Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sassanid Empire/archive1

Sassanid Empire
Self-Nomination This article has had a peer review and I believe its well-written and comprehensive plus its one the very few Iran-related article that has been listed as a good article and has been feature article in Deutsch (German) WP and Norsk (Norwegian) WP. I decided to expand and improve this article because I’m interested in the Pre-Islamic history of Iran (Persia) specially the Sassanid dynasty and its influence on the Iranian culture after arrival of Islam. If you have any comments about the article I'll be 24/7 in WP during this week, ready to respond and explain. Amir85 12:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work, though I'd recommend removing an image or two since I'm not sure if every one would qualify as fair use. Other than that, congratulations on a job well-done! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Great article, keep up the good work. (The One We Call God 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Support. This is an excellent article. --  J.Steinbock  (Talk)


 * Support. This article is extremely long, but appears to adhere to summary style nonetheless. I personally don't believe in length as an actionable objection for an FA, so I won't object here. However, others might be so inclined, so beware. RyanG e rbil10 04:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. That's much more impressive than I thought, and I appreciate it is organized as a former empire state, not just a history of... article. There is however room for improvement: 1) merge all history chapters (origin, etc.) into the history section 2) add a section on geography and administrative division 3) Minor: why the category for the fall (651) but not for the creation?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Great work: well-researched, comprehensive, and interesting.  It is long, and it seems like some of the sections that link to other articles (Religion and Art, science and literature, for example) could be somewhat abbreviated.  But the article is FA quality already. bcasterlinetalk 06:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Fantastic article, ample pictures, lots of sources, and very informative. It doesn't get much better than this. Weatherman90 04:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The "sassanid rulers" table is butt-ugly.
 * Quite a few refs could use combination.
 * Circeus 14:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Concerning the "In modern media" sub-section of the "Sassanid army" section, can the analysis be made more specific to the Sassanid Empire, rather than the game of Rome Total War? Specifically, their starting position in the game-map and campaign difficulty level seem more game-focused than real-life Sassanid Empire-focused. Since the article is about the real-lilfe Sassanid Empire and only people familiar with the computer game will likely spend much time reading this section, a comparison (or explanation) of the computer-version and real-life version would be benefitial. Specifically, how do the two compare visually (did they actually look like that?), comparison of unique (or other) units/characters (war elephants, fully armored camel riders) or empire's strength/weaknesses (financially, defensively), etc. Also, was there a source used for this section? Specifically, I'm looking at the image caption which reads "the 2005 hit PC game" and the paragraph "Overall, many consider the Sassanids...the strongest factions in the game..." (emphasis added). "Hit" seems subjective and "many consider" seems like an opinion disguising itself as a conclusion. --maclean 25 19:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The game has a stereotypical view (The usual confusion of a Semitic culture instead of totally different culturally, racially and linguistically Persian culture) towards Sassanid Empire (a Persian dynasty) which means other than few units or names, from supposedly soundtracks for Sassanids to buildings and architecture of Sassanids in the game, non of them are related to Sassanids or Persian civilization. In fact they belong to Semitic Babylonian civilization.


 * Some users suggested removing that section, I may have to consider removing that section and adding it to Sassanid Army if census is reached. About the paragraph "many consider the Sassanids...the strongest factions in the game..." sources of this conclusion are 1. From in game description of Sassanids which states "Excellent mixture of units", none of the other faction have such, 2. From various Forum threads in the game's official website . Amir85 06:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I just finished reading.... Damn, that's one comprehensive article. Very good stuff Thethinredline 08:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Something is wrong with the opening sentence:  "The Sassanid Empire or Sassanian Empire (Persian: ساسانیان Sassanian) was the name given to the kings of Persia (Iran) during the era of the third Persian Empire from 224 until 651."  I think either The Empire was the name given to the Kingdom, or The Sassanid Dynasty was the name given to the Kings. Kaisershatner 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question ! I should had it clarified before, Sassanid Empire is a term more commonly used rather than direct translation of its Persian word Selseleh Sasanian سلسله ساسانیان which means Sassanian dynasty. In Persian the word Sasanian alone also means the Sassanian dynasty. Amir85 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong support as per user:Weatherman90 . Mahanchian 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Brilliant throughout. Timeline would be the icing on the cake --PopUpPirate 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Not often do you see an article this comprehensive and informative on a subject this large and challenging. Great work. RobthTalk 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong support It's very comprehensive and scholarly. --ManiF 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Detailed and well written.Zmmz 01:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)