt loosened by many years of Persian occupation...) A lot of detailed important information which to me at least becomes difficult because of the sentence length and structure.

• I rephrased, but I also believe that a copy-editing is needed. But these things need patience! I've asked for it and I am now waiting!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent news, maybe the GA nomination was then a bit premature, the article after a copyedit etc would have less things to do for a GA. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not a matter of "prematureness". As I have said from the first moment, my intention was and is to bring this article to FAC, and for this nomination was and is prepared the article; not GA. After all, as I also stressed, the article has already reached A-Class status through the MILHIST A-Class review, which is independent from GAC. I agreed to nominate the article for GA status, because I was kindly asked to do it, and because I do believe that reviewes are always good news for an encyclopedic article. The prose is not yet, of course, "brilliant" as FA criteria demand, but I still have the impression that it is good enough, even as it stands now for GA status, implementing, of course, your suggestions as well. After all, during the MILHIST A-Class review, in which some of the most experiences users and FA nominators of Wikipedia participated (such as Cla68 and others), nobody was critical towards the prose. I repeat: I know it is not yet "brilliant", but I do believe it is "good". And I must also stress that Ceoil has already copy-edited the first 2-3 sections of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many many names, some of which are repeated (justifiably so in historic terms) later in the article, by which point I cannot remember what / who, she / he was. I am not sure what to do about it but an idea is maybe to refer to people by their titles/job description to avoid confusion and to avoid having to ctrl-f to find out who a specific person is. Not the best answer but is there a way of overcoming the problem? I am open to suggestions, this article is not the only one to have this difficulty.

I had exactly the same problem. However I think we can neglect this issue in this review.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there is a solution to this problem for such an article. In MILHIST review the issue was raised, and it was proposed to name only the most important commanders. This was done! Many "secondary" names were removed. But it is inevitable to face some a problem in such a summary article.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is a problem that continually accures in any article of this depth. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dating: some years have AD after them some not, it needs to be consistent.

• I knew the problem, and I had in mind to take care of it before FAC. I hope now there is more consistency.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Choice and usage of words; (just two examples on choice and one on words), but a copyedit might be very useful. There is an amazing amount of information within this article alone, and care needs to be taken not to cloud the issues / facts with over-complicated wording or choice of words.

Roman Republic vs Parthia ...With the civil war over, Julius Caesar elaborated plans for a campaign against Parthia.. please explain why elaborated is used here? You can elaborate something e.g. plan in minute great detail with a lot of effort, thought etc, but I think ... Julius Caesar's complex and detailed plans for a campaign against Parthia reads easier and gives a slightly better understanding. Roman Empire vs Parthia ...Gaius Caesar and Phraataces worked out a rough compromise in 1 AD... rough is a value statement word surely ...Gaius Caesar and Phraataces worked out a compromise in 1 AD... explains what they did. Unless the "rough" can be referenced of course. War for the Caucasus Khosrau I died early the next year, defeated after so many victories.[72] does this mean he died in battle or that he died after so so many victories. If so what relevance is that?

• "Rough removed. Why "elaborated" is wrong? I mean in the sentence "prepared but not implemented the plans". I am not a native English speaker, so am I missing something? And "after so many victories" emphasizes on the contrast. Despite his repetitive successes, he died finally defeated and humiliated.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although "elaborated" is correct in usage today it is rarely used in that sense. To "elaborate" is understandable as it means that someone is explaining something in greater detail, and because of this "elaborated" means that someone explained something, not I believe the sense that you wanted. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I'll replace it with "prepared".--Yannismarou (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By the By

• ?--Yannismarou (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies by the by was meant as a paragraph header not a question or criticism. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations and notes should be in three columns

• There is no such rule!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Look at

Wikipedia:Footnotes#Resizing_references as a start, and yes there is no such rule but a standard that recommends! Although Template:Reflist recommends reflist 3 is not used many do so to create a list that is easier to see and follow. ref 2 is a minimum I would say. The idea is to make the encyclopedia (which wikipedia is) easy to read and follow. To quote ...The template {{reflist}} is an alternative, mostly used if there are many footnotes... see Help:Footnotes Edmund Patrick – confer 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Edmund, excuse me for the tone, but you first look at the article, and try not to propose something which is already done! Reflist is of course used, and it is used from the first moment I started rewriting the article. But reflish does not show in Internet explorer; it looks only with Mozilla! And yes it is Reflist 2 which is used, because Ref 3 would make the notes (not necesserily the citations) a mess IMO! The links you propose to see are already known to me for about 2 years already!--Yannismarou (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had better check my computer settings as I use Mozilla and the list went down and off the monitor screen. I thought it was to do with the timeline being alongside it, which is why I wondered if a horizontal one would be better. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section is not a recommendation. All the forms of {{reflist}} and <references/> are equally acceptable; which is best for this article is a question of reader convenience only. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Time line, can that be moved up, more images moved to the left in their respective sections or maybe the timeline horizontal at the beginning as an intro to the scope of the article?

An amazing piece of work. I am very impressed with the scholarship and effort. I hope the above are taken as they are given, constructive ways to add to the article. This should be a GA but does need to meet the criteria, and when it does it will be well on its way to FA.Edmund Patrick – confer 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢

I'm not going to address the specific GA criteria, as the editors above have done a good job of that. I'd like to point out two problems I saw right off the bat. First, the infobox doesn't need all of the commanders; just the most notable and important 3 to 5 for each side. I realize the article coveres a period of about 700 years, but we need to keep the infobox manageable and useful. Having every commander dilutes the information, making it difficult to discern who were the most important people. It would also be useful to separate the leaders who fought for the separate entities. Say, two leaders for the Roman Republic, two for the Empire, and two for the Byzantine Empire, and then 3 or so for the Parthians, and 3 or so for the Sassanids, and then have them separated in the infobox (see my example to the right, I just added the headers without paying attention to whether the men actually fought for the entities, but you get the idea.)

Also, there are far too many images in the article. Text sandwiching is to be avoided. It's bad enough on my laptop, which has a somewhat small screen, which makes the text narrower and has the effect of separating images that are too close together. I'd hate to see what it looks like on a decent-sized monitor. Removing the long template that has the timeline of the wars would help to free up space to move images around. Perhaps it would be best to spin that off into a separate article, a la

• When we suggest some things in review, we must also be in accord with what Wikipedia remarks. For instance, citation 22 added by one of the reviewrs here is not in accord with MoS, since Template:cite web is not used.

You're right. I found it's not suitable and added citation 23[2]. However it doesn't relate to the review process.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates exist for convenience only. What matters is what the reader sees. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there are too many images, but unfortunately I see that some were added after this review was initiated. For instance the Roman Empire's map caused this "sandwich effect", and I remove it.

I added some images. But it didn't relate to the review process. I thought those are better pictures. By the way, as you can see I passed the 6th criteria.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the infobox could be shorter, but I am not going to shorten it without the agreement of Zbuhr, and Cplakidas who have contributed to it. Initially I was as negative as you are to its size, but, seeing now with a cooler mind, I see that it offers a real treasure of information. I am not sure if it is a wise move to make it shorter after all.

I think it doesn't relate to GA review. However, I propose making a short infobox and put all details in a template. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that arbitarily selecting a handful of individuals and removing the rest would be actively misleading. Any such selection would be necessarily arbitrary, inflating the importance of some stages of the conflict and underplaying that of others. Part of the reason I originally stepped in to expand the list of commanders was that the time it was severely unbalanced in this way. If it is to give a chronologically balanced impression it cannot be much shorter than it is now. It seems to me that the two sensible options would be to retain it as it is (my preference), or else to remove all the names and simply provide a link to a template. A halfway-house would amount to the worst of both worlds.Zburh (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as the prose is concerned, I have asked from Ceoil and other native English speakers (some of the best copy-editors around) to do their best on the article. Now, commenting on a comment: I am also against short sentences, but this is a summary article of a period of 1.000 years. When you have to summarize such a long period of time, and a loooooong list of events, it is inevitable to have at a certain level such a kind of prose. Again, I repeat that I am not a native English speaker, but I have asked the best copy-editors to look at the article, and prepare it in terms of prose for WP:FAC.
• Why some very good maps, like the one made by Giorgos Tzimas and praised by many editors about Julian's expedition was removed? And why CPlacidas' map of the borders after Anastasian War were also removed? And the image of Valerian's capture replaced. Why? I strongly disagree.

This issue doesn't relate to the review process. We can discuss about it on the talk page of the article, later.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You ask me to clarify who Pacorus is, when it is mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph that it is Pacorus I ?! And no wikilinking is needed. Pacorus is already wikilnked as Pacorus I, as I stated before, in the beginning of the paragraph!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we have misunderstood here how the ^{[citation needed]} template is used. This template is asked in order to verify assertions, assessments, estimations; not in order to verify the obvious! Therefore, the two ^{[citation needed]} added by the GA reviewer are IMO of questionable value. With the first one, it is asked to me to verify that Constantinople was sieged and brought almost to catastroph by the Avars. But this is a historical event beyond any doubt; a universally accepted historical event. So, verify what exactly? After all, the sentence for which verification is asked contains already two citations! By adding one more, we'll make it almost impossible for the reader to go through it. Anyway, I'll try to rearrange the citations, in order to make clear that everything is properly cited. After all, it is almost incomprehensible for me to ask me for more citations in an article of medium size, which already contains 114 citations, each one citing both primary and secondary sources. I'd also suggest the reviewers here and everybody else interesting about how an article should be properly cited to read by essay here. The same comments stand for the second tag which was also added.--Yannismarou (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result

here

for criteria)

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]