Talk:Shahrbaraz/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is severely undercited. There are whole paragraphs without citations. Perhaps this is a trivial fix, but until it is, this can't pass good article. I'll give it a few days in case the sources are to hand.

The basic rule is that there should be a citation for every claim. If the same citation covers multiple claims, you can put it at the end of the series of claims cited - except that it's generally necessary to additionally put a citation at the end of each paragraph - which can, of course, be the same citation. This is because paragraphs tend to move around during editing.

There are two exceptions: In the lead of the article, it's not necessary to cite anything that appears later on with a citation; and in cases where the source is obvious (such as a plot summary) a citation isn't needed, and where a group of paragraph are obviously is part of the same source (a long quotation, say, or something specifically labelled as a summary of a specific source's claims) it's only necessary to cite it once. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added some sources, and i will add the rest of the sources tomorrow. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's a well-written article, but, sadly, that's not in itself enough for GA. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi everybody! I'm the guy who did the article's peer review and its follow-up, so I've come to care about it more than if it were just another GA candidate. : I'm very sorry for not raising the issue of inline citations in the peer review, I really should have. : at 38 reviews, you obviously know what you're doing, so I don't mean to question your judgment. I just think it would be great if you could clarify what you think is missing for this article to reach GA standard (assuming the citation problem can be solved), and perhaps make a few suggestions on how to improve it. I found  ("Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust") very responsive to constructive comments, so I'm sure he would be glad to improve the article further in light of your suggestions. Both of you keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure:
 * The lead and article could use a little more context. The Sasanian empire isn't so well known (in the English-speaking world, anyway), so just briefly describing it, e.g. "The last Iranian empire before the rise of Islam" (from the Sasanian empire article) would help. It might help to very briefly summarise the period before his kingship as well.
 * A few other terms could be glossed. "spahbed", Seven Partian clans, etc.
 * Generally speaking, it's a quite good article on the whole, and I don't think it needs that much more after sourcing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I'll let HistoryofIran take over from her. All the best, Madalibi (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam: I have added many more sources, is this good enough? if not then i can try to find some more. Madaliba: No problem, thanks for the suggestions :-). --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Very, very nearly. I've added two tags. The information may very well be in a source already mentioned, in which case you can just copy the reference there, but there needs to be an explicit citation for these. The points I raised in response to Madalibi's question above, on consideration, are not necessary for Good article status, but I would work on that when moving on to featured article - which you should, this is a very good article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The new footnotes added a few HarvErrors to the article, all surrounding the two volumes of The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars by Dodgeon, Greatrex & Lieu, both published in 2002. I disambiguated the two entries as "Dodgeon, Greatrex & Lieu 2002a" and "2002b" and modified the three footnotes I could figure out (see my edit summaries). But I'm not sure whether notes 15 and 30 are to Part I or Part II, so I didn't touch them. : could you make sure I didn't make mistakes in modifying notes 8, 10, and 24, and could you specify 2002a or 2002b in footnotes 15 and 30? Then the references will be perfect! If you want to detect HarvErrors on your own, you should install this incredibly convenient script. Once you have it installed (takes less than a minute), HarvErrors will just display automatically. All right, good luck with everything! Madalibi (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Done :-). --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do the promotion at the moment, but, just to be clear, this has passed, and I'll do the work in a moment - I haven't eaten yet today. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Done now: I've put him under "Monarchs". Feel free to move him if you feel somewhere else is more suited - the early definitions of King are very different from the more modern. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)