Talk:Boran/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to review this interesting article. Amitchell125 19:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell, and thx for choosing to review this article. However there is a minor issue, I refrain from using macrons in names per some of the rules (cant link them since im on phone) and friendly readability. Iranian articles generally dont use macrons, which I find mich better. HistoryofIran (talk)

Hello HistoryofIran, thanks for the message, I was going to ask you about the macrons, as WP:DIACRITICS says to use them, but it's clear that are mostly missing. I will take your advice and make sure there are none in the text. I have started looking at the article, and done some of the quick fixes (mainly to get the Sources section right, and to make sure all the links work). What you have done so far makes it an interesting article, and close to GAN. Amitchell125 19:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Could you fix the two typo's in this sentence?: "Boran and her sister Azarmidokht reportedly criticized and scolded Kavad II for his barbaric actions, which caused hi, close-kin-marriages m to become remorseful.[7]" - LouisAragon (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I added some additional information to the coinage section. Tweak/move/remove as you see fit. Btw could you add some more information to the lede? For example, Boran was the penultimate Sasanian ruler. That's a pretty important factoid. The court intrigues are a must-have as well IMO as they signify the issues which plagued the Sasanian state. Her embassy to Heraclius could be added as well, I guess. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Initial Assessment

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   • The whole article is generally written to a good standard, but the quality of the English is such that it requires some copy-editing, to remove inconsistencies and minor problems with the grammar, and to ensure the text is easily understood. I am happy to do this myself, but there may be a few places where you can help check that I have understood the text correctly. (If you want to get 1a up to GAN yourself, let me know and I will put together a list.)
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The lead section is not yet an adequate summary of the article, and can be expanded without too much trouble.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   • 
   2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
   • 
   3. it contains no original research; and
   • 
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
   • 
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   • Most of the article is informative and accurate. I am checking the references at present. I have now listed what needs to be sorted.
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
   • 
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
• 
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• 
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   • 
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
   • 

It's looking good! Details on what needs to be done to follow. Amitchell125 19:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I dont mind fixing the minor issues regarding the grammar meself, but if you're happy to do it then sure thing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

All fixed. Amitchell125 15:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Assessment

Name

• (ref 1a Daryaee 1999) There are two different pages referred to here, (p.78 for Boran, p. 81 for Buran), so change 'pp. 77-82' to 'pp. 78, 81'.

sorted. Amitchell125 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 11abc Daryaee 1999) ref should be 'p. 77' - where the information is - and not 'p. 77-82'.

sorted. Amitchell125 08:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 3a Schmitt 2005a) 'The suffix of dokht ...' I don't understand why 'dokht' is not spelt 'duxt', as given in Schmitt.

Understood. Amitchell125 08:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ehh, I don't get the citation part. Also I'm using 'kh' instead of 'x' for consistency and less confusion (Khosrow not being spelt Xosrow etc). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Pages sorted, I understand about the kh - thanks for being so consistent. Might it be useful to add a note regarding the spellings of names used in the article, seeing as there is such variation in the sources? Amitchell125 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Background and early life

• (ref 8a Chaumont) The spelling of 'Farroḵ-Hormozd' in Encyclopaedia Iranica does not agree with the spelling in this section - which is correct?

I'm using Pourshariati's 'Farrukh Hormizd'. I rarely use Iranica when it comes to names, since they often use their own (Modern Persian) uncommon version. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Amitchell125 08:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

First reign

• Emrani's comment on p. 6 that Except for Tha’alibī’s mention that the prophet Mohammad considered her reign as a sign of decay, none of the sources reflect any controversy in her rise to the throne should be included in the section, to emphasise Boran's acceptance as queen.
• (ref 8a Chaumont) The Encyclopaedia Iranica discusses both Fosfarrūḵ abd Farroḵ-Hormozd - both men should be mentioned in the section.

I did not add Muhammad since he was not a Sasanian citizen and his theological description of Boran is outright demeaning (basically a woman "can't rule") and ultimately irrelevant. Also Fosfarrukh and Farrukh Hormizd are the same people. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Understood - my apologies for the confusion over the names. Amitchell125 20:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Second reign

• (ref 8c Ch.) 'However, this is unlikely.' You need to say whose opinion this is.

Coin mints and imperial ideology

• (Ref 38b Daryaee 2014) 'She also minted coins that were formal in quality and were not designed for broad distribution.' This sentence is identical to the one in Dar. p. 35, and so needs to be re-phrased.

Sorted. Amitchell125 08:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now completed checking the references, (please cross out each line on completion). The article is generally looking in good shape, but I still have some other checks to do. Amitchell125 08:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

Hi HistoryofIran, looking at the lead section, I would expect the following points to be included in an expanded version:

• the alternative names Bōrān (or Burān)
• that her mother was a Byzantine princess
• LouisAragon's recommendations (see above)
• the accession of Kavad II after seizing the throne from his father and killing his male siblings, initiating a period of fractionalism within the empire
• the death of Kavad and accession of Ardashir III, followed by short reign of Ardashir’s murderer
• that she acceded as the only legitimate heir
• a summary of her short reign, in which she demonstrated respect for her father, achieved new laws, reduced taxes, improved relations with the Byzantines, issued her own coinage, and started to reconstruct the infrastructure of the empire, etc.
• that she was deposed in 630, then reinstated after the death of her sister
• Finally that she was (presumably) strangled after a revolt broke out, the resulting hostilities only subsiding after the installation of her successor Yazdegerd III, at a time when an Arab Muslim invasion of the region occurred. Amitchell125 20:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Expanded the lead, wat do you think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A good lead section now, which would be even better if some of her achievements as queen were mentioned. Amitchell125 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There we go. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That's great! Amitchell125 13:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Map

It's all looking a lot better, but looking at the map again, I'm not sure about it (it needs to be sourced and it doesn't show the information relevant to the article - i.e. the extent of the empire during Boran's reign, Byzantium and Constantinople, and most of the areas and provinces named in the article). It's used in a good article, Shahrbaraz, but I wouldn't agree to its use there either. I'll see if there's another map that can be used instead. In the mean time, I've put 6b on 'hold'. Amitchell125 13:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well it's a pretty accurate map of Sasanian Mesopotamia (including Ctesiphon) that I created some time ago (most of the cities/provinces have their own article as well). I just didn't find it necessary to put sources on the description of the image back then (which was a mistake). Unfortunately there aren't many better (and accurate) options as Sasanian maps go. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The best I have found so far is from Hamlyn (here) - registration required - which can be used as a source to produce a new map. After a bit of checking it's clear your map is accurate, but it maybe needs to be accompanied with a more general map that fits with the text. I can produce that this evening. The rest of the article is now GA. Amitchell125 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The map of Iran under Khosrow I isn't very accurate, it's pretty outdated as sources regarding the extent of Sasanian territory go (it's missing huge chunks of Arabia and the vassal state of Chaghaniyan, the city/province names are anachronistic as well). Iran under Boran would kinda look like this [1], probably with less territory in the east. The map is just ugly af tho. I would love to make a proper detailed map meself, I just need a tutorial or something on how to draw the lines/color the map properly. I find it hard to do on large, detailed maps. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I got so far with the map, but I agree with you that it needs to be better than the Hamlyn one, so I've stopped. Let's keep the map that's there. If we can get the data to produce a first-rate map of the development of the Sassanid Empire, I'd be happy to help you produce what you want (as I know how to use Inkscape to make topographical maps). I'm passing the article as good, brilliant work, HistoryofIran (you've got me hooked on Sassanid history now...) Amitchell125 20:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds pretty cool, appreciate it :) - I'll have a look at my sources. Also, thanks for putting so much effort into improving this article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)