Talk:Bahram II/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 21:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Will take this on and review shortly. Constantine  ✍  21:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Made various copyedits.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Bahram II was the eldest son of Bahram I link Bahram I, add regnal dates, and that he was the fourth ruler of the Sasanian dynasty. Given that the average reader doesn't know who the Sasanians were, I'd recommend taking the opportunity to expand a bit on this, e.g., "the Sasanian dynasty, that had come to rule Iran in the 3rd century" or similar
 * He had not been born...due to not being mentioned in it means that he was not born (physically) because he was not mentioned in it, rather than what you want to say, which is that he had not been born...as he is not mentioned in it. Also, add a brief mention why the inscription reveals this, i.e. that it enumerates the members of the dynasty at the time.
 * Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but why the footnote? The footnote adds nothing new, since the reference is already to Rapp. You can simply write: A terminus post quem for his birth is c. 262, since that is the date of Shapur I's inscription at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht, which mentions the rest of the royal family but not him. or something similar. Footnotes should only be used to clarify something tangential to the text, or provide additional, but extraneous information. Constantine  ✍  16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * the governorship of Sakastan, Sindh and Turgistan can you please clarify where these areas were, either by modern reference or relative to the test of the Sasanian realm? A map would also do wonders to improve the understandability of the article for the average reader.
 * The provinces were but As a result, the province had; be consistent, and clarify whether these provinces were habitually collected under a single governor.
 * lasted shortly -> lasted briefly. Generally, avoid shortly, which you use throughout; while short=brief, 'shortly' means 'in a concise manner', not 'briefly' or 'soon'.
 * on September 274 -> in September 274
 * History of the Prophets and Kings, volume 5 this is vol. 5 in the modern edition, not in the original volumes of Tabari's work. I recommend omitting it, and also using the for the reference
 * displays a noteworthy transition sounds like an opinion, please attribute this to the relevant scholar
 * Introduce Rezakhani with full name ("the historian XY...")
 * without facing much fighting either 'without facing much opposition" or "without much fighting"
 * due to facing severe internal problems repetition of 'facing'
 * re-conquered by the Sasanians. as this was evidently peaceful, 're-captured' or 're-occupied'.
 * "Western Armenia" should probably link to one of the sections of Roman Armenia rather than Byzantine Armenia.
 * As before, introduce Weber
 * the later Roman-Iranian treaty of 299 this has a common name, 'Peace of Nisibis', I suggest you use it.
 * so high importance -> such importance
 * merely aged seven. 'merely' is redundant
 * unwillingly proclaimed who was unwilling?
 * That was Bahram III - I've changed it a bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The line was -> the line of succession was
 * Before Bahram II, all the previous Sasanian shahs -> 'Before Bahram II, the Sasanian shahs' or 'All Sasanian shahs before Bahram II'
 * which indicates that thenceforth priests were given the office of judge 'indicates' is somewhat unclear here. Does this mean that this is the first instance, and that this became a regular phenomenon after, or that this was already occurring, and Kartir is the first known case?
 * The former. I've changed it to 'implies' instead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * with the exception of when representatives of other religions had conflicts with each other which was resolved how/referred to where?
 * Not mentioned in the source unfortunately. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * the latter claimed on his inscription which inscription?
 * Since the identity of the other figures on his coins is conjetured and even disputed, I would propose moving the "Bahram II was the first shah to have coins minted of his family...." section after the discussion of the figures appearing on his coins. Otherwise this is given as fact, when it is simply one possible interpretation.
 * Like this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you need to tie this into the issue of what the coins represent, i.e., make clear that if the one supposition is correct, then Bahram was indeed the first monarch to blah blah... Constantine  ✍  16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * first and penultimate shah is somewhat labored, given that the only other person was a queen and at a distance of over three centuries. O suggest 'He is the first and only shah to have a woman illustrated on his coins, apart from the 7th-century Sasanian queen Boran'
 * A few cases of citations out of order ([19][8], [25][13], [33][25][34])
 * Eh, not sure I understand this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * References need to be put in such an order that the numbers are also in order, e.g. ref #8 before #ref 19, so that what appears is [8][19]. It is a MOS issue. Constantine  ✍  16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Work is needed in the references:
 * What is the missing volume number in the Brosius reference? What is the meaning of "London et al."? "Et al." is used for multiple authors, not locations.
 * Unfortunately the volume isn't mentioned in the source. I'm not sure myself what the "London et al." bit is, lol - removed it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are some Iranica articles capitalized and some not? Why are some given as the "Iranica Online" and others not?
 * Ops, removed the Online bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally, it looks in good shape. Have made some observations above, when these are done I will do another read-through. A nice article. Constantine  ✍  07:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in including a publication location or not (I suggest you do)
 * Be consistent in formatting the ISBN references
 * Books should be in alphabetical order by their authors. Frye 1983 should go before Frye 1984, Rapp 2014 appears double.
 * Thoughts on the current state of the article? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi HistoryofIran, my concerns above have been indeed addressed. Some final minor issues:


 * Bahram II was the first Sasanian ruler to have coins minted of his family. Qualify this somewhat, as it is not entirely certain.
 * Done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * the first shah to have coins minted of his family this implies that others followed in his footsteps. Is that so?
 * No, it seems he was the first and last - changed it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * in the 'Map of the southeastern Sasanian provinces', I'd recommend adding in parentheses to the caption which modern countries these correspond to, and adding the names of at least a few major landmarks to the map (the Indus river, Persian Gulf, etc.).
 * Done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there no suitable map of the Roman-Sasanian frontier area, or Mesopotamia, for this period? It would help to illustrate Carus' invasion. In the same sense, a map of the entirety of the Sasanian Empire would also be helpful.
 * Not as far as I know unfortunately. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In citing Iranica, I'd recommend following the pattern laid out in the Iranica website, i.e. Encyclopædia Iranica (with the æ), online edition, New York
 * Done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is good to go. Well done! Constantine  ✍  12:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Did some tweaks here and there.

I've had another look, my concerns have been addressed, and nothing else came to my attention. Therefore I am passing this now. Well done, HistoryofIran! Constantine  ✍  17:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)