control doesn’t lead where you would expect it to.
Shapur III's reign was largely uneventful… - I would split this sentence to help make it easily readable, as it is at the start of the article, e.g. by stopping the first sentence at the semicolon.
Shapur III is notable for having a rock relief carved at Taq-e Bostan, depicting a scene… - to improve the prose I would amend this to ‘A rock relief carved at Taq-e Bostan depicts Shapur and his father.’, unless the rock relief is all what he is notable for.
Ops, missed this bit. Well, the Taq-e Bostan relief is certainly his most notable achievement, so I guess you could say that? Other than that he isn't really known for much else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the infobox is not discussed, and could be. (Consider using this resource, pp 41, 42, 74-76).
The image shows a leopard (not a lion) and the man depicted may not be Shapur III (according to p. 75 in the source listed in the previous comment). The caption needs to be amended accordingly.
I've changed it to leopard. Regarding whether this may or may not be Shapur III, the more recent The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity considers it to be him [1] --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but it's still worth mentioning that at least one source has doubts about the man's identity. After all, some readers might not trust The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity as far as they could throw it... Amitchell125 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the terms in the source are pretty foreign to me, so I didn't really understand much, even after using a dictionary. I've added what I could, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you need it, but as some of the text uses different characters, you might add the template {{SpecialChars|fix=Help:Special characters#Middle Persian}}.
I'm not sure I understand this. I've linked it, but the term is pretty legit, being used in academic circles and such (e.g. "Sasanian Iran and its northeastern frontier", "Military and Society in Sasanian Iran")
Shahbazi states that Shapur II and Ardashir II were half-brothers and that Ardashir ruled for four years. I think this information should be included.
The article states that Ardashir was murdered, but Shahbazi states “Ardašīr died or was deposed”, and there is no mention that he was murdered. The account given by al-Tabari seems to differ from the article in the same way.
Ardashir was later killed in 383 by the Iranian nobility. - again, the sources appear to disagree with the article. Pourshariati on p. 57 states “For “the people then deposed him of power.”, which is logical if the ‘great men’ had been killed previously.
You need to improve the prose of ... in the opinion of the nobility, this was… - perhaps by amending it to ‘...to the nobility this was…’.
He had allowed the Arsacid dynasty to continue ruling Armenia… - it’s not clear who is being referred to here.
In 383/4… and ...in 389/90. - does this mean during both years, or either one year or the other?
...war did not once erupt once again; instead, the two powers… - I would amend this to something like ‘...a war was averted when the two powers…’.
In the third paragraph the following words are imo redundant and can be removed: ... into two areas. / boundary in The boundary line… / ...which proved that Rome was the deputy of Iran.
When this treaty exactly took place is unsure; according to the majority of scholars it took place in… - I would reduce this to ‘Most scholars believe the treaty was made in 387…’.
Both empires also agreed that they were obligated to cooperate in the defense of the Caucasus against nomadic attacks. The Romans helped in the defense of the Caucasus by paying the Iranians roughly 500 lbs (226 kg) of gold at irregular intervals. - can be reduced to ‘Both sides to cooperate in the defense of the Caucasus, with the Romans agreeing to pay the Iranians roughly 500 lbs (226 kg) of gold at irregular intervals’.
... 500 lbs (226 kg) of gold at irregular intervals. - Ref 9 (Payne) doesn’t appear to verify the text here.
According to a seal found in present-day Pakistan, the Sasanian diplomat who was part of the negotiations was supposedly a certain Yazdan-Friy-Shabuhr. - this is going off topic in my opinion.
I dunno, I feel like it's alright to have considering that compared to the Romans, there are not that many known figures in the Sasanian era besides the king. I find it relevant and interesting to see some of the kings men having a role every now and then, so it doesn't look like the king is running the country on his own. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but at present ... supposedly a certain Yazdan-Friy-Shabuhr... sounds as if we are talking about some random guy walking down a street. It seems to be the case that he was the Sasanian ambassador, who arrived to announce the accession of Shapur III to the Romans. I would 'big him up' with stuff like this. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... inscription alxanno in order to display… - I would amend this to ‘... inscription alxanno, added to display…’.
Kabul had since the 360s been a center of coin manufacture in order to combat the Huns, which thus meant that the loss of the city was a major blow to Shapur III. - sounds better as ‘The loss of the city was a major blow, as it had been a center of coin manufacture since the 360s.’.
...after reigning a little more than five years. - ‘...after reigning for five years.’.
Coinage
headgear doesn’t link to where you would expect it to.
... the administrative program for Sasanian coinage substantially changed. - can you clarify what administrative program means?
...is one of the few… - ‘...was on…’ is better.
Consider replacing ...of Shapur III on his coins… with ‘...he used…’.
The link to gold coin doesn’t lead to where you expect it to, and I would unlink it.
The chapter stated in Ref 14 (Shayegan) appears to have an issue, as the same online chapter (here) doesn’t have the same range of pages as given in the article. Is the online version incorrect?
There is no evidence that George Rawlinson was an illustrator, the image only comes from his book.
The images look very small as they are. I would amend the gallery style using <gallery mode=packed heights=150px style="text-align:center"> File:Taq-e Bostan - High-relief Shapur II and Shapur III.jpg|Relief of Shapur III (left) and Shapur II (right).{{sfn|Canepa|2013|p=870}} File:ShapurIII.jpg|Drawing of the relief by [[George Rawlinson]]. File:Taq-e Bostan - Pahlavi writing.jpg|[[Inscriptional Pahlavi]] text near the sculptures. </gallery>.
The paragraph needs to be copy edited to improve the English. An example - rock relief/relief is mentioned too many times; the beginning of the first sentence could be cut to ‘Shapur ordered…’, etc..
You should amend both sources by adding 'ref=none', to remove the warnings (you may not be able to see them, but others can), I'll do it if you are not clear.
All four paragraphs in the lead section start in the same way—I would amend Shapur III's reign was largely uneventful... to 'His reign was largely uneventful...'; and the 2nd and 3rd paragraph could do with being combined, again with Shapur III is notable for... being replaced with 'He is notable for...'. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the Reign section says Shapur III five times, which is excessive. I would (in order) say Shapur III, his son, Shapur III, he and Shapur. Similarly, '...seized Kabul from him...' sounds better than ...seized Kabul from Shapur III.... Amitchell125 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the last paragraph of the section, I would consider amending Shapur III died in 388, after reigning for five years. He died ... to 'The king died in 388, after reigning for five years. He was killed...'. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
