Talk:Arsaces I of Parthia/GA2
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: T8612 (talk · contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have a few improvements to make:
- The tree should feature the dates of reigns of the kings, and their wives and siblings (when known).
- I think a bit of clarification on his title is needed. I tried to add this in the lede, but I don't find it satisfying. He was the founder of Parthia, but it wasn't the Parthian Empire yet. So it should be said that he founded what would become the Parthian Empire (who was the first Parthian king to take the title King of Kings?). In the infobox, it is written "King of the Arsacid dynasty", then in the text "Tiridates succeeded him as king of the Arsacids", but the dynasty was not a kingdom, it should be king of Parthia. Do we have the exact title he used?
- Do we have a map of Parthia? The one in the article doesn't really detail the region. A map with the cities mentioned in the article would be ideal. T8612 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612:
- Done.
- Not sure I get it? I mean, it was a kingdom that Arsaces I created? And it first later became an empire under Mithridates I, who assumed the title of king of kings. I did this btw [1]
- Ok, that's fine, but I'm still bothered by his title in the infobox, shouldn't it be "King of Parthia"? idem for "king of the Arsacid dynasty". T8612 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- We don't unfortunately. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Too bad.
- I've expanded the lede a bit to mention the lack of source and the doubts about his existence, since it is likely that older books mention him as mythical. This info should therefore be mentioned in the lede. T8612 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: Well it could be either, I just prefer Arsacid dynasty since its more accurate/less misleading, due to Arsaces' kingdom composing not only of the region/province of Parthia but also the neighboring Hyrcania. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've expanded the tree and added colours, tell me if that's ok. T8612 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: Yes it's nice, thanks. No matter what I tried I struggled to figure how to put colors in the family tree. Is there anything else to improve? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's because you added spaces in the code. Everything is fine, I'm going to promote it. The article is now more than twice the size of the one you first nominated. It was worth improving it. T8612 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: Yes it's nice, thanks. No matter what I tried I struggled to figure how to put colors in the family tree. Is there anything else to improve? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've expanded the tree and added colours, tell me if that's ok. T8612 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: Well it could be either, I just prefer Arsacid dynasty since its more accurate/less misleading, due to Arsaces' kingdom composing not only of the region/province of Parthia but also the neighboring Hyrcania. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Status: passed. Great job. T8612 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, thank you very much! --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)