Talk:Battle of Solachon

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Solachon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 14:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one as well, hopefully later tonight. Canadian Paul 14:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. While not strictly a GA requirement, I generally find that paragraphs of fewer than three sentences disrupts the flow of the article. If it would be at all possible to expand or combine the shorter paragraphs of the lead somehow, I think that it would be helpful because, at the moment, the whole lead seems choppy.
2. I have a similar issue with the "Background" section as I had in the last review with context; in fact, I always read the lead last and a lot of the comments I have below are a result of some the information in the lead not being present to contextualize the article when, per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain any information that is not present in the body.
3. In the "Background" section, I feel like I'm missing the motivation for Justin's refusal to renew the payments. Why didn't he just keep paying and maintain the status quo? You mention that this event was the culmination of the deterioration of relations, but was said deterioration the reason for his refusal or was it something else? It's not entirely clear here.
4. Under "Initial moves and dispositions", first paragraph, "i.e. the commander-in-chief for the Mesopotamian front." seems a little informal for an encyclopedic article. Something like "the title for the commander-in-chief..." would be much better for prose and flow.
5. Same paragraph, to help with the flow, maybe it would be better to put "(modern Zergan)" as a footnote to the effect of "this river is now known as the Zergan River in Country X". Same suggestion for the later "(modern Mardin)" in the paragraph.
6. In terms of comprehensives, was there any catalyst for them to have attacked the Persians? It seems that they go immediately from rejecting a peace treaty (and as above, it would be helpful if possible to know what the motivations for rejecting the treaty were) to attacking the Persians. I guess what would help here is knowing what their military (or other) objectives were. Right now, it almost seems like they just have a battle for the sake of having one.
7. Under "Battle", fourth paragraph, "In addition, the surviving Persians were refused entry into Dara." Is there any reason why?

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to address the issues you raised. Unfortunately, the sources we have don't go into too much detail, so background information of the kind you want is largely unavailable. To borrow from your own comments, the whole conflict was essentially to "have a war for the sake of having one", as the dynamic of relations between the two states was such that warfare was very much inevitable. I'll be out of Athens for the next few days, so if there is still work to be done, please wait until next Wednesday. Best, Constantine ✍ 17:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look at it now and update my review. Canadian Paul 16:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your edits gave me exactly what I was looking for from the article. I now believe that this article meets the Good Article criteria and will be passing it as such, so congratulations and thank you for your hard work once again! Canadian Paul 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)