Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–28

Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628

Hello. I've finally gotten some free time and I wish to get this article to FA class. From what I remember from last time, I still need some work, so I hope people can help me. Thanks DemonicInfluence (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

Hi DemonicInfluence, what kind of feedback are you looking for here? A few comments which were left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 identified areas of improvement before this goes to a FAC - have these been addressed? Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping people could help me find out what FA criterion specifically I'm missing and what I can do to correct them. Specifically if there is anything big I have omitted and formatting. I think most of the issues that were raised in the A-class review have been addressed, especially regarding images. However, I was unable to get anyone to copy-edit the page, so that might be an issue. Thanks. DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisfbnore

Consistency review of sources

Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books or not
Be consistent in how you abbreviate US states (compare "Conn" with "NY" and "VT"; should be "CT")
Ref 4, 35, 43, 83, 99, 136, 139, 141 and 145 are single-paged and need therefore be annotated with "p.", not "pp.", whilst ref 51 has a page range and needs therefore be annotated with "pp."
Be consistent in how many equal digits you include in page ranges (compare ref 118: Foss 1975, pp. 746–47 with ref 130: Gabriel 2002, pp. 282–283)
References without corresponding books in bibliography: Greatrex & Lieu 2002 and Haldon 1990
In the bibliography but with no citations: Speck 1984 and Treadgold 1997

I will complete a spotcheck and a close paraphrase check of this article later in this week, drop me a note on my talk if I haven't. Bw, Eisfbnore ^talk 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have all the locations because lots of them didn't give the location, as in they only said the publisher. I have removed them all so hopefully this is not an issue. I fixed all the "p" vs. "pp" issues and the digits issue. Thanks a bunch for helping DemonicInfluence (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DemonicInfluence, leaving out publisher locations is fine, as long as you do it consistently. As for the spotcheck, I have regrettably not access to any of the sources cited in the first section (will do from top to bottom), so I can't do a check there. Also, AFAIK, Google Books should only be linked to where the cited pages are viewable. I would therefore recommend you to remove the links without preview. --Eisfbnore ^talk 10:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

No dabs or dead external links (they're all to Google Books) here; regarding copyvio, the CSBot found nothing. Starting with the "Beginning of the conflict" section.

Ref 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16: I can't access the GBOOK pages
Ref 17: The source only supports the failure to stop the Perians, not the death of the Narses, but I presume that the Narses death is supported by ref 16 which I cannot access. Also, Kaegi says that Phocas' regime was "losing its reputation", whilst you say that its failure "ruined its prestige". Slightly different.

--Eisfbnore ^talk 11:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next section: Heraclius' rebellion.

Ref 17, 18 and 19 all check out
Ref 20, 16 and 21: I don't have access to the sources
Ref 22 checks out
Ref 23: GBOOKS preview does not include this page
Ref 24: The citation says that information is located at page 194, whilst the GBOOKS url sent me to page 226. Which is it?
Ref 25: checks out
Ref 26: I don't have access to the source
Ref 27: ditto
Ref 28, 22 and 29 all check out
Ref 30: Source says "regulation", you say "law"; also, the detail that new members of the church staff would not receive pay from the imperial fisc is important and should be included, IMHO
Ref 31 and 32: Google Books preview does not include these pages

--Eisfbnore ^talk 11:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next section: Persian ascendancy

Ref 17 checks out
Ref 33 and 35: same problem as for ref 24; the citations and the GB urls are disagreeing in what page numbers the info is located at.
Ref 34, 13, 35: GB preview at present not available
Ref 36: a small close paraphrase: Article says "During the first year of his reign, Heraclius attempted to make peace"; source says "He tried to make peace in the first year of his reign." The clause is different, but the phrase "the first year of his reign" is equal. Perhaps mention the year instead? Also, the source says "document" not "prove", which has a slightly different meaning. Third para: Article: "Early on, the Persians had forced the Byzantines to defend along two major fronts…". Source: "…the Persians compelled the Byzantines to maintain at least two major defensive groupings of troops." The phrase ordering is equal: "the Persians" - "force/compell" - "the Byzantines" - "defend/maintain" - "two major". Please reword.
Ref 37 checks out (excellent reword btw!)
Ref 38: Article: "…Shahin's troops managed to escape Priscus' encirclement…". Source: "Shāhīn and his troops managed to escape from the encirclement…". Needs rewording.
Ref 39: GB not available
Ref 40, 41 and 42 check out

Ref 43: GB not available

--Eisfbnore • talk 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed GB issue with refs 12,15,16, 24+33+34 (which was because in the google book for that there is an offset in the # of pages by google and the actual book, I deleted the GB link because it doesn't work anyways).
- GB links of Refs 13,23,31,32, 39(now 40), 43(now 44) do work for me. 14 was not linked. Ref 30 the source says that he issued a "Novel (law)" to ratify his regulation, so I just said law, but I added the part about fisc.
- Ref 38 (now 39), I've reworded. Ref 36, I've reworded the first part, the part about the document, I made it a quote about "conclusively proves." The part about two fronts, I've reworded. Also there was a hidden reference in that section that must have not parsed or something, which I've now fixed and it is now reference 37.
- I deleted the Bibliography reference to Spark. I'm not sure why I had it there in the first place o.o. The issue with Haldon was that the physical copy that I had borrowed was published in 1997, but the electronic copy was referenced on google as from 1990. Since I used both, what should I do?
- I went through the rest of the references for broken GB links and I believe I got them all. If you notice any more, I'll fix it.

Thanks a bunch DemonicInfluence (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks for rewording the sentences and removing the broken GB links. I am not sure what to do with the Haldon issue; is the text on the same pages in the two editions? If so, you can simply plug in |year=1997 |origyear=1990 in the citation and leave the notes as they are. I will continue the spotcheck tomorrow, btw. --Eisfbnore ^{• talk} 21:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure the text is one the same pages on both. I will check soon. The code you gave me doesn't work so I just changed to 1997. Thanks for your effort DemonicInfluence (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've discovered something strange. It seems that what pages I can view in the Google Books is different if I sign on and off of my Google Account. I'm not sure how to deal with this and linking. DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I ment to plug |year=1997 |origyear=1990 into the {{citation}} template under "Bibliography", not into the {{harvnb}} notes. I've now done that, and here's more spotchecking:

sect. Persian dominance

Ref 44, 45, 46 and 27: can't view the pages
Ref 47 checks out
Ref 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59: can't view the pages

--Eisfbnore • talk 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, the viewable pages on google books seems to differ between accounts and between having an account or not having an account. All the pages you listed work for me with an account, and some of them work without one too. DemonicInfluence (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Kaegi pages do work for me. Unfortunately I can't view pages in most of the other books, even if I'm logged in. Also, I do not mention that I can't view the pages to bother you, only to state that I cannot do a spotcheck there. --Eisfbnore • talk 14:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my lashing out. Thanks for helping DemonicInfluence (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sect. Byzantine resurgence

Ref 54, 60 and 82 check out fine
Ref 61: the source says nothing about the follis nor the plague

I'm now on summer vacation; the good news is that I have access to more GB pages here in the US than in Norway, the bad news is that I have limited time to do reviewing. Happy editing, Eisfbnore • talk 08:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- 61 says "the plague, together with so many other calamities..." The thing about the follis is on the previous reference, pg 95 (ref 60). Should I just cite it again along with ref 61? DemonicInfluence (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Usually I make simple edits myself, but WP has been down for a while so I'll type everything here then save it later when I can. I got down to Persian ascendancy.

"from 602–622": from 602 to 622. No dashes after "from" per ENDASH.
"After the end of the war": After the war.
"where they were just members of certain factions or as opponents of the Christians.": nonparallel; I'd go with "where they were just members of certain factions and where they were opponents of the Christians."
"soon afterward disappears": I recommend "disappears soon afterward".
"he made a law which limited the number of state-sponsored personnel of the Church in Constantinople by not paying new staff from the imperial fisc": consider rewording "made a law" and "by not paying". - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited all the things you have suggested. Thanks a bunch :) DemonicInfluence (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]