Jump to content

Talk:Yazdegerd II/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 15:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some bold copy edits. Please feel free to flag up anything you are not happy with.

  • The coin images also need 3D licences. Putting {{PD-old-100}} and {{PD-US}} on both should do it.
  • Vartanantz.jpg needs a USPD tag.
  • Could the sources go in alphabetical order.
  • Caption: "battle of Avarayr". Upper case B.
  • "After his wars against the Hephthalites" Do we know how they ended? Who won? Was there a treaty?
  • "who had a uneasy relationship with the aristocracy" This is the third time the article says more or less the same thing. It gets a bit repetitive. Maybe take the first two sentences of "War" and put them here?
  • "Indeed, according to McDonough, the Zoroastrian faith was presumably a "test of personal loyalty" for Yazdegerd II." I'm not sure about "presumably". Does McDonough say that it was a "test of personal loyalty" or not?
  • Why is McDonough not a source?
  • Who wrote "test of personal loyalty"? Currently it is cited to Sauer.

That's from a first run through. Could you have a look at these? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We just know that Yazdegerd II managed to secure the eastern portion of his empire from the Hephthalite threat (which I've now added), as sources unfortunately don't into detail regarding that event. Also, in the source by Saur, he is quoting something said by McDonough; "Zoroastrian belief, as McDonough points out, may have been a 'test of personal loyalty' for Yazdegerd." Btw, I'm not sure I get what you mean regarding the first two sentences part. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It is looking good.
  • Sources: You have "Shahbazi, A. Shapur" and "Shapur Shahbazi, A." Could you standardise.
  • Sources: Shahbazi (2005) and Shahbazi (2018) are not cited as sources. So they should be deleted or, if appropriate, moved to a 'Further reading' section.
  • Sources: The three Shahbazi works are in date order, but it should be with the earliest published work first.
  • McDonough: Thank you, I understand now. In which case could you briefly explain who McDonough is? Either inline with something like 'modern historian S. McDonough ...' or more fully as a footnote.
  • McDonough quote: Looking at the source for this I feel that your paraphrasing may be a little misleading. Would you object to changing "presumably" to 'perhaps' or something similar?
  • The two sentences part: apologies if I was unclear. Under "Wars" you start your second paragraph with:

    Yazdegerd II, at the start of his reign, reportedly continued his father’s policies of appeasing the magnates. However, after some time, he turned away from these and started a policy of his own. When the magnates told him that his new policies had offended the people, he disagreed, saying that: "it is not correct for you to presume that the ways in which my father behaved towards you, maintaining you close to him, and bestowing upon you all that bounty, are incumbent upon all the kings that come after him ... each age has its own customs."

This, to my eye, has little to do with "Wars" and would, IMO, be better moved to the "Religious policy" section; either the first paragraph where you talk about "uneasy relationship with the aristocracy" or (IMO more appropriately) to the second paragraph where you mention "strengthening the royal centralisation of the bureaucracy, which demanded the cooperation of the aristocracy". I realise that this may entail a little rewriting.
Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done it. Also added a much needed personality section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HistoryofIran, Much improved. I especially like the "Personality" section. Happy to assess it as a Good Article. Nicely done and good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed