Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyrus the Great/archive1

Cyrus the Great
I and other users have put a lot of effort into this article, particularly since I first started editing it. I haven't had much time to add more to the article recently, but I'm going to get back to it. I would really appreciate any comments at all. Comments, questions, insults... Anything! ♠ SG →Talk 11:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The style guide suggests a standard order and naming for the end sections: See also, Notes, References, Further reading (or Bibliography, both optional), and External links. Bringing the See also section up would help conform to this layout. The current Sources section is non-standard and is really more like a See also since it is all internal links. See MoS:HEAD, WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE for help in this area. JonHarder 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! that will help plenty. I've updated the article with those changes, and I've also axed the "See also" section, as it only linked to two articles that were already linked. The "References" (previously "Sources") section is also updated with a much more standard style, though I thought it would be best to separate the ancient sources and modern books. What do you think now? ♠ SG →Talk 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks better. It is unusual to list other articles as references. I'm not objecting, but am not sure how feature article reviewers will respond. Reading through the article more closely I have some additional comments:
 * It would help to have a good copyedit by another person. Examples of things to look for are weasel words like "sometimes considered," clumsy wording like "apparently soon managed," overuse or redundant use of the word "also."
 * At one point there is a "--" that could be converted to a "—" (mdash). This form of punctuation is often misused, but I don't know the rules!
 * The images are great, but get a bit crowded in the area of the Cyrus Cylinder.
 * At one point there is a "citation needed" request which should be fulfilled if this article is headed for FA.
 * Usually links to other articles are not duplicated. For example there are several links to Darius the Great and its variations.
 * Usually an article is not placed both in a category and its subcategory. This article is in both "Category:Achaemenid dynasty" and "Category:Monarchs of Persia." Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, it should be in one or the other.
 * JonHarder 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are very thorough; thanks again! I've given it another copyedit, but I agree, it would probably be best to find a third-party to give it a look. I've gotten rid of anything I could find that was redundant or could be considered weasel words (with the exception of two "considered" statements which are attributed). I got rid of the Persepolis image, as it wasn't necessary. Now that section is much less crowded. I know the references section is unusual, but I think it's the best way to manage it; if there's a better solution, I'll gladly do it. ♠ SG →Talk 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A final suggestion. I think for FA status, the three references in the lead section need to be moved down into the appropriate sections within the main article. Also, it looks like the first note should be broken into two different notes because it is about two separate topics. If you make these changes, I am prepared to nominate it for Good Article status. JonHarder 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do they have to be moved? I can't really see it passing FA without the Cylinder refs being there. The line about the Cyrus Cylinder being called "the first declaration of human rights" is not accepted by everyone, so I had to source it. I've broken up the first ref, though. On another note, Enceladus (moon), which was recently "Today's FA" a few days ago, has a ref in the opening paragraph – as does Final Fantasy X, from the day before. ♠ SG →Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong; I thought they complained about that. My preference is still to see them moved down into the part of the text that expands on those particular topics. JonHarder 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I checked it out, and I couldn't find anything about it. The first reference (Old Persian name) isn't noted anywhere else in the text, so I left it up there at the top. The two about the Cyrus Cylinder are left there to avoid an NPOV issue. I think I will leave it as is, but I will keep your note in mind. If the issue is raised in the GA or FA noms, it will only take a moment to change. What do you think about that plan? ♠ SG →Talk 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did more checking too, it is not guideline, but this discussion shows the various sides of the issue. My preference aligns with those that believe the lead material will be expanded farther down in the article and that is a better place to put the inline citations. I imagine there are cases where parts of the lead can't easily be expanded and it's redundant and clumsy just to repeat the same sentence in the main body. If the citation is moved down among the expanded material, there shouldn't be a NPOV problem. Anyway, that's my preference, but do what works for you and what you think is best for the article. It looks like leaving them in the lead should not get in the way of GA or FA. JonHarder 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, after reading that discussion, I have to agree with you. It looks like a good idea to move it out of the lead. If anyone complains, I'll just tell them where to look for the ref and point them to that discussion. However, I have not moved the Old Persian ref, as there is nowhere to move it to. ♠ SG →Talk 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I already used the automated PR suggestions; they were very helpful, thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful! Peirigill 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a few copyedits; feel free to revert if you don't like the result. Some points:
 * Per WP:CAPTION, some FA reviewers' prefer that captions be complete sentences. Take advantage of this to add information that reinforces your article.
 * "Several issues of Cyrus' early life are unclear: whether he was born in 576 BC or 590 BC, and whom he took for his wife." That's two issues, not several, and I don't understand why Cyrus' wife is an issue of his early years.  Was it customary to be betrothed as a child?  If so, that should be made clear; if not, you should probably mention his wife later in the article.
 * "they further note his marriage to Princess Mandane of Media, a daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes, and Princess Aryenis of Lydia; Cyrus II was the result of this union." It's not immediately clear that Cyrus II is Cyrus the Great.  Also... and I hesitate to write this... it rather sounds as though Cyrus was the product of a ménage à trois.  (Come to think of it, that would explain how Gilgamesh could be two-thirds god... but I digress.)  ;-)
 * The section called "Personal life" really isn't about his personal life. How about "Dynastic history" or "Family history"?
 * The section called "Early life" really isn't about his early life. How about "Legendary birth"?
 * "Arsames defected to Cyrus" doesn't sound right. Who is he defecting from — himself?  How about "Arsames abdicated his rulership of Persia and pledged allegiance to Cyrus"?  Also, it's not clear whether Arsames' son Hystaspes became king in his stead, or whether Cyrus took control of Persia.  If the former, then how about ""Arsames relinquished rulership of Persia to his son Hystaspes and pledged allegiance to Cyrus.  Hystaspes' son, Darius, would later become Darius the Great, Shahanshah of Persia"?  If the latter, do we have any idea why a king would willingly hand over power, especially to someone not his own son?
 * "Several years later, when Astyages discovered that his grandson was still alive, he ordered that the son of Harpagus be beheaded and served to his father on a dinner platter. Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus, who by then was living again with his noble and biological parents..." This is confusing.  It's not clear at first that "the son of Harpagus" doesn't refer to the adopted Cyrus.  It's not clear whether this grisly order was carried out (we know there was legendary precedent for the king's orders being circumvented, after all).  The fact that Cyrus is now living with his noble parents again is a big, unexplained, unexpected jump in the story.  If these concerns simply reflect the ambiguity of the source material, that's fine, but there should be some way to organize this information into a more linear narrative.
 * The "Kings of Persia" section seems to shift between legend (third-hand reports with mythical elements) to documentable fact ("In 559 BC...") and back again, so that I'm unclear how much of this section is history and how much is myth. Again, that may be an inherent difficulty with the source material, but try to give the reader some sense of which facts are considered reliable history.
 * "Cyrus led the Persians and his armies." Were the armies not Persian?
 * "conquered the Median Empire in the sixth year of Nabonidus' rule." This makes it seem as though Nabodinus were the ruler of Medes rather than Babylon.
 * Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the title of the article. You can probably make a case that "Cyrus cylinder" is a valid exception to this rule, but how about changing "Cyrus' wars" to "Military campaigns"?
 * "Cyrus defeated Nabonidus." If you haven't yet mentioned that Nabodinus was ruler of Babylon, you should do so here.  The reader shouldn't have to click a blue link to know who he is and why he matters.
 * "(written before any new conquests could have been made other than Egypt)," This parenthetical phrase impedes flow, is tricky to parse, and doesn't contribute to your main point.  Why not remove it?
 * The "Administration of the Empire" section is really too short to merit its own section. Could it be combined with the following section as "Politics"?  That will also eliminate the problem of having the word "Cyrus" in a section header, which is against the MOS.  Better yet, move both of these sections into the "Legacy" section below.  You seem to be covering related material twice.
 * "Cyrus died in battle, but the Achaemenid empire was to reach its zenith long after his demise." The second half of this sentence impedes flow and has nothing to do with the section topic, Cyrus' death.  I'm moving it to the "Legacy" section, unless you prefer otherwise.
 * Thanks for taking the time to make those changes! As for your suggestions, I agree with them all to some extent. Reading that "marriage" line made me chuckle; it's very easy to understand your own writing, but reading it a second time, I realized where the problem lied.
 * You know what, I originally started making those few small changes you suggested, but as I went along, I kept adding more, and more, until... Well, you be the judge of what happened: . I have to thank you for getting me in the mood to do that, but I should also make some sort of threat, as the article probably has even more problems now!
 * I would appreciate it if you could take another look, as it has undergone a vast &mdash; almost entire &mdash; rewrite. ♠ SG →Talk 08:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm also aware that the article is in desperate need of sourcing for all the new information that was added. I'll get around to this soon, but if you could make note of any statements that you feel must have referencing, it'd make everything much easier. And one final note, I know Gaumata redirects to Smerdis of Persia; I plan on breaking the article in two later on, as they are not the same person. ♠ SG →Talk 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The photo in early life is of a symbol that isn't talked about in that section, so it really doesn't help with furthering our understanding of Cyrus. Also, in Babylonia, the picture, while nice, and peripherally related to the section in that it depicts someone mentioned in that section, might be better if it were replaced with a map showing all the lands that came under Cyrus's rule, to help illustrate for readers the sentence "Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had seen yet" plange 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, but I'm rather hard-pressed to find free images of Cyrus. The Faravahar image is relevant to the article, but not to that section in particular &mdash; though, he was raised with Zoroastrianism, and the image starts in the "background" section. As for the Nabonidus image, again, you're right; we do need a map, but there is only one map I've been able to find that shows the Achaemenid Empire during Cyrus' rule, and it lacks proper copyright information. However, I'm going to see what I can do about making a map later today, using one of the maps from Maps. ♠ SG →Talk 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool! If you don't have luck with the map making, I think Military history WikiProject has a map-making request area? plange 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, good idea. If I don't get far with cartography, I'll be sure to ask around there. ♠ SG →Talk 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've tried my hand at map making, so I've replaced the Nabonidus image with the map I made. Take a look, let me know how you feel. Of course, first of all, this is my first shot at making a map, and second, I am still partially drunk. I should probably also add the locations of each of the cities mentioned in the article (ie. Sippar, Babylon, Sardes, Pasargadae) instead of only those few. ♠ SG →Talk 08:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's awesome! Sooo much better! It really illustrates so well how large his empire was! Great job! plange 18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I responded to your inquiry on your talk page. So, as it is now, do you think the article would make it through the featured article nomination process, or should I wait for more people to chime in on the peer review? ♠ SG →Talk 04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Peirigill again. A few thoughts on your re-write: Nice job on the re-write. I'm really nitpicking at this point. Good luck! Peirigill 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Faravahar, the symbol of Zoroastrianism, which influenced Cyrus to the extent that it became the non-imposing religion of Persia." This isn't a complete sentence.  Also, I don't understand what "non-imposing religion" means. I've changed it, but, like with the map image, I'm really not sure what to replace the caption with. Any suggestions?
 * "Little is known of Cyrus' early years, as the sources detailing that part of his life are few, and many have been damaged or lost." Seems contradictory: if there were few sources, how could many have been lost?  It's not clear to me whether there were never many sources to begin with, or whether many used to exist but only few are extant. Changed.
 * "According to most sources, he was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC." Also ambiguous: do most sources give both dates, or do most sources say either one date or the other?  The simplest fix is simply "He was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC." Done.
 * "While Herodotus' description may be a legend, it does give insight into the figures surrounding Cyrus the Great's early life." Is this really a separate paragraph? Moved.
 * "Like his predecessors before him." Before him is redundant.
 * "Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus to rally the Persian people, who were then in a state of vassalage to the Medes, to revolt, which occurred between 554 BC and 553 BC." This flows awkwardly.  The phrase "to revolt" is especially jarring.  How about "Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus to rally the Persian people to revolt against their feudal lords, the Medes.   This event, which is corroborated by other historical testimony, occurred between 554 BC and 553 BC."  I'm suggesting this additional clause to help distinguish between accepted fact and its legendary trappings; please revise it if it's inaccurate. I changed that paragraph a bit, so it should be more concise now.
 * "However, it is very likely that both Harpagus and Cyrus rebelled..." "Very likely" seems POV, unless the citation uses those words. How about "likely" instead of "very likely"?
 * "due to their dissatisfaction with Astyages' policies, rather than the story introduced by Herodotus." Awkwardly worded; it certainly wasn't Herodotus' story that influenced them.  Can you find a way to say "rather than the events of the story as related by Herodotus" that isn't clumsy? Patched this up.
 * "Cyrus led his armies to capture Ecbatana, and effectively conquered the Median Empire." Either remove the comma, or leave the comma but replace "and effectively conquered" with "effectively conquering." This suggestion was effectively conquered in 2006.
 * "The approximate extent of the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus' rule, superimposed on modern borders. Persia became the largest empire the world had seen yet." Can you make these both complete sentences?  Also, "had seen yet" trips me up; how about "had ever seen"? Changed "had seen yet," but I'm not sure how else to write the caption. Got any suggestions?
 * "Cyrus besieged Croesus in his capital, Sardes." "His" is tricky here, since it could mean Cyrus' or Croesus' capital.  It's especially tricky because you've just said that the Lydians attacked the Achaemenid Empire, which implies that the fighting is happening on Cyrus' turf.  "The Lydian capital" is better, but not great, since that makes you repeat the word "Lydian" twice in quick succession.  Can you think of an alternative wording? Done.
 * "Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers was to begin." "Was to begin" is redundant.  Just say, "Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers, Harpagus advised Cyrus..." Done.
 * "And indeed, the Lydian cavalry became useless." "And indeed" feels awkward to me.  "Became useless" is not strong.  How about "The strategy worked; the Lydian cavalry was routed"?
 * "the Lydian cavalry became useless and Cyrus defeated Croesus at Pterium, captured him, and occupied his capital at Sardis, conquering the Lydian kingdom in 546 BC." Too much info in one sentence.  Split this into two sentences. Reworded and split; better now?
 * "Towards the end of September of 539 BC." The repeated "of" might be a problem.  How about "In 539 BC, towards the end of September"? Done.
 * "defeated the Babylonians after a minor uprising by the citizens." Is "by the citizens" redundant?  Who else would have been involved in an uprising? Good point.
 * "defeated the Babylonians after a minor uprising by the citizens. With Opis under their power, the Persians took control of the vast canal system of Babylonia." Even if you remove "by the citizens," we have a problem with the word "their."  It's not clear until later in the sentence that "their" refers to the Persians rather than the citizens or the Babylonians.  I know, it's nitpicky, but this will be questioned in FA.  How about "Having conquered Opis"? How about "with Opis subjugated?"
 * "which he had not paid a visit to for several years." "Which he had not visited for years" would be better. Done.
 * "and soon fled to Babylon, which he had not paid a visit to for several years. (new paragraph) Two days later, on October 12, Gubaru's troops entered the capital, Babylon,"  How about telling us Babylon is the capital the first time it's mentioned, rather than the second? Done.
 * I'm not sure about the wikilinks on dates like "October 12." WP:DATE says that you should link month+day, month+day+year, but not years or months alone (unless relevant).
 * "According to the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great, Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had seen yet." That phrase "had seen yet" is still tripping me up.  How about "had yet seen" or "had ever seen"? Done.
 * "At the end of Cyrus' rule, the Achaemenid Empire stretched from Asia Minor and Judah in the west, as far as the Indus River in the east." You've linked "from" to "as far as," and these don't really go together.  "From Asia Minor and Judah in the west to the Indus River in the east" is probably the simplest fix. Done.
 * "Cyrus Cylinder" is an apparent violation of WP:MOS for two reasons: only the first word should be capitalized, and the article title shouldn't appear in a section header. I think this is a legitimate exception, but be prepared to defend this.  I'm still not convinced that the "Rise and rule" section shouldn't simply be renamed "Military campaigns," and the "Cyrus Cylinder" information be moved to the Politics subsection of the Legacy section. I don't think proper nouns apply to the heading rule. Regardless, I've moved it to "Politics" and renamed the section as you originally requested. However, I renamed it to "Rise and military campaigns," otherwise the TOC looks strange, jumping from his early life to his military campaigns. In all honesty, I prefer the way it was previously, but I think you're the better judge here.
 * "Tomyris ordered the body of Cyrus to be found, and then dipped his head in blood to avenge the death of her son at his hands. (new paragraph) He was buried in the city of Pasargadae,"  There's a small chance of confusion: was it Cyrus or Tomyris' son who was buried?  Safer to say "Cyrus was buried." Reworded.
 * "Cyrus was distinguished equally as a statesman and as a soldier. By pursuing a policy of generosity instead of repression, and by favoring local religions, he was able to make his newly conquered subjects into enthusiastic supporters. Due to the stong political infrastructure he created, the Achaemenid empire endured and prospered long after his demise." This is POV unless citations are given, and even then, words like "distinguished," "generosity," "instead of repression," "enthusiastic," "strong," and "prospered" paint a one-sided picture.  Surely the man had some weaknesses or detractors?  A dissenting view doesn't need equal time or equal weight, but it should get some coverage. I've sourced it and thrown out a few words. If you can find a good dissenting view on Cyrus that can be sourced, I'd be grateful.
 * "Koresh (Hebrew for Cyrus) is a common name for streets in Israel and is a relatively common Israeli family name." This needs a citation.  Also, try to eliminate the weasel wording of "relatively common."  Can you give a hard fact to back that up, like "1,500 Israeli families are named 'Koresh'"? I found a source for this statement, but the source doesn't back it up. (80% of all statistics are made up.)
 * The caption "Cyrus the Great allowing Hebrew pilgrims to return to and rebuild Jerusalem" is not a complete sentence. Changed, but I don't know if it's good enough.
 * "The Cyropaedia of Xenophon, based on the latter's knowledge of the Great King's upbringing, was an influential political treatise in ancient times, and again during the Renaissance." The fact that the Cyropaedia existed might pass without a citation, but the claim that it was influential needs one. I've changed it to "admired" and gave it a source.
 * "The English philosopher Sir Thomas Browne named his 1658 discourse after the benevolent ruler. Entitled The Garden of Cyrus, it may well be a Royalist criticism upon the autocratic rule of Oliver Cromwell." "Entitled The Garden of Cyrus" belongs more in the first sentence than the second one.  "It may well be" is a weasel word; is it or isn't it?  This claim needs a citation. I don't know why I kept that, it was in there since I began editing the article.
 * I'm not certain, but I think the references are supposed to be alphabetized. By title or author name? Originally they were sorted by print year, but now they're ordered by title.
 * I've replied to each of your list items above. And trust me, nitpicking is good. Some of those people over at FA will jump at you for anything. ♠ SG →Talk 00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've converted the captions to all but the top image to sentences, and tweaked the captions about the Jews and the Cylinder. (I'm assuming Cyrus didn't do the inscribing himself, which the earlier version implied.) Feel free to revert or modify as you wish. Peirigill 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Well, User:Amizzoni has brought up a couple of issues. Once we get that settled, I'm sending this article straight to FAC. Thanks so much for all your help! ♠ SG →Talk 11:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)