Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman–Persian Wars

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, July 20, 2008 [1].

Roman–Persian Wars

Nominator(s): Yannismarou (talk)

I started working on this article some time ago; I liked the narration but the structure and the referencing needed improvements. During the last two months, the article went through a successful MILHIST A-Class review, and a successful GA review. It has been also peer-reviewed by the MILHIST project. I would like to point out the critical approaches and contributions of Zburh, and Septentrionalis. Some of Zburh's insightful interventions in the article's talk page constitute top-class reviews. Cplakidas also made useful contributions during the A-Class review. I am grateful to Dank55 and Ceoil who copy-edited the article. I almost forgot to thank Giorgo who devoted time to translate Julian's map. And—how stupid I am—I forgot to thank Talessman who created the Seleucid Empire's map. I thought it was the right time for this nomination. Yannismarou (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but with the disclaimer that I did a long copyedit during GA and a short one just now, covering everything except the the Strategy section (which I'll do later), images and endsections. (I'm done with Strategies now.) "to recognize de facto Roman protectorate" doesn't sound right to me (would "a de facto Roman protectorate" be better?), but I'm not a historian. I'm not sure what "Iranian heartland" means, although I'm not sure what would be better; perhaps "Iranian plateau". "which must have impressed the Sassanids"...does the source say they were impressed? Lakhmids are described differently in the Wikipedia article on them; this article said they constituted border units set up to oppose the Romans, so I changed the wording to something neutral, and perhaps you want to check your sources on this. In the last paragraph of the Strategies section: "was gone" how? (see Lakhmids). "comparable to Palmyra" how? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, "to recognize de facto..." was a change I made a few days ago. On second thoughts, "a de facto" is more correct. ( Ceoil sláinte 22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to all the sources, th Lakhmids most of the time were allies of the Persians against the Romans. I added something. Well, the Lakhmids were finally absorbed by the Sassanids. I'll make that clear.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Palmyra aided the Romans around 260 AD, and that is shy Frye makes this comparison. Nevertheless, reading the sentence again, I am not sure if such a comparison in this context is helpful for the reader. After all, Palmyra's role is analyzed in the proper section. So, I rephrased a bit.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Must have impressed". Yes, that is what the source (Frye) says.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, he had to put it like that to make it clear he was stating his own conclusion, but we're using him as a source, and you are willing to rely on his judgment, and we cite him at the end of the sentence, so to avoid the appearance of "hearsay", I changed it to "impressed". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Irania heartland": Well, I think that indeed Iranian plateau is what the sources mean here.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With the disclaimer of being invloved with the copyedit. I've read this many times now, and is another fine effort by Yannismarou, easily up there with his best work. ( Ceoil sláinte 23:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was not involved in the editing of the article, but after reading through I found it meets the criteria. Well written, fully referenced, comprehensive and complemented by good images. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; excellent, well written, and well referenced. Just a minor note; a lot of the refs contain a "*" followed by an alternate source (eg. Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica, IX, 2
    * Greatrex-Lieu (2002), II, 86). Should that be a bullet point? If yes, please fix like this: [2] (and if no, please revert me). Otherwise, well done! —Giggy 09:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, it is a technique for grouping multiple citations. So, when I want to cite something, and I want to mention more than one citations, I group them in primary and secondary sources, using the * symbol. Multiple primary or secondary sources are then separated with the use of a simple ;. It is a technique I "stole" from Sandy (see Tourette syndrome), then implemented in El Greco, and then I modified a bit, since in this article I had to use both primary and secondary sources. I do not think that a bullet is helpful in the citations' section. I hope I clarified a bit my intentions!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, OK, well thanks for reverting. :-) My support stands, and good luck! —Giggy 10:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to be remembered, Yannis :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Julian's map is a translation of a German wiki map. It was done by User:Giorgos Tzimas. There are no copyright problems obviously. Justinian's map (its German creator is the same with Julian's map) works fine as it is IMO with the provided caption. Unfortunately, I Photoshop work is not my expertise, and, although fellow users have tried to learn me things, it seems that it is beyond my powers to absorb such knowledge! As far as the other two images are concerned, I do not see any copyright problems, but, if it is deemed necessary, I can search for another map or image to replace NE 500ad. After all, it is not a key map for the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced NE 500ad with a map of 477.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak oppose just starting to read this - interesting choice of topic. It is promising bu the prose is quite awkward in places. I don't think it is far off but definitely needs a little massaging. I will note issues below and change any very straightforward issues. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, you make a lot of good points. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
The last of these wars seemed to have shattered this pattern - why not just 'shattered'?
This is just a guess, but I'm wondering if this is the same issue as I had above with "must have been"; that is, the source is using "seemed to" to draw attention to this as a personal conclusion, but we shouldn't be saying it like that. Yannismarou, is this what's going on? If so, do you trust this source's conclusion? If so, then make sure there's a citation immediately following (just as if it had been a quote), and change it as Casliber suggests, to "shattered". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trust my sources, and I'll fix it, if I ever find the phrase! Just allow me to make a comment: Sometimes, especially when we speak about historical events of the past, we're obliged to make hypotheses. Therefore, we cannot be absolutely sure, and that is why expressions like this one are often used in secondary sources as well. And it is not be default something bad, at least IMO. The whole Aspasia article I rewrote is nothing more than a series of hypotheses. And it is inevitable, because nothing is sure about her! Nothing! In this particular case, "seemed to" can indeed go, because it is fact that the last war of Khosrau against Heraclius shattered the pattern; but this is not always the case.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I found it and it is in the lead! Now that I know what I am speaking about, I think that the basic reason Zbuhr used "seemed to have shattered" is again because at the end of the war territorial inertia returned! During the 30 years of the war, territories changed hands indeed very often (something not usual during the previous wars), but at the end of the war territorial status quo ante bellum was restored. So, again, territorial inertia was reaffirmed despite the previous "territorial mobility." So, thinking again, I am not sure at all about removing "seemed to" as Casliber proposes. I believe Zbuhr's wording reflects better historical reality. "Seemed to" indicates successfully this meaning of "yes, we almost got there, but ... "--Yannismarou (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..with Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupying huge swathes of Roman territory for many years, bringing the Roman Empire to the brink of destruction. - following on - presumably the occuation happened after the war? In which case a 'then' or 'after' rather than with.
No, actually it happened duriing the war; this is the issue here.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - cool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Historical background, surely the first sentence can be written without resorting to a direct quote?
An easier-to-digest quote might be better (most readers won't know what "polities" are), but there are very few quotes in this article. People seem to prefer having a few quotes in most FAs, in part because it establishes an atmosphere that readers and writers of popularized history find appealing, and in part because academic writing is a little like sports journalism...it's okay to have a little "color commentary" and to let the "players" say things in their own words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just 2 or 3 long quotes in the article. And we speak about me, a person addicted to quotes! I do not think this one is so bad, and introduces nicely the reader to the subject. So, please, spare me this one quote! Seriously, now, I agree with Dank's comment above.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::conducted unsuccessful negotiations --> 'negotiated unsuccessfully':::Agreed, fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)

Roman–Parthian contact was restored when Lucullus invaded Southern Armenia, and defeated Tigranes in 69 BC, but again no definite agreement was made - (1) what sort of contact, a friendly one? (2) if it occurred after Lucullus invaded have 'after' here instead of 'when' (3) 'formal agreement' or would that be a treaty?
It was friendly in the beginning. Parthians and Romans were to agree to attack Armenia. Lucullus felt however that the Parthians were not fulfilling their promises, and decided to attack them. But this never actually happened, and no further negotiations or skrimishes between the two sides took place until Pompeius' time. I admit it needs some rephrasing.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it is clearer now.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::but their army was caught in an ambush near Antigonea by the Romans. --> erm, 'and defeated' 'driven back'? or something should go on the end here?

"Driven back" per the sources. Fixed.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Parthians made no move.. - not an expression I would use with an army or nation over years. Needs to be rephrased. Military made no offensives, though that is clunky too but you get the idea.
Well, I really don't know how to rephrase that, not even if I should. The meaning is what the sentence says: The Parthians were friendly towards Pompey, but actively took no sides during the Roman civil war. They made no move, not just military offensives but neither providing indirect support (diplomatically let's say) to Pompey. This happened with a Pompeian general only after Pompey was killed.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "The Parthians were neutral during...", will that work? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - good one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm ... Maybe ... Actually the meaning is that they remained inactive. They liked Pompey but they did not actively helped him. So, yes, until Pompey's death they remained neutral, having some contacts with the Pompeians nevertheless and probably hoping that they win.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
prepared a campaign against Parthia - prepared sounds odd with a noun, like preparing a cake. 'Prepared to invade'?
Strategies and plans of attack and defense can be prepared; preparing a campaign sounds parallel to these to me, but I'll change it if you like. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After that defeat, the Parthians invaded Roman territory in 40 BC in conjunction with Quintus Labienus, a Roman erstwhile supporter of Brutus and Cassius - the flow of this is awkward (the Roman erstwhile??), how about 'After that defeat, the Parthians invaded Roman territory in 40 BC in conjunction with the Roman Quintus Labienus, an erstwhile supporter of Brutus and Cassius'
Fixed, and substituted for "erstwhile"...ick. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)

::they swiftly overran Syria, defeated Roman forces in the province, and advanced into Judaea, - how about 'they swiftly overran the Roman province of Syria, and advanced into Judaea,'

Sounds great to me...Yannismarou? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
The meaning is the same in both cases. So, no problem!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::the whole of the Roman East seemed to be either in Parthian hands or on the point of capture. - could be reworded 'the whole of the Roman East seemed to be either in or about to fall into Parthian hands.'

Fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::was soon to bring about a revival of Roman strength --> 'soon revived Roman strength' or something similar

Yep, fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following year Avidius Cassius began an invasion of Mesopotamia --> 'The following year Avidius Cassius invaded Mesopotamia'
Agreed. Fixed.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:: In 195–197 another Roman offensive under the Emperor Septimius Severus led to the Roman acquisition of northern Mesopotamia, - needs a comma after the bolded bit, or you can place the bolded bit after 'Mesopotamia' - either is good.

Added comma. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
After a brief period of peace during Diocletian's early reign, --> 'After a brief period of peace early in Diocletian's reign,'
Nice one, fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Khosrau I was defeated by death early the next year.. ..umm..huh?
Again, history is a little bit like sports. An important figure won many victories on the battle field and was only finally defeated by death, as are we all. Historical narrative always runs the risk of "then this happened, then this happened" (which this article suffers a bit of IMO), which should ideally be broken up with occasional observations about the commonalities of life. Feel free to rephrase. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have to get off the keyboard for a bit. Will come back soon. I do think this is doable and will get over the line this time but there are some odd phrasings that need addressing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for you insightful comments, and the additional copy-editing you offer at the same time! I'll try to do my best to responf to the issues you raised, hoping that I'll also have Dank55 most valuable assistance, who is much more capable than me on prose issues.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to do alot myself. I think it won't be too hard. as I said, if I have inadvertently changed meaning, please change back or fix meaning :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Any way you can replace current ref 52, the Justinian article from Encyclopedia Britannica? It looks odd for a general encyclopedia to cite another general encyclopedia as a source.
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm ... I am not sure about removing. Britannica, yes, is another general encyclopedia but of high quality. I do not see why it is a problem to cite it. But I added an additional secondary source, which is definitely specialized: Greatrex-Lieu. I hope it is fine now.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its probably best if you remove the EB ref altogether, Yannis, if you have another source to hand. ( Ceoil sláinte 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, done.--Yannismarou (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, incorrect hyphens instead of endashes throughout the citations on page ranges. I'll put in a request for User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix them, but it misses Roman numerals, so they will all need to be checked manually after Brighterorange goes through. I also saw WP:PUNC, logical punctuation errors, so you might want to ask User:Epbr123 to run through the article. I also see copyedit needs: " ... Roman sources reveal a long-standing prejudices ..." In the "Strategies and military tactics" section, there is text squeezed between an image and the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the page ranges, and fixed some other typos I saw, including this "a" in the Assessment section. Removed the image so that the text "breathes".--Yannismarou (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—The writing needs to be improved. This is such an interesting topic, and after a thorough clean-up of the prose will be a proud addition to our featured content**. Try to read it as though a newbie to it, and identify ambiguities, over-elaborate structures, and redundancies. Often there's an elegant cadence in the writing, but it turns to porridge when you examine it. I've gone through the lead to exemplify the task at hand thoughout the article.
    • "made it increasingly difficult for either side to make territorial gains unless they effectively incapacitated their opponent's armies. The robust organization of both empires in addition to their well-matched military capabilities lead to a stalemate in which either side was only rarely able to do so." To do what? It's too far after "to make territorial gains" for the readers to remember. What about "to gain territory" anyway, which is simpler. "Lead" is on the periodic table as an element. Don't confuse with "read".
    • The occupation of ...
    • "Occupation of enemy territory was usually highly localized or extremely brief and almost invariably reversed when peace was concluded, if not before." Needs a boundary: "... was usually highly localized, or extremely brief and almost invariably reversed when peace was concluded, if not before." Or does the comma go after "brief"? Add "was" after "almost". Is occupation reversed? (Awkard).
    • Long winding snake: "Durable cessions of lands in the border zone were made in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD, but these were limited in extent and were the result not of seizure by force but of negotiations in which a ruler had been personally placed in a difficult position which induced him to make concessions." These "duration cessions of land"—were they by both sides at various times? Remove "these"? "which ... which". Needs splitting, possibly with a semicolon, and simplification.
    • The old "noun plus -ing" urchin, preceded by "with" as a connector: "The last of these wars seemed to have shattered this pattern of territorial inertia, with Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupying huge swathes of Roman territory for many years, bringing the Roman Empire to the brink of destruction." See these exercises in avoiding it; you're aided here by the length of the sentence—split it to recast yourselves out of the ungrammatical structure.
    • Same issue again: "However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius resulted in the Romans regaining all their losses in a final peace settlement." Here, just an apostrophe will do the trick—Romans'. Purists would say "all of"; maybe.
    • Why the W in the title and the main text? Perhaps it's standard, but teach me, can you?
    • Alarming number of red links in the infobox; can't you stubbify some or most of them?
      • Some maybe, although not an easy task. Most of these generals' names appear rarely in sources. Sometimes only in the battle in question and that's it. I could un-red them, but I am not sure though; I never regarded red-linking as a flaw for an article, especially when this red-linking does not occur in the main text.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you see a three beautiful sentences at the end of the lead. Make it all like that?

Please ping me when it's ready. I look forward to it. Tony (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your suggestions. I'll try to do my best, although Dank, Ceoil and Casliber have already copy-edited the article. But I think that of course there is room for improvement.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Greco" isn't a word, it should be a hyphen. I'm sorry, I'm on a wikibreak; perhaps Ceoil, Casliber or Sept can help. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok! I'll do my best, and I'll see if I can find further assistance.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roman–Persian_Wars&oldid=1138470236"