Talk:Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have started my review by going through the article and making revisions which I believe improve the article, and which are easier for me to do myself than to explain!

The major things I have done are:

1) Restructuring - I have tried to group the group the text into sections and sub-sections which give more coherence to the narrative, divide the conflict into definite phases, and correspond to other articles on wars (particularly "Background" and "Significance").

2) Images - WP:MOS requires that images directly under headings are aligned to the right, and that text should not be 'sandwiched' between two images. Most of the changes I made are to alter the layout of the article to comply with these requirements.

3) Quotations - Short quotations should be within the body of the text. I have therefore collapsed two short quotations into the text.

4) Notes - I have tried (but not yet finished) to remove footnotes from the references, and into a separate system.

I have now finished this.

More review to follow! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work and for reviewing :). I didn't know that Images had to be on the right. Thanks :D DemonicInfluence (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK more review points, in no particular order:

• References - All page ranges in citations should use the n-dash (–) ( & ndash ; ), and not the hyphen (-). Ideally, citations should read: "Jones, p. 101." (two full-stops), but I'm not going to deny the article GA on that basis; it might be needed for later reviews though.
  • I think I've got all of these.
• Extra references - I've put some tags in a few places where I think a specific citation is needed to back up the point. There aren't many though - the article is generally very well referenced.
  • I think I addressed all of these with citations
• Requests for more info/clarification - I've inserted visible double asterisks (**) into the text at points where I think more information is needed, or clarification of the point. You can use the "find" function on your browser to locate these points; the details of each request are in hidden comments at that point in the text. Once the points have been addressed, you can delete the hidden text and asterisks.
  • I've responded to all these asterisks. Most of them I commented, but some I edited the article to make more clear as per the asterisk. I removed the ones that I believe I have clarified
    • I've tidied up most of the rest. It's strange about the Cappadocia/Issus thing - is there anything more known about the date of that battle? And was Shahrbaraz definitely the Sassanid commander? I've added a new comment in the text at this point.
      • I'll just respond to that comment here because it's just one comment. Oman, Kaegi, DFL, Norwich, and Ostrogorsky all say that it was in 622 against Shahrbaraz. Some of thee sources have a few more details about the maneuvering, but not on the actual location of the battle, which is stated as somewhere between Issus and Cappadocia. I'm just as confused as you why this is named the Battle of Issus.
        • Let's just leave it vague then.
• Maps at the end - there are two sets of images at the end of the article which duplicate each other. I think you should chose one or the other (the 630 AD map, or the double 626/650 map); both aren't needed. I have temporarily placed one of the maps into hidden text.
  • I feel like they aren't quite the same because the 626/650 both show the the Byzantines in a weakened state, but the 630 map shows the Byzantines recovered, at least territorially. However, I'm don't care that much about this.
    • Would it be possible to make a double image with 630 and 650 maps? I'll give it a go.
      • Thanks :D
• Quotation - there is a great quotation from Heraclius giving Khosrau an ultimatum - but the text of the article does not mention the ultimatum - which is a shame. I have placed the quote in hidden text until this is resolved.
  • I added a small part in the text to facilitate the transition.
• Dubious point - I have tagged one sentence as dubious: "These remaining lands were thoroughly impoverished by frequent attacks, marking the transition from classical urban civilization to a more rural, medieval form of society." Mu understanding is that this transition was well underway centuries before. However, if there is a reference which backs up this point, then fair enough.
  • I removed this. It was there in the first place because I had copied from the aftermath section of the Roman-Persian Wars, which is a FA.

I think that's it for now. I still need to check the LEAD more carefully, but I don't foresee too many problems. Overall, I thought that this was an excellent article, well-written, well-presented and especially well-referenced. It was also a conflict I knew next-to-nothing about, and a pleasure to read about, as a good Wikipedia article should be! If the above points are addressed, I don't see that there will be any problems in passing the article for GA.

Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I addressed the concerns noted above :) DemonicInfluence (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Article passed! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the review :)DemonicInfluence (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)