Azes II edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it may actually not even be a legitimate article, but rather should be part of Azes I. Scholarly sources are scant on the this dynasty in general, and the article is currently a combined product of two editors who largely disagree with each other. Anyone with an interest and an understanding of the Indo-Scythians is requested to join in this review and help improve/verify the article on Azes II.
Thanks, Hiberniantears (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to User:Sponsianus, Azes II had recently been shown to be identical to Azes I thanks to the analysis of a coin overstrike by Senior. Although I haven't read the Senior's analysis myself, I fully trust Sponsianus's research. Sponsianus has always shown to be an excellent and highly knowledgeable contributor in this area. The differentiation of Azes I and Azes II was always suspect to me anyway (personal opinion), but scholarship had been separating the two systematically. I think a merging of the two articles into Azes I (or into, even better, a single Azes article) would be highly legitimate. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the evidence is actually quite strong. For those who wish to read Senior's two articles that were "the final nail in the coffin for Azes II" (that's actually the title of one of them), they are available via [www.onsnumis.org]. The price is not that steep. Sponsianus (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, I recommend that a rump article should remain for Azes II. This attribution will certainly remain for decades, as so many coins and books refer to him.
Sponsianus (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: Per WP:PR, article with major cleanup banners are not eligible for peer review. It further seems that the article's future existence is in doubt. The discussions proposed in the nom statement above should take place on the article's talkpage, among those with appropriate knowledge. Wikipedia Peer review is not an academic review. and this is not the right place for such discussions. The review should be closed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)