Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Solachon

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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Solachon[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

One of the few battles of the later Roman-Persian Wars about which details are known, and one particularly illustrative of why a general shouldn't charge into the fray like Alexander, but keep a distance and a cool head. The article is an old one, having been written in the main in 2010, but I was reluctant to nominate it before drawing up some battle maps. Some tweaks and minor additions have also taken place, the article went through GA in June, and I feel confident it is up to A-class standards. Constantine ✍ 18:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This is pretty good, particularly given the shortage of sources on this era. My comments are:

I'd suggest expanding and reorganising the lead so that it's a couple of paragraphs in length
You provide some background on Prince Philippicus in the first sentence of the lead, but not Kardarigan.
"The battle was part of a long war" - I think that the link behind the 'long war' is overly piped
"Several factors led to this development: relations between the two powers had been progressively deteriorating over the previous years, following Byzantine contacts with the Göktürks for a joint effort against Persia and the Persian intervention in Yemen against Christian Axumite rule there." - this reads a bit awkwardly. I'd suggest splitting it into more than one sentence
"Kardarigan had ordered the water supplies shed to the ground" - this wording is a bit awkward
I'd suggest adding citations for the maps of the battle Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! On issue 2), there isn't much known about Kardarigan> He was certainly a nobleman of some sort, but what little is known of him is summarized in his own article. I've rewritten the lede to make two paragraphs, one with the general context and one with the course of the battle. I am open to further suggestions here. I've also rewritten the article for points 4) and 5). On point 6), how exactly would you like to see that? Do you want me to give a reference for the map source or for the descriptions? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the maps are based on maps from the book, I'd just reference the source page for the map. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments (other than the suggestion immediately above) have now been addressed; nice work with this article Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I'd echo Nick-D's comments above on the article being good.
"and periods of truce and negotiations succeeding periods of active warfare" - do you mean "interspersing"? A truce can only really follow a period of active fighting.
"met the Byzantine force already deployed in battle order."- unclear if this means that Kardargan was in battle order, or the Byzantines.
"("black hawk", a honorific title rather than a proper name[4])" - should the footnote be after the punctuation of the bracket?
"In spring 586 Maurice rejected new Persian proposals of peace in exchange for gold" - could be read either that he rejected the proposals, in exchange for gold, or that the proposals were for peace for gold.
"a mix of lancers and horse-archers," - worth wikilinking.

" his attempt to capture the fortress of Chlomaron was foiled" - "foiled" has images of twirling moustaches and cunning plots to me!
"However, the war continued..." There's a couple of "However..."s in this paragraph. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now support. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problems with the prose. The trouble spots have been rewritten, please have another look. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

"advanced some 15 km east": I suggest adding a convert template here to display kilometres and miles;
slightly repetitious: "reported the Persians' approach, he positioned his men on elevated ground facing the direction from which the Persian army approached" (approach and approached);
there is a mix of US and British English, for example "centre" and "center";
"With both wings having disintegrated, the Persian center was now subject to an attack" --> "With both wings having disintegrated, the Persian center was now subjected to an attack". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections implemented! Thanks a lot! Constantine ✍ 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've added my support now. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

"The Battle of Solachon was fought in 586 CE in northern Mesopotamia between the East Roman (Byzantine) forces, led by Philippicus, the brother-in-law of Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602), and the Sassanid Persians under Kardarigan." - That is huge. Do you need so much context in the first sentence? I'm thinking the bit about Maurice can be saved for later.
"Kardarigan himself survived and held out with a part of his army on a hillock for several days against Byzantine attacks" - Is "Kardarigan himself survived and held out against Byzantine attacks with a part of his army on a hillock for several days." preferable?
"ascended the Byzantine throne at Constantinople; " - Ascended or ascended to in British English?
"from water poisoning when they drank too much water after their ordeal" - Where did they get this water? The river is blocked and they're not allowed in Dara, right?
I did a copyedit (mostly non-breaking spaces). Be sure to double check it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, they've been taken care of. I too leaned towards removing the reference to Maurice altogether from the lede, so I've done that. Otherwise I've rewritten the part about Kardarigan in the lede, fixed the Missing "to" and added where the Persians got the water from. Your edits were fine. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supported above, looks nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

"from where he could": to
"advanced against the Byzantines. Warned of the Persian approach, the latter were already deployed in battle order": Avoid "latter" if possible: advanced against the Byzantines, but they had been warned and were deployed in battle order
"In 572 the then Byzantine ruler Justin II": Avoid "the then" if possible: In 572, Byzantine emperor Justin II
"deterioration of relations between the two powers over the previous years": deterioration of relations between the two powers
"which manifested itself in diplomatic and military moves in their periphery": which had been marked by diplomatic and military manoeuvring ouside their borders
"allowed Philippicus' army to control the passage of the Arzamon river and meant that the Persian army under Kardarigan would have to advance across the waterless plain": It's almost always better to avoid this sense of "meant": allowed Philippicus' army to control the passage of the Arzamon river, forcing the Persian army under Kardarigan to advance across the waterless plain
"just in time for, in the centre, the Persians had regrouped": Avoid "in time for" if the meaning isn't the usual one: just in time; in the centre ...
- Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions as usual, much appreciated. Implemented with a few changes (I prefer "periphery" to the too-generic "outside their borders"). I think you missed completing your first suggestion, though. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the first suggestion, "from where" is technically fine but out of fashion. I changed "from where he could control the various routes" to "controlling the various routes", and reworded another "from where". "for" as a conjunction is also technically fine but out of fashion; I changed "returned to order just in time, for in the centre, the Persians had regrouped" to: "returned to order just in time to stop the Persians, who had regrouped in the centre".
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits (but edits may take several days to show up on that page.) Great work as always, Constantine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.