Talk:Vakhtang I of Iberia

Vakhtang I of Iberia was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 31, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Saints Low‑importance

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Georgia (country) Mid‑importance

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran Low‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gorgasali and Justinian?[edit]

The article says that Vakhtang sought aid from Justinian I, but Justinian wasn't emperor until 25 years after Vakhtang's death...

The contemporary emperor at the time would have been Zeno. Can anyone confirm if Zeno was the emperor Vakhtang sought help from? Abou 21:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Neil916 (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Neil916 and I will be performing the GA review of this article.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No copyright violations found from online sources. However, the prose needs a significant copyedit in order to be easier to understand. An example of this is taken from the lead, "Tradition also ascribes him reorganization of the Georgian Orthodox Church and foundation of Tbilisi, Georgia’s modern capital". Many of the sentences are run-on sentences that need to be broken down into simpler descriptions. Similarly, some of the words need to be simplified. Write to EXpress, not to IMpress. In the example I gave above, simplify that long, convoluted sentence into something like "he reorganized the Georgian Orthodox Church and founded the city of Tbilisi, Georgia's modern capital". Then cite it to a reference so the reader can find out who said he reorganized the church. Simplify the text, and it will become much easier to read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Does not follow guidelines found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead section contains information that is not mentioned again the rest of the article (dating the reign, vita, canonized). It is not written in a clear, accessible style. It is a loose list of facts. 9 sentences in 5 paragraphs. Beware of "weasel words" like "At the age of 16, Vakhtang is said to have led a victorious retaliatory war against the Ossetians". If there is controversy about whether he did it, identify the controversy. If it's not certain, say that historians don't know the specifics. As it is written, the article hints that the information might not be correct without coming out and saying it.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article currently contains a citation error due to a named reference being named twice with different information. There are two different references that are cited as "Life of Vakhtang Gorgasali", one in Russian and one in English. The English one is not clear what the "page of edition 203, line of edition 9-10-11-12-13" [etc.] means. Are these the same reference? There is not enough information for a reader to refer to the same source that the article used. This should be a minor issue that could be easily corrected. Some of the text includes unnecessarily distracting source information that seems more appropriate to cite a reference in a footnote rather than clutter the body of the text with it. As an example, the first sentence of the "Name" section starts with "According to the Life of Vakhtang Gorgasali". Is there academic controversy about what his birth name was? If so, then this mention of who said what in the body is appropriate, but the article should mention who said the other thing. The article does this well when it mentions the difficulty of identifying what years he reigned. The article identifies the name of each scholar and what he thinks. The text of the article would flow better to say "At birth, the king was given the Iranian name of x...etc." and cite a reference in the footnotes so readers can see where that information came from.
	2b. 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).	Soures are reliable and appropriately cited for easy cross-checking by someone wishing to challenge the information they cite.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The "Legacy" section has some problematic statements that are not cited to reliable sources, including one that someone has tagged with a citation needed template and a clarification needed template. It appears to have been tagged that way since 2013. The rest of the article contains a simple statement of facts without interpretation, and references are provided.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Before I read the article for the first time, made a mental note to myself with a list of the major facts that I would expect to find in an encyclopedia article about a historical monarch. The article contains all of these major facts, although they were a bit difficult to find in some cases. As minor issues, some additional contextual help would be helpful to the reader. I was left wondering, for example, what Life of Vakhtang Gorgasali was, for instance, and why it was mentioned so prominently in the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The information contained within the article stays relevant to the subject matter. There aren't extra "trivia" sections that describe that some random TV show that had a character named Vakhtang, for example. Except where noted below, there aren't any sections where a reader would think that the section should be cut out or merged with a different article. I don't feel that the "further reading" section with an unlinked list of Georgian texts helps the reader on the English Wikipedia, and should probably be removed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Content is uncontroversial and is not expected to have neutrality issues. Where conflicting information exists, such as where different scholars have provided different estimates of Vakhtang's reign, both estimates are provided without the article taking a position of who is right or wrong.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable with no signs of recent content disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are credibly tagged with with their copyright status. No fair-use content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the article. The labels on the map are in French; it would be nice to have English labels. It would also be nice to have a map of a larger area showing the reader where Iberia is located within Asia (I initially got it confused with the Iberian Pennisula). Those items are "nice to have" items and do not prevent GA approval.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is interesting to read, but in its current form does not meet the Good Article Criteria. I am not passing the article, but if someone is feeling energetic and wants me to take another look at it in a week or two, just ping me with a comment on this page to give me a heads up and I'm happy to give it a second look. Neil916 (Talk) 08:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vakhtang I of Iberia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080614125437/http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/070306192614 to http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/070306192614

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Iran" rather than "Persia"[edit]

The use of the terms "Iran" and "Iranian" for what was Persia and Persian at the time is an anachronism and not the norm in scholarly literature. 2001:1716:4604:4B00:ED1B:534C:1C85:1570 (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]