Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628/archive1

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.

Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28+ days -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628

Nominator(s): DemonicInfluence (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've recently created the article and think it's pretty good. Any advice would be helpful. Thanks DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close without prejudice - This article is also a current GAC candidate, and we all know that the two processes rarely offer advise that overlaps. I think it better to close this early and let the GAC run its course before we offer our ACR advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know they didn't run simultaneously because I'm pretty new. In that case, please close this. Thanks DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with running the reviews concurrently. Both Ian and I have had an article up for both GA and A-Class at the same time on several occasions previously, and so long as the article is up to a reasonable standard—I haven't yet had a look—then I don't see why this could or should be an issue. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarian advice has never been a problem in my opinion. Certainly I've never experienced one mob asking one to regress an article to make it more suitable or anything YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I will offer my own review in light of this new evidence, though I do note IMO its a bad idea to have both run simultaneously. At any rate, here are my initial thoughts:
- No problems reported with external links. A number of your images are missing alt text, this needs to be added if the article is pass the review. Three dab links need to be located and if at all possible removed from the article.
  - ~~Added alt text to all the images I thought seemed needed. I didn't feel the coin images and the maps needed alt text. Correct me if I'm wrong.~~ I fixed the two dab links that I could. The third one, Nicetas, doesn't have an article yet. I plan on creating that article in the near future.
    - I have added alt text to all images. Hopefully improved on the prexisting ones.--DemonicInfluence (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the generous help of User:Mohammad adil, campaign maps will be added to this article
    - You've still got two links to ambiguous articles, and I am reluctant to offer my support until these are removed from the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have created pages so the links now point to small pages about those two disambiguous links.DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets see about breaking up that huge intro paragraph into two or three paragraphs, its large and its unbecoming of an article at these higher assessments standards.
  - Done
- Your intro paragraph has the line "'The Persians desperately assaulted Constantinople but were defeated there." Why desperate? That sounds like a weasel work to me, and I would thus recommend it be removed.
  - I have removed that word
- You seem a little thin on visual media in the middle of the article, and some of the images seem to be forced sized, which is frowned on unless you have good reason to make an image big.
  - I couldn't find any images relevant to this article in the wikimedia commons other than more coin images, which is kind of redundant. The reason I made one of the images (Cherub and Heraclius receiving the submission of Khosrau II) bigger was because I felt like it was too small originally to see the main action in it.

TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, TomStar81. DemonicInfluence (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm waiting for the GA to finish, so no reviewer has to do the same things twice. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The GA doesn't look like it is going to start anytime soon. Perhaps we can go through this first? DemonicInfluence (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a few fact tags in places were citations are necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added sources to those places where you marked. Thanks for noting those places. DemonicInfluence (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.