Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sassanid Empire/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 14:11, 14 May 2008.
Sassanid Empire edit
Review commentary edit
- Notified author and all WikiProjects listed on the talk page. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is substantially undersourced. Many paragraphs have no citations at all. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are some uncited paragraphs and sections, but, in general, it is a comprehensive and well-written article. I think it can be easily saved; it would be a pity to lose the star. In the legacy section there is an external jump ("Today there are around 70,000 Parsis in India. [4]") needing fixing.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. As an overview article most of the uncited material is no doubt very basic to the study of the period & not likely to be challenged, but someone with a good book should sprinkle page refs around. At least in the later sections, some obvious links are missing, which in an article like this is on the whole more serious. I will try to add some myself. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are some uncited paragraphs and sections, but, in general, it is a comprehensive and well-written article. I think it can be easily saved; it would be a pity to lose the star. In the legacy section there is an external jump ("Today there are around 70,000 Parsis in India. [4]") needing fixing.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refmongering may help assuage editors who simply look for more little numbers to help them believe stuff is not made up, but more important is the quality of references. I am disturbed that some standard works are missing, not least the important of which is the Cambridge History of Iran (cited indifferently inlined), while other fluffy and non-scholarly works are included. I like this article: well-written, well-organised and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am largely serene about the current footnoting; there is no need to footnote closely basic facts in a narrative structure. However, the References section does need to be improved in order to provide a better basis for credibility. Eusebeus (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Would benefit from further inline citations, particularly where potentially contentious claims are made (e.g. "probably copied", "died in (sic) grief", "too much of a melancholy character to achieve anything", etc.), or where sources are referred to without exact details (e.g. "It is said that...", "...is often compared to...", "the most well-known", etc.) There are some discrepancies in the prose, e.g. "Shapur II pursued a harsh religious policy...Shapur II was amicable towards Jews", which should be ironed out. "See also" and "External links" could be shortened easily as some links are repeated. DrKiernan (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. I've just added some fact tags. A quick look at the history shows that exactly zero references or citations have been added in that time, and indeed that any change has been minimal in the extreme. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]