Talk:Arsaces I of Parthia/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: T8612 (talk · contribs) 15:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination[edit]
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 14, 2019, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: pass
- 2. Verifiable?: fail
- 3. Broad in coverage?: fail
- 4. Neutral point of view?: pass
- 5. Stable?: pass
- 6. Images?: pass
- I think you must include the ancient sources you mention (Marcellinus and Strabo).
- You mention Frye but do not cite him; add refs to his books.
- You say that "in Iranian national history", but it's a vague statement, give sources. Is it still the case under the Islamic Republic?
- You use the word "Zoroastrian"; explain further what it is and how it's important (for example what was his religion?).
- You say "According to some sources", but it's vague; give the sources.
- What was his cultural background? You show a coin with Greek and Aramaic letters, so his kingdom was multilingual/cultural--how did he manage this mix of cultures? Did he favour one over others? The appropriation of Achaemenid symbols should be developed further.
I think the article is too "light" to be a good article; the reader is left wanting more. Arsaces was the founder of the Parthian Empire and reigned for thirty years, but the article does not reflect his importance in history. You should detail much more the transition of Parthia from a Seleucid Satrapy to a growing Empire, then the institutions he founded, etc. I find more info on Parthian Empire.
I would create the following sections: (1) Family background/upbringing (discussing his ethnicity (the Parni), religion, etc.; you also mention a brother and a father) (2) geopolitical situation about 250 BC + Arsaces becomes leader of the Parni and defeats Andragoras (3) management of his kingdom (with perhaps a subsection on his coinage), his relationship with the nobility and other cultures, the use of Achaemenid symbols... (4) wars and diplomacy with the Seleucids/Baktria (5) descendance and succession (where is he buried?) (6) legacy, among the subsequent Parthian kings, and in Iranian history (is there any modern monument dedicated to him?). Finally, you could also make a (first) section on ancient sources (archaeology and literature; what you say about hostile Roman historians is interesting and could be expanded). Feel free to suggeest a better structure, but you must have more sections.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— T8612 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@T8612: Thanks for your review, but I must say I disagree with some of your points
- Marcellinus and Strabo are already mentioned in the source.
- Frye's statement is mentioned in the source itself.
- Well I have already given a source regarding the Iranian national history thing. I have no idea if its the same case under the Islamic Republic, as there is no source about that. But I'm sure the IRI couldn't care less about pre-Islamic figures.
- That's fair enough.
- Thats already stated in the citation of the source (Daryaee)
- There's not much really to say about that. Sure, the culture of the Parthians was a mix of Greek and Iranian, but there's not really any source that goes into the depth of the culture of Arsaces I, as he is really all in all a obsecure figure. What I have written about him is generally most of what we know of him.
I can expand his ethnicity/religion/legacy a bit more, and probably find something about the Achaemenid symbols/more about his coins, but that's all really. There isn't much more to expand, unless im heavily mistaken. I for one, can't find other proper sources for him. There isn't a source that talks about his relationship with the nobility and other cultures, where he is buried, nor is there any modern monument dedicated to him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Marcellinus and Strabo are mentioned in a source, but they are also accessible online (I gave the links above) and should be cited on their own right. Idem for Frye, the original source should be in footnote.
- Even if your sources do not mention Arsaces directly, you can still talk about him. For example, the article does not say whether he was buried in Nisa, while the Nisa article says it was founded under him and was the royal necropolis. A reader looking at Nisa and then clicking on the link to Arsaces will not find anything on Nisa in the latter article (hence why I say "the reader is left wanting more"). It's ok to say that we do not know whether he's buried there or whether he founded the town.
- I have checked the Cambridge History of Iran, and there is *a lot* to take from there (example on the historicity of Arsaces). T8612 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612:: Hey there. How do I citate the Marcellinus/Strabo sources in the same fashion as my other citations? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ancient sources should not be cited like that, because there are many editions in multiple languages of each work (and few people have the same edition); it is better to keep the numbering found in the ancient book (do not use page number).
I use one formatting, but there some other acceptable ones. Mine looks like this: [Name of author], [book title (not needed if the author has only one)], [book number in roman numerals]. [chapter number in Arabic numerals] § [paragraph number, not always needed]. So in case of Strabo, it would look like that: Strabo, vii. 5 § 5. Look at how it looks in an article I wrote.
You have an online edition of Strabo here. Marcellinus' work is on Wikisource, so you can add a link to it as I did with Livy in my article (it would look like this: Marcellinus, xiv. 11). T8612 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think I've done it. Also, Cambridge didn't really give interesting/new information about him, and its also kinda outdated regarding his life. It mostly talks about Arsaces' disputed successor, which I've already written about. Anyhow, the article is somewhat bigger now than when it was when you first reviewed it, and has more sections as well. EDIT: forgot to expand the bibliography, gonna do it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Precisely, what you say about Cambridge is interesting. You should explain why it is outdated. As it is a reference work, one would expect it to be mentioned here. Historiographical discussions should definitely be included, espectially when the article is not that long. It would look like this: "It was long assumed that Arsaces was xxxx, a theory elaborated by Smith, then Brown.[refs] However, the work of Johnson and the archaeological excavations at Nisa by O'Neil have disproved Smith's theory because etc.[refs]". Look at the article on Titus Torquatus I linked above; I included a scholarly discussion about the historicity of a letter to the Jews.
Some other things:
"Arsaces and his Parni followers seized Astauene", from whom?
Be consistent in your date formatting (BC or BCE), although I prefer when the AD/BC/BC(E) are only used in the lede and titles.
The "According to some sources" is vague, give the sources (all of them if possible).
"from Greek and Roman sources", is it possible to add here ", namely Strabo and Marcellinus"? Is there any inscription (besides coins) with his name? T8612 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see, I'll take a look at it later when I have time.
Some other things:
"Arsaces and his Parni followers seized Astauene", from whom? Added Andragoras.
Be consistent in your date formatting (BC or BCE), although I prefer when the AD/BC/BC(E) are only used in the lede and titles. Woopsie, fixed (I think?)
The "According to some sources" is vague, give the sources (all of them if possible). The source I citated it from simply states "some ancient authors"
"from Greek and Roman sources", is it possible to add here ", namely Strabo and Marcellinus"? Is there any inscription (besides coins) with his name? The source says "Greek and Roman sources", to emphasize that generally sources from those areas were hostile to the Parthians. Also, as of now there isn't any inscription of Arsaces besides coins. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: I've added the Cambridge part now, whaddya think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a good start. I found the article of Wolski (1962) and think you should include many things he says; it's in French though (I can help). He seems to have had a strong influence on the subject. The article is there, and his biography with a list of refs here. I corrected the tone a bit, you're speaking of scholars, not fake news; "debunked" is a bit too strong. Take a look at this article on Nisa.
I'm also wondering if there is a family tree of the Arsacids somewhere? T8612 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: Eh well I can't speak French, lel, so that would be nice. I don't really know what to do with the jstor source tbh. I can create a Arsacid family tree in the article, want me to do that? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a good start. I found the article of Wolski (1962) and think you should include many things he says; it's in French though (I can help). He seems to have had a strong influence on the subject. The article is there, and his biography with a list of refs here. I corrected the tone a bit, you're speaking of scholars, not fake news; "debunked" is a bit too strong. Take a look at this article on Nisa.
- @T8612: I've added the Cambridge part now, whaddya think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see, I'll take a look at it later when I have time.
- Precisely, what you say about Cambridge is interesting. You should explain why it is outdated. As it is a reference work, one would expect it to be mentioned here. Historiographical discussions should definitely be included, espectially when the article is not that long. It would look like this: "It was long assumed that Arsaces was xxxx, a theory elaborated by Smith, then Brown.[refs] However, the work of Johnson and the archaeological excavations at Nisa by O'Neil have disproved Smith's theory because etc.[refs]". Look at the article on Titus Torquatus I linked above; I included a scholarly discussion about the historicity of a letter to the Jews.
- I think I've done it. Also, Cambridge didn't really give interesting/new information about him, and its also kinda outdated regarding his life. It mostly talks about Arsaces' disputed successor, which I've already written about. Anyhow, the article is somewhat bigger now than when it was when you first reviewed it, and has more sections as well. EDIT: forgot to expand the bibliography, gonna do it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ancient sources should not be cited like that, because there are many editions in multiple languages of each work (and few people have the same edition); it is better to keep the numbering found in the ancient book (do not use page number).
- @T8612:: Hey there. How do I citate the Marcellinus/Strabo sources in the same fashion as my other citations? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a family tree would look good. I'll add info from the French article when I have the time. The Jstor article deals with the foundation of Nisa and mentions the ostraka with Arsaces' name. T8612 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)