Talk:Alexandria Ariana/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting article on a topic that I feel could be of general interest. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Review
This is a stable and well-written article. 90.1% of authorship is by AirshipJungleman29. It is currently assessed as a B class article and was recently submitted to DYK.


 * The text is clear and concise.
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
 * The article is short compared with many Good Articles, with 597 words of readable prose, and no tables.
 * The lead is of appropriate length at 110 words.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 12.3% chance of copyright violation, which is therefore given as unlikely.
 * All accessible sources seem live.
 * Text seems to be neutral.
 * The image seems appropriate and relevant.
 * The image has appropriate licensing and creative commons tags.
 * Citations seem to be thorough.
 * References appear to be from reputable sources.
 * Spot checks confirm Cohen 2013 and Fraser 1998 are relevant.
 * The article contains some phrases that could be considered "weasel words" as per MOS:WEASEL but these are correctly sourced and appropriate for the topic.
 * "forment" should be "foment"
 * I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

Comments

 * Overall, the article is significantly shorter than others that I have reviewed. This gives scope to expand significantly with reliable sources.
 * There is a reliance on older references (only one is after 1970). A quick search of JSTOR shows that there are many more recent articles that mention Alexandria Ariana. I suggest including some of these.
 * There may also be some useful books, such as Fraser's Cities of Alexander the Great from 1996.
 * The lead mentions Alexandria in Aria, but this seems not explicitly sourced in the body. Please can you include that. For example, Tarn's 2003 book Alexander the Great: Volume 2, Sources and Studies conflates Herat and Alexandria in Aria.
 * The notes to the 2010 edition of Eratosthenes' Geography states Aria's "eponymous city, Aria, was probably at Alexandria of the Areioi, and the toponym Aria/Ariana originally referred only to this district, around modern Herat." I suggest that this alternative name, and the context for the Aria/Ariana name, is worth mentioning.
 * The article generally shows a balanced perspective. However, Lerner's article in the The Encyclopedia of Ancient History suggests that the view that it was founded by Alexander the Great "is now regarded as suspect". A more thorough discussion of this is required.
 * As per Rhain's point in the DYK, there is a need to cover the ambiguity of the location more clearly.

Thank you for an interesting article. I wonder whether it is worth waiting for the DYK to complete before continuing with the assessment. Please do ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comments.
 * Fraser's Cities of Alexander the Great (1996) is already used in the article, and in fact comprises around half of the extant citations. It is one of two books, and one encyclopedia article, from after 1970.
 * Lerner's quote reads: ... when he repopulated the Achaemenid capital of Artacoana or Articaudna in the satrapy of Aria with Greeks. This view is now regarded as suspect... The view that he regards as suspect is that Alexandria Ariana and Artacoana were the same city, just repopulated by Alexander the Great. The rejection of this view is discussed extensively in the article.
 * I have cited Fraser for the Alexandria in Aria variation in the lead.
 * Many of the JSTOR articles you will have found do not cover the facts in any detail. I believe Fraser and Cohen together cover all aspects. Could you please provide a link or unique identifier for the edition of Erastothenes you cite?
 * I don't know what you refer to by "Tarn's 2003 book Alexander the Great: Volume 2, Sources and Studies", since that book was published in 1948, as cited in the article (Tarn died in 1957), and all that he has to say on the Alexandria Ariana is the following: "Six [cities] are represented by towns to-day: Alexandria in Aria (Herat)... [which] needs no comment". (Tarn 1948, p.234)
 * The DYK nomination has been completed with no outstanding issues.

I look forward to your responses. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for all the nonsense in the comments above. Thank you for responding assuming good faith. My COVID-brain clearly mixed a whole lot of things up so I have now struck out the least accurate and unhelpful statements. If we can clear up the last couple of points, I am happy to complete the review (even if that is before the DYK is listed). simongraham (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I note that Rhain's concern seems to be resolved; is this right?
 * I did not mean to encourage you to add a reference in a lead, as this is not necessary as per MOS:CITELEAD. I actually feel that it would read better with the fact in the body with a reference.
 * The edition of Erastothenes I was looking at is the one edited by Roller.[]
 * I am sorry to hear that there is a lack of other information. I feel that the paucity of literature that mentions the city is in itself interesting.
 * Regarding the page length, although it does feel short to me (certainly in comparison to some GAs), I am convinced by your argument that it covers the topic in sufficient depth and as such "addresses the main aspects of the topic". Unfortunately, any information on article length I can find seems to be almost exclusively about how to avoid them being too long (e.g. WP:TOOLONG WP:TLDR).
 * , no worries. I believe (if I understand the confusing DYK process correctly) that Rhain (the reviewer) has approved the nomination, so all good there; it's just waiting for someone to pick it up and put it in a queue.
 * With your Erastothenes source, which I've included, I've moved all citations into the body.
 * I think most people steer clear of making judgements on the topic because of the confusion, leaving us with a paucity of reliable sources to quote anything to (see for example List of cities founded by Alexander the Great, which I'm aiming to get to FL status). Which is annoying.
 * It would certainly be a short GA, but I think that it is comprehensive enough to satisfy the GA criteria. There are other short GA's out there, like Tytila of East Anglia, which is about the same size.
 * I think that's all your points addressed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks great. I will undertake the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)