Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Roman–Parthian War of 58–63

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roman–Parthian War of 58–63

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman%E2%80%93Parthian_War_of_58%E2%80%9363/}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roman%E2%80%93Parthian_War_of_58%E2%80%9363/}}

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, following a GAN and a Peer Review I feel it is as complete as it can get. IMO, it is comprehensive and well-cited, and I have used or read all the major sources that make reference to the war that I could find (not many of them, unfortunately). Any comments however would be most welcome. Constantine ✍ 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know it is quite common even in Roman/Greek A/FA articles, but what is the rationale for using primary sources/chronicles or ancient historians as sources? Why are they exempt from the general reccmmendation against relying on them, especically as moedern histroians can read the chronicles and rework them into modern works in conjunction with archaeological material etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the essential problem is a paucity of sources: there are only two accounts (AFAIK) of the war in any detail, namely Tacitus and Goldsworthy's retelling of Tacitus. So by default, Tacitus is the main source, and I preferred to link to him directly when describing events and such like, which do not need a scholar's interpretation. I have used Goldsworthy and others whenever a comment is made on the basis of Tacitus' narrative, or when additional info was needed. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe this is good enough for A support, but needs more work before it will reach FA. Therefore, comments:
  • "This conflict was the first direct confrontation of Parthia with the Romans since Crassus' disastrous expedition and Mark Antony's campaigns a century earlier,..." - "of Parthia..." should be "between Parthia..."
  • I believe that your references to 'auxiliaries units' would scan better as 'units of auxiliaries'
  • "His behavior towards his subjects, however, was even worse than before," - note commas. I hesitate to point out that you need more commas as the rest of your text is overflowing with them - see later comments.
  • ", with propraetorial and later proconsular authority (imperium).[8]" The meaning of imperium in this context could bear some explaining like "known as..." Parentheses are generally considered weak, stylistically.
  • "and even engaged in operations against those Armenians whom he deemed were loyal to Rome.[14]"
  • "Tension mounted, and finally, in the early spring of 58, war broke out." Remove first comma.
  • Please link "auxiliary cavalry alae" and check for underlinking elsewhere. This is a severe problem. Link terms as simple as legion and everything from there up in terms of complexity / familiarity to the uninformed.
  • "spread their panic amongst the other garrisons.[15]" Which other garrisons?
  • "Despite this misadventure, Corbulo was now ready, having drilled his army for two years." should read "Having drilled his army for two years Corbulo, despite this misadventure, was ready." In general I would recommend trimming down the number of commas you're using: sometimes they just overcomplicate. For example: "During that time, a plot to murder Corbulo, in which several Armenian nobles who had joined the Roman camp were implicated, was uncovered and suppressed.[26]" Ouch.
  • "Corbulo tried to protect the pro-Roman Armenian settlements from attack, and in turn retaliated against the Parthians' supporters." In turn or simultaneously?
  • "Adiabenian contingent" who were the Adaibenian? In general, massive underlinking.
  • Check caption: "the formed a very effective force " -> "they..."
  • Sorry about my map obsession, but you have an Armenian and Parthian map - would a Roman empire map not round things out nicely? Ouch, that Parthian map is an eyesore. Otherwise images good to excellent in quality and sufficient in quantity.
  • Improves towards the end.
  • Did I mention that the article needs lots more links? Really, it's important.
Overall, good work and good luck with taking it further. Dhatfield (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a thorough going-through. The commas and complicated sentence structure are due to the fact that I am a native Greek speaker, and the Greek language loves paragraph-long sentences... I always have to go back and chop sentences up afterwards... As for the underlinking, you are quite right, some got off... However, on the Adiabenians in particular I thought it was clear that they are the inhabitants of Adiabene, mentioned just before. Apparently not... What exactly do you mean by "Improves towards the end."? What would you like to see there? As for maps, before going anywhere near a FAC, I'll definitively try to find some better ones. Thanks again, Constantine ✍ 11:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I 'skimmed' the Adiabenians: my mistake. By "Improves towards the end", I meant that the article and prose, in general, improves further into the article. Be careful about 'chopping' too much: some elegant, longer sentences can read well. Not a big issue, but I'd suggest looking closer at the beginning for places to improve. Again, good job. Dhatfield (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What I'd like to see: 1) an image in the infobox, 2) a map of troop movements, and a map with clearly color-labeled states that were the primary participant in the conflict 3) more ilinks, per WP:BTW: from the lead: client state, Emperor, Roman forces, series of revolts (if red linked, be it - it seems a notable event) 4) Battle of Rhandeia deserves its own article (it is currently a redirect to a section of the war article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) & 2) will most probably be one and the same. I'd like to find some representation of Tiridates to put in, but I can't find a suitably licensed one. I may have the movements map by tomorrow. 3) will be addressed, but 4) I am not so sure of. As said, Tacitus is our main source, and what he has to say about Rhandeia is pretty much what is stated here. Constantine ✍ 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Roman–Parthian_War_of_58–63&oldid=1089907490"