Talk:Phraates I

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phraates I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs) 22:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll be handling this. Comments soon! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

General

• No Copyvio issues found according to Earwig's Copyvio detector.
• Both the article and it's corresponding talk page lack any edit wars, instability, etc. In addition, the subject is not likely to be controversial.
• The article fits the MoS.
• The sources all seem verifiable and aren't original research. However, ensure that the ISBNs are consistently formatted.
• The singular image used is appropriately tagged and relevant to the topic.
• The article is neutral.
• The article succeeds on the smaller issues, but fails on the broader details - in what way were the Parthians reclaiming Hyrcania, for example?

Name

• Link transliteration.

Lede

• "He subdued the Mardians, and conquered their territory in the Alborz mountains, as well as reclaimed Hyrcania." Reclaimed Hyrcania from who? If it was independent and he simply conquered it, the "as well as" is redundant.

The Seleucids, added it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

• Link Epigraphic.

Done, I'm gonna cross the fixed issues for practicality btw. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• What is the significance of Olbrycht's opinion here?

He is a leading specialist in Parthian history. I've added that he is a historian. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Reign

• Remove "easily"
• "The attack must have been part of the Parthian efforts to expand their domain in Iran proper and secure control over Hyrcania." Must have? Was it or was it not?
• "They would first achieve this under Phraates' successor Mithridates I." Not particularly relevant here - remove it or put it somewhere later in the article.
• "Furthermore, he also reclaimed Hyrcania." Again, from who?
• "which suggests that Phraates deliberately" This reads like speculation.

Yup. Parthian history is very obscure, so this is how Overtoom deducted the primary source(s). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Phraates notably appointed his brother Mithridates as his successor." How is it notable when in the next sentence, it's said to be a common practice?

His choice is unusual in a world where the throne usually passed to the son. This curious choice of his is often mentioned by historians who speculate the reason(s) behind it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran That should be it for now! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, after some minor editing I believe that this article is now GA ready. Thank you for you timeliness and co-operation! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dates

The Parthian Empire article states that his reign was from 176–171BC. This article states that it was from 170/168BC to 165/64BC. Is there any way we can get everybody on the same page? JHowardGibson (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)