Wikipedia:Peer review/Nezak Huns/archive1

Nezak Huns

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take a stab at a FA in a few months. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

The below, fairly disorganised, but with FAC in mind.

The infobox contains too much detail/information not included in the article:
- Infobox indicates that the capital was Ghazna and/or Kapisa, without specifying if this was simultaneous or sequential. The article says "Their capital was at modern-day Bagram." Does that refer to one of Ghazna/Kapisa, and if so why not name that settlement?
- The "Nezaks" in the box in the infobox map is almost unreadable.
- What is the source for File:Nezak_Crown.png being an accurate representation of the crown?
- Was "Nezak Shah" the title of the leader? The prose only has it as an alternative name for the state as a whole.
- A 448–665 timespan appears twice in the infobox. There should be only one, and the dates should be preceded with a c., as they are not defined with any certainty in the body.
- Where in the body is "Nomadic empire" defined as the government type.
- Infobox says currency was a "Hunnic Drachm"; body says "There were four types of drachms and obols in circulation." If the point is unclear, it should not be in the infobox. Similarly with the "Alchon Huns" in the "Preceded by" section, and the "Today part of" countries which are nowhere cited in the article.
By contrast, the lead could be longer, to summarize more of the article. It is rather rushed at the minute, which leads to several issues:
- The first paragraph says "Despite being traditionally identified as the last of the Hunnic states"; the body says "The Nezaks were the last of the four "Hunic" states". What are the reasons for the Hunnic/Hunic discrepancy, and why is the identification definite in the body and hedged in the lead? Be careful with the word "Hunnic", as in English it primarily refers to the European Huns, and I am given to understand that there is no scholarly consensus for a connection between the European and Asian tribes referred to as "Huns". I note that the "Etymology" section does not touch on this point at all.
- "The dynasty is primarily evidenced by coinage inscribing a characteristic water-buffalo-head crown and an eponymous legend" This sentence is not very clear at all. Is the "eponymous legend" inscribed on the coins, or is it just part of the evidence for the dynasty? What is the "eponymous" part of the legend?
- "a Huna ally" another word which has not been adequately defined. If "Huna" refers to the Nezaks, you should have an "its inhabitants were known as Hunas" or similar earlier in the lead.
- The lead does not summarize any or significant information from the following subsections: "Religion", "Link with Nezak Tarkhans", "Pilgrim Travelogues", "Territory", "Etymology", and "Coinage".
I note that several sections such as "Territory", "Religion", and "Link with Nezak Tarkhans" are rather short; per MOS:OVERSECTION, short sections consisting of single paragraphs are to be avoided.
Some notes are uncited.

It is evident that from an in-depth review of the infobox and lead alone, and a cursory glance at the rest of the article, that significant work is needed. Ping me if you want more comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Please respond to the comments above. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is discardable (and was not written by me); responding to the rest. @AirshipJungleman29 I will apreciate comments for the remainder of the article, thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 this is not a DYK or GA review; TrangaBellam is under no obligation to respond to my comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I know that but, still, will appreciate comments for the remainder of the article. As and when you have time to spare. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi TrangaBellam, marking my spot here, will add comments soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the ping didn't go through - it's TrangaBellam not Tranga Bellam. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, changed to the former. Matarisvan (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TrangaBellam, the fix above might lead to you being tagged twice, please excuse this. Comments:

"Nezak Shahs was": "were"? If the name had been Nezak Hun and Nezak Shah, then "was" would have been correct, but we have plurals here.
Link to Hunnic or Huna (pointing to Huns)? Readers with little knowledge of history would benefit from the link.
Consider expanding the lead from the current 2 paragraphs to 4, which is the expected length for an FA?
"the intermediary rulers": "these"?
Link to Tokharistan?
Introduce Frantz Grenet with a "historian" prefix?
Link to Middle Persian?
Link to Begram in note a?
Link to Taxila? The state then ruling Kashmir would be the Karkota dynasty, I presume? The latter should be be linked.
A brief estimate of area in acres, sq km etc. is needed, and a map too.
Link to Tang Dynasty in body on first use?
The article for Ghar-ilchi notes that Xinnie and Hexiezi were Khingila and Ghar-ilchi respectively. Consider including that information here?
"Alkhon": This is the only spelling of Alchon where the "c" is replaced by "k", consider changing? Also, consider linking as this is the first use in the body?
Translate akshara using a lit or trans template as meaning "letter"?
Note h: Link to terminus post quem, diadem?
Note k: Link to Yazdegerd II?
Translate Sri Sahi?
Translate what the Alchon tamgha means, if such a meaning has been deciphered?
"presence of Nezak bull's": "presence of the Nezak bull's"?
Introduce Shoshin Kuwayama and the subsequent historians?
Note q: "a Toramana II": remove the "a"?
Link to Ibn Baladhuri?
"renewed offensive": "offensives"?
Note t: Link to Khalaj?
Ref #20 has two dashes instead of one.
Is there anything in Payne 2016 which has not been included in the article? I'm assuming you want to go to FAC, and FA reviewers only want works by the article subject in the Further Reading section.
Robert Gobl is mentioned a couple of times but none of his works are directly cited, as far as I can tell.

I can't seem to find more on this topic right now, I will add more comments when I do, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be addressing the concerns in a week (month?) TrangaBellam (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720

@TrangaBellam: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated at WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no response to the above, I am closing this PR. A new PR can be opened when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]