Wikipedia:Peer review/Darius I of Persia/archive1

Darius I of Persia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently jut re-written the entire article and would like to receive feedback on further improvements to bring this article to GA status.

Thanks, warrior 4321 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From a read through, here are some comments.

I don't think you need to mention the Encyclopedia Iranica in the lead as your source. If the statement is good enough to stand in the lead, you can put the source for it in a footnote.
"and that the decay and downfall" -- either get rid of the "that" or rephrase. If you drop the reference to the Encyclopedia Iranica the "that" will go fairly naturally.
"Darius is believed to have ascended the throne by assassinating the previous ruler Bardiya [...] and becoming crowned emperor the next morning." Poor phrasing again; you probably want a period followed by "He was crowned emperor the next morning"; the current phrasing pairs "assassinating" with "becoming" as the two steps by which he became emperor, which doesn't work.
Generally the prose needs work -- if I have time I will try to do a copyedit pass, but I think you need a good prose editor to work with you on this. I will point out some more examples, but not all as that would be timeconsuming.
If you mention the invasion of Greece in the lead I think you need to let the reader know that it was unsuccessful.
It may not be necessary for GA, but if you want to go further than GA I would suggest an initial paragraph or to to give the reader some historical context. I know little about this period, but here's an example of a couple of sentences of the type I mean: "By the early sixth century, the Medes were the dominant state in the area that is now Iran. In 550 BC, Cyrus the Great's victory over the Mede king Astyages marked the beginning of the Persian empire." Something like this would give a reader who knows nothing about the period a foothold to make sense of Darius's life.
You might also want to have a section discussing sources. You refer to Herodotus a lot, which is understandable; but Herodotus isn't a modern reliable source. You cite modern sources that discuss Herodotus, which is appropriate, but I think it would be useful for the reader to know a little about the interpretation. For an example of what I mean, take a look at the third paragraph of the "Background and sources" section of Offa of Mercia. The Behistun inscription is also a source in this sense and could be mentioned, along with the ancient historians. See also the sources section in First Persian invasion of Greece, for a more relevant example.
"According to the account of Herodotus, Ctesias, Trogus and Xenophon, Cambyses had left Patizeithes in charge of the kingdom" is confusing. The "and" between "Trogus" and "Xenophon" makes this impossible to parse. Are Herodotus, Ctesias, Trogus and Xenophon all historians? In that case it should be "accounts", but if so I'd avoid listing all the primary sources. The reader wants to know what happened, with just enough material promoted from footnote to narrative to give the reader a sense of the authority of each statement. So how about "all the contemporary sources agree that"? You could even eliminate the reference to the historians altogether, if this is uncontroversial. This is another place where a note on the sources would help; if you've explained who these historians are, then the reader will understand what the primary sources are for Darius's life, and they only need to be mentioned again if they conflict or there are some problems of interpretation.
"The Babylonian revolt was led by Nebuchadnezzar III had occurred" -- another example of illogical syntax. If you read the article aloud you'll find a lot of these.
A map would be useful for the campaigns.
The article on the First Persian invasion of Greece has quite a bit of good, sourced material in it. I think it's appropriate to have a "main" reference to that article, as you have; however, I think you could expand this section somewhat. If it's one of the most important events in Darius's life, as it seems to be, it could stand to be more than half a screenful.
Generally I think the article is a little short. Adding some of the material suggested above would help.

This isn't a really thorough review; I think there's a fair amount of work to do before GA. If you make the content changes and ping me on my talk page I will try to find time to do a copyedit pass and give you feedback on the changes you've made. Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am sorry it has taken me so long to review this. As promised, here are some suggestions for improvement.

First off I agree with all of the comments above (though the article has been edited since, so some of them no longer apply).
Commons has several images here which might be useful here too - closeups of the Behistun Inscription, etc.
There are several problems with references in the article - first off, the article needs more references in a few places, for example The inscription begins with a brief autobiography of Darius including his lineage, continues with a lengthy sequence narrating nineteen victorious to put down a year of rebellions after the death of his predecessor, and includes praise to Ahuramazda, the god of Zoroastrianism, whom Darius credits with his successes. The instruction has been instrumental in the decipherment of cuneiform script. has no ref(s). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
There are also places where sources should be identified in the text, for example Some modern historians consider that the person who ruled as Bardiya was no impostor but the real son of Cyrus, and also suspect that Darius may have killed Cambyses on the way back from Egypt.[7] should identify the modern historians.
Not all information is given in refs for sources that is needed. Encyclopedia articles are often signed by their authors - the article in Iranica on Darius identifies its author and this information must be included here too. Or this ref "Sélincourt, Aubrey (2002), The Histories, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0140449086" needs to say it is Herodotus' History and Selincourt is the translator. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Many people who are Jewish or Christian and have no idea about the history of Persia will still know Darius as he was the ruler who allowed the Jews to return from the Babylonian captivity and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Darius is mentioned in the Bible in several places). I would think this needs to be included if the article is to pass GAN.
The German article on Darius is featured - the table of contents there might give some ideas on how to organize / expand this. Here is my quick translation of the TOC there: 1) Primary sources 1.1) Persian 1.2) Greek 1.3) Bible 2) Youth 3) Rise to power 4) Early reign 4.1) Foreign policy 4.2) India 4.3) Libya and Egypt 4.4) Thrace and Scythia 4.5) Greece 5) Domestic policy 5.1) Administration and military 5.2) Business and society 5.3) Threats to internal peace 6) Religion polcies 7) Building activities 7.1) Susa 7.2) Persepolis 7.3) Pasargadae (not sure of the English name) 7.4) Egypt 7.5) Artistic and architectural developments in Darius' reign 8) Personal life 8.1) Family 8.2) The "Seven Persians" 9) Self-representation 10) Reception 11) Chronology
Section headers need to follow WP:HEAD, so "The Behistun Inscription" should just be "Behistun Inscription"
Units need to be given in both metric and English - the {{convert}} template is useful here

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]