Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iazyges/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2017 [1].

Iazyges

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Sarmatian tribe that moved into the Danube steppe, and served as a buffer state, enemy, and client state of Rome throughout its history. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

Interesting topic. I will take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Later on in their history however, they came to be used by Rome as a client tribe-state. - possibly a little ungainly, why not just, "Later on in their history however, Rome used them as a client tribe-state."

~~As is, Lake of Maeotis is a redirect to Sea of Azov (which is linked just beforehand). Is there a subsection of that article or another that would be a better link?~~

~~::According to Littleton and Malcor, in 184 AD, 5,500 Iazyges auxiliaries were led by the Roman general Lucius Artorius Castus - is "Iazyges" the singular or/and adjectival form too?~~

There is no mention of anything about the language or culture of the tribe. If unknown, then surely there must be some form of speculation about them somewhere..? Also, where does our information on them come from?

@Casliber: There is very little information on their culture, other than that they had a sedentary lifestyle, and had similar burial styles as the other Sarmatians. Most of our information comes from Roman historical records, which explains the absence of cultural information to some degree. I have yet to find a reliable source willing to say anything else about their culture. The language is presumed to be Iranian, but again, little is known about it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think some note to that effect would be good, saying that little is known about them etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I'm unable to find a source that says even that. I did find a source that said there language was a dialect of Old Iranian, which was distant from the other dialects. I am considering splitting off the language and sedentary pieces into a "culture" section, however I think it may be too small if I did. PS: Would you like me to continue pinging you, or do you have the page watchlisted? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have it watchlisted. But pinging doesn't hurt. I think a culture section is a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Casliber Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, great find User:Casliber, I've added the contents to the article in the culture section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on the area and I feel a little uneasy at a lack of material on culture so will defer to someone with more experience in the field. I will read the prose again soon as I think it could do with some more massaging. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm afraid this currently falls some way short of FA standards. There are problems with prose throughout and I have major concerns about at least one aspect of the sourcing. I'm not going to do a line-by-line review but here are some samples. If pressed, I could find many more issues, and I would suggest this is withdrawn. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, we have several problems:

"Later on, in the 1st century BC,": We don't need both "Later on" and the date
"They were often in conflict with Rome": It's best not to begin a paragraph with "They"
"They were often in conflict with Rome, with them raiding the Romans, and the Romans sending a punitive expedition to discourage future raids, and punish the raiders.": This sentence is a bit of a mess, to be honest. "with them raiding" is not a good construction, we have "Rome...Romans...Romans" in the same sentence, plus "raiding...raids...raiders" and there are two clauses beginning with "and". And there is probably too much going on for one sentence.
"Later on in their history however": Aside from the unnecessary use of "however", this whole phrase seems redundant.
"Later on in their history however, Rome used them as a client tribe-state.": Whose history? This is not clear. Also, we need to explain for the reader what a "client tribe-state" is.
"This followed with the Roman policy of allowing tribes or countries to continue to exist under Roman control, rather than annexing them, if they would be too rebellious to be worth assimilating.": Again, there is too much going on in one sentence. "This followed with"? If the Romans had annexed them, they might have continued to exist. There are numerous examples of this happening.
In general, I'm not too clear what we are trying to say in the second paragraph of the lead.
Additionally, the lead does not seem to sufficiently summarise the whole article, and we spend far too long listing the various ways their name was latinised.
We mention Ptolemy in the lead, but then he is never mentioned again.

Glancing further ahead, most paragraphs in the history section begin, very repetitively, with "In [year]..."
We seem to have a lot of sentences which state a fact but do not connect with the rest of the text around them, making for very disjointed reading.
Unless I've missed it, there is nothing here on sourcing, historiography, archaeology, religion, and probably many other things.
The King Arthur section is a bit of a travesty. Littleton and Malcor are not exactly respected historians, and their idea is hugely discredited. In fact, any mention of him in this context gives me pause as there are no respected historians who give any credence to any stories where Arthur is mentioned. I really don't think this should be in any FA. I also question whether the "rebuttal" is OR: I have no access to the other two sources, but the Guy Halsall book does not mention the Iazyges, so he cannot be used to support the idea that the theory of Arthur fighting them is right or wrong. Nor does the Lacy book (at least from a google books search). All they do is shoot down idea of Arthur having any historical basis as Lucius Artorius Castus. I am having some difficulty discovering if the final book cited, "Lucius Artorius Castus and the King Arthur Legend" by Miletić , even exists. The ISBN does not show anything on google, a search for it finds nothing, and the only mention of it that I can find links back to our article on Lucius, which does not reference this book. If it does exist,I have grave, grave doubts about any book which does much more than discuss high medieval attitudes to the legend. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note -- per the above comments it does look like, despite its successful MilHist ACR, this nom is underprepared for FAC so I'll be archiving it shortly and ask that the points raised be worked on away from here; Iazyges you are eligible to participate in the FAC mentoring scheme, which I'd recommend prior to a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.