Talk:Kavad II/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 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 non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 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 non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 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 non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Will review over the following days. Constantine  ✍  18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * Suggest relinking Iran to History of Iran.
 * Maria is obviously notable, so a brief introduction ('Byzantine noblewoman'?) might be a good idea.
 * I recommend giving some background here, by moving the reference to the war with Byzantium up. E.g. "Reacting to the long and fruitless war with the Byzantine Empire begun by his father, in 628 Sheroe overthrew him with help from different factions of the nobility" or similar.
 * 'have had disastrous consequences for the empire', but even better would be to be precise as to what the consequences were, e.g. 'have destabilized the empire, paving the way for its fall in the Arab-Islamic conquest of Iran.' or similar
 * This is pure speculation by one historian, so why is it so prominently featured?
 * Background
 * Hmmm. Schindel doesn't say that . In fact he explicitly calls her "a Byzantine woman".
 * I see considerable close paraphrasing here with Schindel when discussing Kavad's age.
 * Are there other sources apart from Schindel that might be relevant here? What about the PLRE? It is in the bibliography but not used but once, and it is precisely for this sort of thing that it should be used. Do Howard-Johnston, Daryaee, or any of the other sources mention anything?
 * Early life
 * this implies that there was a long rivalry; Phocas was merely someone the rebelling army rallied round. Simply 'military rebel' would suffice.
 * is a bit colloquial. Perhaps 'the military balance had turned against the Sasanians'?
 * Briefly explain where Adurbadagan is in modern terms
 * why?
 * to whom? I assure you that the average reader won't know of her.
 * Removed "well-known". --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Will carry on with the rest later today. Constantine  ✍  17:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC) The article is very comprehensive, and quite well written. My only major concern is that it fails to strike a balance between too much detail, where there is such detail to be had, and too few, where there isn't, as well as the over-reliance on single historians for large sections. Constantine  ✍  20:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the events described here are hardly 'Early life'. They are the immediate background to the coup.
 * either name him or 'a foster brother'
 * mention that the Turks were Byzantine allies, either here or when describing how
 * simply 'army pay'?
 * Schindel also mentions that the opposition was at least in part motivated by Khosrow's threat to execute some of them for their failures.
 * The coup against Khosrow II
 * A general comment: this section contains much detail that might perhaps be better split off into its own article. But this is just a suggestion.
 * Briefly explain Veh-Ardashir's relationship/location with respect to Ctesiphon (don't rely on the map for that), and why Veh-Ardashir featured in the plot at all is unclear.
 * for a modern reader, this sounds as if they sent members of parliament to him. Simply 'envoys' should suffice.
 * also smacks of a modern government. 'new regime' or similar.
 * unless I missed it, this is nowhere mentioned before
 * this can easily be moved before and condensed somewhat, as it explains why the conspirators sought out Heraclius
 * gloss hazarbed, and if Gousdanaspa Razei is likely to have an article, he should be WP:REDLINKed
 * for clarity, repeat the date: 'On the night of 23/24 February 628'
 * any idea why that specifically?
 * Reign
 * 'that overthrew Khosrow II'
 * Link 'Armenian' to Sasanian Armenia
 * occupation where? (e.g. 'army occupying the Byzantine territories in the Levant')
 * gloss Nemroz, padgospan
 * , per above.
 * Agitated by what? This comes right after the dispatch of an envoy to Khosrow, and is implied to be a consequence of that, but probably that is not the case?
 * sounds vague; perhaps 'several magnates' or 'many powerful men'?
 * add the year once again
 * 'victory' is I think not the correct word here.
 * 'of a Persian and an Armenian'
 * 'by him' is redundant
 * 'tactics' is probably not the correct word, as this is a military term. 'Policies', perhaps?
 * unnecessarily vague: had been neighbours
 * why 'Armenian'?
 * The section 'Peace negotiations with the Byzantine Empire' is fascinating, but it goes into too much extraneous detail (and, I assume, heaves very close to the narrative of Howard-Johnston's book, which might be a paraphrasing issue). For example, the description of Heraclius' letter tells the reader nothing of substance, and other paragraphs can be shortened. E.g. can be summed up, in essence, as "In his letter, Kavad labelled Heraclius as his "brother", thereby reversing his father's policy and once again acknowledging the Byzantine Empire as Iran's co-equal. Kavad was also careful to avoid references to Zoroastrian divinities in his letter, possibly in an attempt to avoid portraying the war as a religious conflict." This is just a suggestion, of course, but I do recommend trying to trim details like this. It tightens the text, and is easier to grasp by a reader who is already getting an information overload. Anyone interested in more details can/should look up the reference.
 * '9th-century Byzantine patriarch and writer'
 * Howard-Johnston's arguments are interesting and even plausible, but a) they are conjectures and b) they are the views of one historian. Per WP:SS, this is not the place to analyze all the different interpretations on how the negotiations were conducted. Recommend trimming to the essentials.
 * I don't understand what exactly the concern was
 * '10th-century Arab historian and geographer al-Masudi'
 * briefly introduce Mah-Adhur Gushnasp
 * Religious policy
 * I assume the renewed solicitude for Christians was related to the peace with Byzantium?
 * Coinage and imperial ideology
 * I assume that Kavad's reversal of his father's innovations was a deliberate act of political symbolism? Can this be explained briefly in the article?
 * The regnal name thing should IMO be mentioned where it is first mentioned that Shiroe assumed it.
 * Family
 * The Chronicle of Edessa was written in the 6th century, so how does it contain anything about Kavad II?
 * Legacy and assessment
 * 'he might have been'
 * add that it is likely Jewish
 * link 'took control of Jerusalem' to Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem
 * Images
 * what is the significance of that?
 * Sources
 * Please be consistent in having or not having publication locations.
 * Sources are high-quality, and include all the most recent literature on the late Sasanian empire. Some specific concerns on source usage have been raised above, but otherwise no complaints.
 * Awesome, thanks for review, Cplakidas. It's always an honor - I expect to have to time and focus to look at this next week. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * please ping me when you want me to have another look. No hurry, just let me know :). Constantine  ✍  19:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ngl, I kinda lost motivation for this one. I'll see if I can resurrect said motivation. Thank you for your patience; I wouldn't blame you if you failed this based on the long wait time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's give it a couple of weeks ;). Constantine  ✍  08:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)