Talk:Mithridates I of Parthia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Migboy123 (talk · contribs) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article thoroughly and believe that it satisfies the good article criteria, I personally have knowledge on this topic and believe there are no problems with the information of the article. Overall, it's a great article. Nice job HistoryofIran!

1. No problems with grammar, punctuation, spelling typos etc and complies with the guidelines. Clean sourcing. 2. Large number of credible and valid sources which are incorporated well into the article with there being no original research and problems with copyright and plagiarism. One thing that stood out to me was that HistoryofIran, whom wrote this, could clearly tell the difference between the usage of the word "Saka" and how it wasn't a reference to the broader Scythians, although the word for the Scythians in the Iranian languages was "Saka". This shows that the user HistoryofIran has a thorough knowledge on this topic and can critically analyze sources. 3. The article clearly addresses all the known aspects of the life of Mihrdat the Great, staying on the topic. 4. The article satisfies the 4th criteria for a good article as it is written without a POV being pushed or without any form of bias as it only states facts and not opinions, it also doesn't put any sort of "biased twist" on the information to disguise a bias. 5. The article has been available for 3 months and there has been almost no form of disruption to the article, no edit warring or content disputes. HistoryofIran (creator and main contributor of the article) has taken care of any disruptions that have happened. 6. When necessary and possible, visual and auditory media are incorporated into the article and satisfies the guidelines.

@Migboy123: Eh thanks, but I don't think that hows the procedure of a GA review works tbf. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran So do you not think that your article satisfies the criteria of the good article? I've read the article on how to write a review and pass for a good article nomination and followed it's steps. According to the criteria, you article satisfies the criteria. I also structured it according to the templates provided (which are optional to use). I can't think of any recommendations or anything else to expand on because you've covered it all. Migboy123 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem as there are no disputes on the talk page or any disputes on whether this article should pass, could you please explain to me why you don't think my review doesn't match the procedure? Migboy123 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Migboy123:, the thing is reviews are usually done by experienced editors. During your time on Wikipedia, so far, you have only created one article.[1] To an inexperienced editor the article might look "ready", but to an experienced editor, who has written many articles from scratch to GA/FA, it may not. Please take your time to write more articles yourself (from scratch) and get acquianted with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and its subpages. Mind you; I know you acted out of WP:GOODFAITH. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that I couldn't write it because I read the articles on good article nominations clearly and it didn't state such a thing so I thought I'd have a look at this stuff. But thanks for the heads up. Migboy123 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I will use the color "green" for my comments. For the sake of clarity, please select a color for your replies @HistoryofIran:. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mithridates is the Greek form of the Iranian theophoric name of Mihrdāt. The Old Persian version is Miθradāta (𐎷𐎡𐎰𐎼𐎭𐎠𐎫), whilst the Modern Persian version is Mehrdād (مهرداد)." -> Swap the Italics surrounding the name Mithridates with " " punctuation marks. Remove the second "of". Also, it would be beneficial to add a reference to this section. Adds an additional layer of "protection".
"Mithridates had several brothers, including Artabanus and his older brother Phraates I, who succeeded their father in 176 BC as the Parthian king." -> The second part of this sentence ("who succeeded their father in 176 BC as the Parthian king") looks a bit confusing to me. Who exactly succeeded their father in 176? Please reword this part.
"The Parthian custom was for the ruler to pass the throne down to his son. However, this was not the case with Mithridates, who was appointed heir by Phraates I, reportedly due to his remarkable competence" -> Suggestion: "According to Parthian custom, the reigning ruler had to be succeeded by his own son. However, Phraates I broke tradition and appointed his own brother Mithridates as his successor. According to <mention authors name>, Phraates I had made his decision after noticing Mithridates's remarkable competence." Btw, does the source provide any additional information about Mithridates's "competence"?

~~Will continue later.~~

"Phraates I died in 171 BC, and thus Mithridates succeeded him. He first turned his sights on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, which had been considerably weakened as a result of its wars against the neighboring Sogdians, Drangianans and Indians." -- Suggestion: "When Mithridates I ascended the throne in 171 BC upon Phraates's death, he first turned his sights on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom which had been considerably weakened as a result of its wars against the neighboring Sogdians, Drangianans and Indians." Also clarify "Indians"; its a pretty broad designation especially in that period of time. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This proved beneficial for Mithridates, who undertook his first campaign against the Greco-Bactrian ruler Eucratides I (r. 170–145 BC), whom he defeated and seized Bactria from, most likely sometime in the 150s BC." -- Suggestion: "Mithridates defeated the ruler of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom Eucratides I (r. 170–145 BC) in c. 150s BC in his first military campaign and wrestled control of Bactria". Or along these lines.
"Rinnu" is mentioned as spouse in the infobox. If there's information about her, please add it to the body of the article. If not, please add an inline reference to the infobox.
"the region had been destabilized by a recent Seleucid suppression of a rebellion there led by Timarchus" -- Suggestion: "the region had recently become unstable after the Seleucids suppresed a rebellion led by Timarchus".
" There Mithridates appears to have introduced a parade of the New Year festival in Babylon, by which the ancient Mesopotamian god Marduk was led along parade way from the Esagila temple by holding the hands of the goddess Ishtar." -- Rephrase and de-link "Babylon".
"By this time, Parthian authority extended as far east as the Indus River". -- In the previous sentences, you mention his campaigns in the west (Babylon, Characene, Elymais etc.), but dont mention anything about his campaigns near the Indus River, thousands of km to the east. IMO, either add more information about his campaigns in the east, or remove the sentence in its entirity.
"Ecbatana became the main summertime residence for the Arsacid royalty." -- Suggestion: "Ecbatana became the main summertime residence for the Arsacid royalty — the same city which had served as the capital of the Medes and as summer capital of the Persian Achaemenid Empire.<INSERT REFERENCE> IMO, it would be really valuable to this article if you'd add that.
"The Seleucid ruler Demetrius II Nicator was at first successful in his efforts to reconquer Mesopotamia, however, the Seleucids were eventually defeated and Demetrius himself was captured by Parthian forces and taken to Hyrcania." -- Please elaborate. IMO, one sentence is really too little about these major events.
"Furthermore, around this period he allowed the Kings of Persis to have more autonomy (...)" -- Suggestion: "Furthermore, around this period he granted the Kings of Persis more autonomy (...)"
"Mithridates died in c. 132 BC, and was succeeded by his son Phraates II. " -- As Parthian reign dates are pretty sketchy and contradictory, it might be valuable to add a reference to this sentence. Up to you though.

~~Will continue later.~~

"Since the early 2nd century BC, the Arsacids had begun adding obvious signals in their dynastic ideology, which emphasized their association with the heritage of the ancient Achaemenid Empire." -- Could you rephrase this sentence?
"(...) the Achaemenid king of kings, Artaxerxes II (r. 404–358 BC)." Add a link to King of Kings.
"Achaemenid titles were also assumed by the Arsacids, including the title of "king of kings" by Mithridates I" -- "Achaemenid titles were also assumed by the Arsacids; Mithridates I was the first Arsacid ruler who adopted the former Achaemenid title of "king of kings".
" However, the title was infrequently by the latter, and it was first under his nephew and namesake Mithridates II, from c. 109/8 BC onwards, that the use of the title became regular" -- Suggestion: "Though Mithridates I was the first to readopt the title, it was not commonly used among Parthian rulers until the reign of his nephew and namesake Mithridates II, from c. 109/8 BC onwards".
"(...) wearing the royal Hellenistic diadem." -- Suggestion: add a link to Hellenistic period.
"(...) who had laid foundations to the city. -- Reword: "who laid the city's foundations".
"Philhellene" -- Suggestion: add a link to Philhellenism.
"Behind the rider is followed by another man, again in profile." -- Please rephrase.
"The stylistic difference between the Hellenistic style portrayed in more riders and reproduced in the Parthian style in other characters led to the assumption that the four men were later carved into the rock on the right side." -- Please rephrase this entire sentence as well. "portrayed in more riders" sounds quite vague/tough to grasp. "led to the assumption"; how and according to whom?
"However, more recently this view has been challenged and other theories have been proposed, including one that the rider is a local ruler of the Elymais" -- Please elaborate if possible; mention the authors and list the other theories. You don't need to go much into detail.
"Schippmann emphasises (...)" -- Its the first time you're mentioning Schippmann in the body of the article, so you should ideally mention his whole name and his profession. For example "The historian Klaus Schippmann...". The full name is sufficient as well if you're unable to find more information about his credentials.
"Katouzian has compared" -- Same as Schippmann, for example, "The Iranologist Homa Katouzian..."

@HistoryofIran: Done reviewing. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bud, I'll take a look at it very soon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you disagree with certain points of if you have questions in generals. Btw, something I just noticed; you have listed Strabo as a source, but you haven't used it. If you don't play on using it, please remove it from the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got exams in two days, will be able to focus on this afterwards. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx for the heads up! Good luck! - LouisAragon (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aight done. I'll be completing this article tonight or tommorow. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shiet. I'll do it today, promise. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I was smoking when I wrote about the rock relief. Gonna look through those sources again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah unfortunately not gonna finish this one anytime soon. Summer has arrived and that means I'm gonna be very inactive for some while. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aight man, no problem. Just do it when you have time, no need to give constant updates. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]