Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted by The ed17 [1]

Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628

Nominator(s): DemonicInfluence (talk)

• Previous ACR: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628/archive1

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

I wish to renominate Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 for A-class. It has recently passed the GA-class review and I hope that it can also pass the A-class review this time. DemonicInfluence (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problem reported with dab links or external links. One image reported as being in need of alt text, please add this to the image forthwith.
    • I have added alt text for this
  • Any particular reason why the bibliography section is in three parts? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Not really. The GA reviewer changed it to this and I didn't really mind the change. I also wouldn't care too much if it had to be changed again. DemonicInfluence (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Well written, well researched, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch. DemonicInfluence (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in great shape, but I think that it needs a little bit more work to reach A class. My suggestions are:
  • Some material is unreferenced
    • Could you point out where this material is?
      • Tagged
        • Added a source for this
  • The 'Background' section seems too short (especially for people like me who don't know much about this topic), and only covers the Byzantines.
    • I tried to improve this a bit, but I'm not too sure what else need to be put here. Any advice?
      • Looks OK now
  • The photos of coins don't seem directly relevant to the topic of this article. Reproductions of artworks showing what soldiers of the era looked like would work well if they're available.
    • I agree with you that they aren't too relevant, but there aren't that many images from this era to begin with :(
  • The single paragraph sub-sections in the 'Persian dominance' section could be merged into one section
    • My GA reviewer decided to change that into 3 single paragraph sub-sections. It doesn't seem like it's a very big issue though
  • I doubt that a "Countless" number of churches were burned in Jerusalem - I think that you mean "many" as it should have been possible to count the number, even allowing for the poor quality of education at the time ;)
    • Haahhaah changed.
  • Why Heraclius 'lived too long' needs to be explained
    • I added a little part here.
  • Both the 'see also' links appear to be in article's prose, so this section isn't needed. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It was added by some other editor. Do you really feel like it is unnecessary? DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes - the two links are already highlighted in the 'Long-term consequences' section. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • deleted
• Support All comments now addressed - this really is a great article Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) DemonicInfluence (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

support I'll support this for ACR but it needs additional copy editing before it goes to FA. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks :) I've been really busy and unfortunately unable to do such editing at the moment. I'll see what I can do when I'm no longer quite as busy.DemonicInfluence (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Overall this article is very interesting, well researched, and well assembled. I have some prose issues that I'd like to address, and I'll list them on the article talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

my issues with the article are these:

• ambiguous prose. For example, in the lead, ...led to the demise of the Persians. I don't think this was a genocide, was it? The Persians didn't die, they simply lost the war. And another one. Etc. There are multiple instances of this kind of ambiguity.

• I tried skimming through and found some of these that I hopefully corrected

• Organization. It would help if there were some overall structure to presenting the war. I've suggested talking about it as a war in phases, in this case 4, and that would allow the use of some dates, characteristics of the phases, etc. I think most of the english wiki readers are not going to be that familiar with the subject. It's interesting and well-researched, so I'd say its accessibility needs to go up a notch.

• I divided up the lead in that fashion. However, I feel like the current table of contents divides the war nicely already. Or is it too many small parts without enough cohesion into the big picture?

• clarity. This isn't quite the same as ambiguous prose, although related. For example: Heraclius proclaimed himself and his son of the same name as consuls—thereby implicitly claiming the imperial title—and minted coins with the two wearing the consular robes. The main rebel force was employed in a naval invasion of Constantinople, led by younger Heraclius, who was to be the new emperor. Was Dad preparing to retire? Do you mean next emperor? Was the declaration of himself and his son as consuls the implicit claiming of the title, or the minting of coins the implicit claiming? By naming himself and his son as consuls, was he implicitly claiming the imperial title? Don't they have to be crowned or elected or some such thing? Was it the minting of coins, with both himself and his son on the coins, the implicit claim?

• To be honest, the part that you highlighted is ambiguous in the historical sources. Apparently, Dad just disappears and that it was clear that the naval invasion was to make the son Emperor. I'm also a bit confused about Dad.
• I meant to say that them claiming to be consuls meant that they were claiming to the imperial title, and I thought this was clear because I had placed it in that order. Is it noticeably unclear? I think the historical thing was that the Byzantine Emperors had always claimed to be consuls. Should I add that?

really neat touches

• I like that you've included the coins, too. Neat touch. There are a lot of illustrations of this war by Renaissance and early modern historical artists. That would work too, and adding a short section on the Byz.Sassanid War of 602-628 as a subject of Renaissance interest in the classics....? Or linking to the current article, if there is one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't know much about art, though I too noticed that it was used a bit in the Renaissance. So, I'm not sure if I'm qualified to make an article on this. DemonicInfluence (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• An almost exact mirror of Ruth's comments (including the positive), please see details at article talk page. Note that I am pitching at FA criterion 1a quality. I am ambivalent about whether the current text meets A class requirements.
• Byzantine POV is detectable, probably due to source availability: please address this.
  • I'll add this when I get my hand on sources, but I believe the main reason is that the Persian archives got destroyed.
  • Added a section on the Historiography.
• Please note in the text where the historical record is unclear, otherwise ambiguity can appear to be a failing in the article, as opposed to the sources.
  • I have added some of these comments
• The maps need work and I will attempt to help in this regard, although it will render me ineligible to vote.

• Thanks :)

• A nice (I hope) surprise awaits you on the article talk page :) Dhatfield (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Information on Persian and Byzantine force composition is notably lacking. Dhatfield (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll try to find more about this. DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• References comments —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Beckwith needs a location and publisher.
    • Added
  • All but Ostrogorsky need locations.
    • Added a bunch, but had trouble finding the location of a bunch of the publishing things. Especially Oman.
  • Doesn't ref 129 need a link to the bibliography?
    • Fixed
  • Oman is reliable, but is there anything more modern that draws on his work and more modern studies? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have a bunch of modern sources in this article with the modern scholarship that goes with it. Oman is mostly there so that anyone can check out this source which is conveniently available free online.
    • Thanks for the review :)DemonicInfluence (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm mainly worried that the first six citations are to him, that's all. Re locations, try http://www.worldcat.org ; it's a beautiful site. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Added all of them with the help of worldcat.org. Also, added some more modern stuff to the beginning.DemonicInfluence (talk)
          • You're still missing a lot of publishing locations, but that isn't a big issue for ACR. At FAC, however, you will need them. Worldcat should have all of them. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support.

• "Campaigns continued in the Balkans though." This confuses me. You previously discussed how they made peace after the Byzantines helped the Sassanids, so why were there still campaigns? Also, it's gramatically awkward.

• • Fixed

• Much clearer now.

• "the eunuch Leontius (general under Phocas) to deal with Narses," You should hide the disambiguator with a pipe, and can't it just be (General) in the redlink anyways?

• • Someone else, Constantine, made it that name, so I left it there

• "Some like John Julius Norwich claim that Bonus tried to forcibly convert the Jews, even those who in the front lines, making Phocas a great enemy of the Jews." Erm...Are you missing a word?

• • Fixed

• I've added in "were"

• In the Capture of Jerusalem section you use the phrase "local elites" many times in close proximity, please change or remove one of the mentions.

Fixed

• "Shahin claimed that he was unable to make peace." Why would he be "unable" to make peace? Please explain.

Explained

I'll finish going through the article and likely add some more in the next couple of days.

• • Thanks, I hope to have more time to work on this article in the next few days too. :) DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made many minor changes to improve readability and flow; it looks good now. – Joe N 19:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.