Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Iazyges

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Iazyges[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Iazyges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is my namesake article, that has just become a good article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, I really only looked at minor aspects as this isn't really an area I know anything about; I will have a read through more thoroughly later. In the meantime, I have a couple minor observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "as a buffer tribe-state, following their policy of using small..." --> " as a buffer tribe-state, following the adoption of a policy of using small..."
  • "the Iazyges and replaced by Zanticus...": the link for Zanticus is a self pointing redirect, so I would suggest either removing it, or creating a stub for it
  • the Commons link should be moved up to the top of the last section per WP:LAYOUT and the External links should be the last section
  • I'd suggest moving the Notes above the Citations, and they should probably have in line references themselves
  • the formatting of the Further reading entries is inconsistent due to the inconsistent use of templates (some entries use none, some use "cite book" and another uses "citation")
  • capitalisation and punctuation: "Dacia land of Transylvania, cornerstone of ancient eastern Europe" --> "Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe.
  • "(Rev. ed. ed.)" --> "(Rev. ed.)"
(A result of me adding in Rev. ed, unaware that it automated the addition of ed.
  • inconsistent presentation, compare: "Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian, Routledge, 1992, p. 150" v. "Wellesley, Kenneth (2002). Year of the Four Emperors. Routledge. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-134-56227-5."

It's a result of a situation in which it is "widely" known that it happened, but I couldn't find any other references for it, I plan to either replace it or remove it, if a better source comes along or a better source disproves it (respectively).Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added in more sources for it, one that was previously used, and one that (claims to) have been written by Ján Steinhübel, an expert historian on Hungary and Slovakia, I believe that its claim is genuine, and that it likely is an excerpt of a book called "Short history of Slovakia" he made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good to see you've found other refs for it. I would suggest just removing the "everything2" ref, though, as it is doesn't meet the definition of a reliable source per WP:RS and will be a barrier to promotion for this article, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)>[reply]
  • User:AustralianRupert I believe I have addressed all of your suggestions, but feel free to tell me if not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, sorry to take so long, but I have taken another look at the article now and have a couple more comments/queries/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Iazyges first make their appearance in the historical record on the northern shores..." I wonder if it would make sense here to mention one or two of the major historical records to mention them at that time?
    • Same sentence: I wonder if the rough date of this could be mentioned?
    • some of the sections in the History section are quite small, to the extent that I'd suggest potentially merging a couple. For instance the 2nd and 1st Century BC sections could potentially be combined under a header such as "Early period" or "Before Common Era" or something else...?
    • I'd suggest probably moving the 472 AD killings into the Aftermath section as that section seems to mention something that happened before then.
    • are there references for these two kings: Uzafer and Zizayis?
    • "The Iazyges are mentioned by the geographer Claudius Ptolemy in his Geography as ...": I think that this probably should be worked into the body of the article as it seems that currently it is only mentioned in the lead
    • in the Further reading section, are there ISBN or OCLC numbers for the works listed?
    • given that the two links that are currently in the External links section are being used as in line citations, there is probably no need for the External links section at all. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, I've checked your recent changes and they look good to me. My only remaining concern is the last couple of small sections which should probably be merged in together. I've made a suggested edit to combine a couple, but please feel free to revert if you disagree. I would also suggest trying to work the single sentence Culture section in somewhere else (potentially the first paragraph of the History section). Otherwise, the Culture section should be expanded if it is going to stay on its own. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added my support now. You will need to resolve the issue raised by Cagwinn, though, before FAC if that is where you are intending to take this article. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • is communication/communicate used in the British English sense of transport/transportation/means of transport? This meaning is unavailable in AmerEng, and I didn't see a BrEng template atop the page.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain, I will check the sources, It's currently supposed to be American english, but thats only becuase I wrote it all as such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: the source book was published by Cambridge, so it is likely british english, however I find it more likely that by communicate, it may be the universal communicate, as they often joined each other on raids. I am uncertain if the fact its from a british source neccesarily implies transport/trade. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means roads.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: hm, How do you think it should be changed, perhaps "Could communicate with the Roxolani" be changed to "could travel to the area of the Roxolani"? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another source, Dacia: Land of Transylvania, confirmed that it meant visited, I have changed it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be something wrong with this sentence: "Under Augustus, there were four legions stationed along the Rhine, with four being stationed in Mainz and another four in Cologne."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iazyges: Unless I'm wrong, Wikipedia informs me that both Mainz and Cologne are on the Rhine... so if there are four in each, how does that add up to only four on the Rhine? Unless my geography is wrong.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to the sharp angle of the river" why would that make it harder to defend?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume because it limited the size of the ships, or else ships had to be more manueverable in order to be used. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also may be because the Romans tactics of a rectangular army division didn't do well on sharp corners. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* the footnotes are visually identical to the citations; suggest drawing a clear distinction by using {{efn-ua}} or {{refn}} or similar.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC) * this source says their scale armor was made of horse hooves; the article says metal.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • Please forgive me, but I need to bow out. It is the busy season in my job, plus I have research to do, and then whatever Wikipedia time I have is spent on my own project. I do apologize.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lingzhi Totally understandable, thanks for all the suggestions so far! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine[edit]

For me too this is not a subject I am terribly familiar with. I've already given some feedback in the past to Iazyges on the article, and most of my comments there still stand.

  • I don't see the point of the "2nd century BC", "1st century BC" headers; stub sections like this ought to be merged into what this is really about, i.e. "Early history", or something like that

  • A major concern is the comprehensiveness of the article; I see tertiary and secondary works on related or generalist topics, but none on the Iazyges themselves in the sources. Surely there must be some works that deal with them, or the Sarmatians, specifically. This would help to address the problem that the article is currently a chronological listing, and lacks both an internal narrative structure as well as many of the subjects I'd like to see in an article about an ancient tribe, such as cultural aspects, military organization and tactics (they are best known as warriors, after all), archaeological traces, etc. Quite how the Iazyges are to be differentiated from the Sarmatians in general would also be interesting to know.
  • As mentioned earlier, we have little to no idea how they differentiated, or if the Romans made an arbitrary decision to call them Iazyges. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, then what is the basis of them existing as a separate topic? Surely there must have been some distinction, perhaps as a sub-tribe or something similar? What does modern scholarship think about it? Constantine ✍ 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found a source saying that unlike the Sarmatians of Asia or far east europe the Iazyges lived sedentary lifestyles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's definitely in the right direction. I am sure that more can be found on the same vein. Anything on language, social structure, religion, etc?Constantine ✍ 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, I'd prefer to see the titles of the sources in the "Bibliography" section, and convert the references to a more manageable format like Harvard. Full-title references are hard to read and follow.
  • Not necessarily; anything in WP:SRF is valid. This is not a sine qua non, but in my experience it is a does considerably help readers follow the individual references. Constantine ✍ 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the section "2nd century BC", how do we know that? Was this reported by an ancient author, or is there archaeological evidence? For either of these, it is better to explicitly name and describe it. In general, when describing events that were (probably) outside the direct observation of contemporary historians, or events and dates that may be conjectural, it is best to ascribe them explicitly to a primary source.
  • It might also be a good idea to begin the article with a "Primary sources" section, dealing briefly with the primary sources that mention the Iazyges. It helps readers get a picture of just how much material there is to go on them, and helps the article writer by removing the need to introduce new primary sources every time along the rest of the article.
  • "Under Augustus, there were four legions stationed along the Rhine, with four being stationed in Mainz and another four in Cologne." Something does not add up here.

  • "By the turn of the 1st century, [..] twelve legions were stationed along the Danube" Again, the strict chronological division is not meaningful here. This section clearly describes an ongoing process of the shift of Roman defensive focus from the Rhine to the Danube, where the Iazyges obviously played a role. I'd include this simply under "2nd century AD", and rename this to "Dacian Wars", with "After the Dacian Wars" as a separate section.
  • "it appears to have been satisfactory to the Iazyges, as no wars between Rome and them are recorded for another half century." is in direct contradiction with the mention of a conflict in 123.
  • "Octavio Grapo" looks like the (modern) Italian form of a Roman name.
Hm, perhaps Octavius Grapous, I will look into it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sharp angle of the river." I am unsure what this means.
I believe it means it turns "quickly" , or the direction of the river changes within a short distance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any indication of what happened between 184 and 472, or at least why the article skips the period? No sources? Conversely, why do the Iazyges suddenly reappear in 472, three centuries after their last mention? What is the relationship of the Argaragantes and the Limigantes to the Iazyges?
  • There is very little mention, someone articles refer to raids, but I haven't found good sources for them. The relationship is (possibly) that the Iazyges had a power struggle and a part of them were enslaved, and (possibly) that Iazyges enslaved the Roxolani, or vice versa. It may be better to remove it unless we can find better sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, sounds complicated indeed, but that is precisely why it should be covered. Take your time to find the appropriate sources and do a thorough job of presenting and explaining the various theories Constantine ✍ 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following perfectly with the "hide in plain sight" tactic, the source we were looking for was referenced to it, I have added it in, the Iazyges were enslaved and became the Limigantes, and the Roxolani enslaved them and became the Aragantes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* "it is said that he wanted to entirely exterminate the Iazyges" by whom?

  • "It has been theorized that..." by whom?
  • I have removed this bit because the source appears to be entirely unrelated, and the theory as I have seen doesn't have much backing or evidence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some believe that the unusually armored horsemen..." again, who asserts this? Perhaps a section dealing with the possible Iazyges/Sarmatian origin of the myth might be suitable?

I hope this was helpful. Right now, the article provides a good overview of the history of the Iazyges, but there are many angles that are left uncovered in terms of comprehensiveness, and the treatment is rather episodic in nature. Constantine ✍ 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a second review, I see improvement, but am still unsatisfied with the article. Despite the addition on sedentarism, I still miss the ethnological and cultural context and their relation to other neighbouring tribes, especially the other Sarmatians. This is briefly mentioned in the lede, but not in the main body of the article. Furthermore, the Sarmatians article seems to suggest that the Metanastae were distinct from the Iazyges. I also miss any reference as to how we know where they were in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, particularly when the article states right at the beginning that they are "first documented in Claudius Ptolemy's Geography", a 2nd-century AD work. For that matter, that assertion is problematic since the "Primary sources" section also mentions Strabo and Pliny, who lived well before Ptolemy. Unfortunately, this rather elementary error undermines my confidence in the comprehensiveness and completeness of the article as it stands. That is also why I recommended a full treatment, rather than a listing, of the primary sources (including, if available, any archaeological evidence) at the beginning in a dedicated section: it is good for the interested reader to know which events/periods/topics were covered by which primary source. On minor issues, "Octavio Grapo" is still unresolved, and the lead section is not a summary of the article per WP:LEDE. 09:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Constantine ✍

Sorry I've been late, today has been a little hectic for me. The relationship's between them aren't well documented, and changed a lot. I have it to Octavius Grapo, if you think the last name needs to be changed just say the word. I am not sure about the primary sources listing being helpful. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the larger issue on the Metanastae one, I am unsure of how to resolve it. While it is mentioned a lot no singular source appears able to satisfactorily explain it, almost every source seems to either not mention it, contradict itself, or else list multiple possibilities. If you find a good source for it let me know. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the images are missing alt texts, and if you intend to bring this to FA, most of the maps are unreferenced. In addition, I am worried about the use of images depicting generic Sarmatians, but being labelled in the article as "Iazyges". It implies to the uninitiated that we know these to be Iazyges, and implicitly, that there is a visual way of distinguishing the Iazyges from other peoples. That is wrong. I recommend making the captions more factual, e.g. "Sculpted image of a Sarmatian, 16th century" and "Roman cavalry (left) fighting Sarmatian cavalry (right), from Trajan's Column"; you may of course add something to the point of "Iazyges would look similar". Constantine ✍ 09:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, again, some improvements, but I don't see major changes. So I will reiterate: in the article, the history of the Iazyges is covered rather well from the moment they enter into contact with the Romans, but the period before and their history apart from their conflicts with the Romans are, to my mind at least, unsatisfactory. I have pointed out the areas for improvement in my previous comments, and I don't see many changes so far in that direction. Perhaps I am asking too much, but I cannot escape the feeling that, as regards comprehensiveness, it still needs some work. I come off the article knowing what the Iazyges did, but not really who they were, or what place they really occupied among the tribes of eastern Europe from an ethnological or archaeological standpoint. I realize that scholarship may be thin, but if so, it should be presented in full, and analyzed: this is what we know about them (because of source X, or archaeological find B, etc.), this is what we guess, this is what we don't know at all. Frankly, the fact that so much of the article is built upon generalist and Roman-centred books does not convince me that the academic literature on the subject has been exhausted. A brief survey in GBooks and GScholar points to such works as J. Harmatta, Studies on the history of the Sarmatians (1950), which is helpfully online, or this 1913 source which covers the primary sources very well. Before I support, at least these works need to be taken into account.
A minor remark: "last1=Ash|first1=Tacitus; translated by Kenneth Wellesley; revised with a new introduction by Rhiannon" and "|last1=Knight|first1=Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen ; ed. by Max|" are clearly incorrect. Constantine ✍ 15:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the alt texts, you need to describe the image, not what it is meant to show. It needs to be a textual representation of the image, e.g. "yellow map with rivers and names of the tribes in various colours" ;). Constantine ✍ 15:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I have added in what you have given me, it does add a lot on the burial sites, and economic problems, which is good. I am still looking for more, and will work on the alt text. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I have added in everything and done the alt texts, and added citations to all of the images. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More context has been provided as to the Iazyges and their interactions with the rest of the barbaricum, not just the Romans, and although some improvement is still possible, I consider it adequate for an A-class article. Hence at this point I support the nomination. Constantine ✍ 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr rnddude (talk)[edit]

Support - My concerns about content and prose have been addressed satisfactorily. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Criterion A2

:*... the Iazyges shattered the Roman Legio XXI Rapax in battle. - well, more accurately they annihilated the entire legion ending its existence from there on. Much like Legio XVII and XIX in Teutoberg forest.

  • The battle on the frozen Danube river is not mentioned. I thought it had been, but, this decisive engagement which eventually forced the Iazyges to surrender to Marcus Aurelius has no mention beyond The Iazyges probably surrendered in 175. There's too little context to explain why the Iazyges surrendered to Marcus Aurelius. The article is not particularly expansive at 27k bytes and I don't think this battle could have it's own spin-off article, but, even if it could, some mention of it is I think necessary here. For sources feel free to refer to LXIII Blood on the Ice and The Roman Empire and the Silk Route which cover the battle in fair detail. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive discussion, but, at least a small paragraph or a few sentences should be included. This episode even features Pertinax himself.
  • Is there no mention of the Iazyges from the second through to the fifth centuries?
Accounts of them are sparse, and reliable sources hard to find, most mentions of them are short, I did find one about a raid in 348 and added it however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Criterion A3

  • I support Cplakidas' comment above with regard to section headings. The 2nd and 1st century B.C. headings give the appearance of incompleteness. There may be nothing more to add, but, it gives the appearance of there being more to add.

*Criterion A4 - I note that copy-edits are underway so some of these comments may become moot before I upload them;

  • In 6 AD and again in 16 AD, the Iazyges raided their border with Rome. - Eh, I think "raided across their border with Rome." would make more sense, or alternativel, the Iazyges conducted raids across their border with Rome.
  • However, in 20 AD the Iazyges moved west along the Carpathians into the Hungarian steppes, and settled in the steppes between the Danube and the Tisza river, fully taking it from the Dacians. - "taking complete control over it from the Dacians".
  • Domitian's campaign was entirely unsuccessful; however, a victory in a minor skirmish allowed him to claim it a victory, even though he ended up paying the King of Dacia, Decebalus, an annual tribute of eight million sesterces in tribute to end the war. - repetitive, needs a rewrite. Perhaps; Domitian's campaign was almost entirely unsuccessful, he was able to claim only a single victory in a minor skirmish and was eventually forced to pay the Dacian king Decebalus an annual tribute of eight million sesterces in exchange for an end to the war.
  • Actually, check that I haven't made this prose changes myself. Every body else does copy-edits, may as well jump in and help out. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Criterion A5

  • File:Roman provinces in a 1867 school atlas.jpg - Needs an appropriate license for use with in the U.S. as that is required by all images used on the English Wikipedia. In this case, {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-art}} are appropriate.

  • Other comments;
  • By the way; Iazyges do use source or visual editing?
Source. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll post my thoughts in greater detail soon. This just immediately jumped out at me. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being somewhat late and inactive, I have to leave again, but I will finish them as best as I can when I return. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from 15/01/2017
  • Criterion A4;
  • Lede; Is it possible to condense the lede into three paragraphs instead of four. Most specifically, the third paragraph which is a lone sentence and feels like it belongs at the end of the second paragraph.

 Done

  • Unlike the Sarmatians of the Eurasian Steppe, who largely lived nomadic lives, the Iazyges lived sedentary lives, meaning that they built towns. Very repetitive "lived ... lives" x 2. Rephrase recommendations; Unlike the Sarmatians of the Eurasian Steppe who were largely nomadic, the Iazyges lived sedentary lifestyles and built towns.

 Done

however if this is true the Iazyges that stayed along the Sea of Azov are never mentioned again as such -> however if this is true, the Iazyges that remained along the Sea of Azov are never mentioned again.

 Done

In the 2nd century BC, the Iazyges began to migrate west to the steppe near the Lower Dniester. One possible explanation of this was that the Roxolani were also migrating west, due to pressure from the Aorsi this needs a more thorough explanation. Specifically, what does the migration of the Roxolani have to do with the migration of the Iazyges? were the Roxolani putting pressure on the Iayzges to keep moving, or is this a coincidence? The answer is spread across 283 and 284 of the book; In the second century BC the Roxolani, under pressure from their eastern neightbours the Aorsi, moved westwards across the Don, forcing the Iazyges to migrate westwards to the steppe of the lower Dneister .... Though I'm not sure I understand Cunliffe's statement, it strikes me as being contradictory. A moment earlier he states that the Roxolani lived to the west of the Iazyges near the Volga river, how would their movement further west - I.e. away from the Iazyges - result in them forcing the Iazyges westward? Granted I figure this is Cunliffe's error as the Volga river is well east of the Don and Dnieper rivers, not west. I.e. the Roxolani are far east of the Iazyges.

 Done

In early 92 <- In early 92 AD, ...

 Done

In May 92, <- In May 92 AD, ...

 Done

Roman military resources had become centred along the Danube instead of the Rhine. <- sentence fragment, when did their resources become centred on the Danube? within a hundred years of Augustus' rule if I followed it. Also, what do you mean "by the time of Augusutus' rule"? he was the first ruler of the Roman Empire, there were none before him. I would rewrite this paragraph as; During the time of Augustus's rule, there were eight legions stationed along the Rhine, four stationed in Mainz and another four in Cologne. Within a hundred years of Augustus' rule, however, Roman military resources had become centred along the Danumbe instead of the Rhine; nine legions were stationed along the Danube and one at the Rhine.

 Done @Mr rnddude: I have made all the changes you suggested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Iazyges a couple more points and then I think I'm done;
  • The Roxolani surrendered first, so it is likely that the Romans replaced their client king and exiled the other king. -> The Roxolani surrendered first, so it is likely that the Romans exiled and then replaced their client king with one of their choosing.

 Done

  • However, the offer was refused, and was deposed by the Iazyges and replaced by Zanticus -> "and he was deposed by the Iazyges". The offer itself, I imagine, could not be deposed.

 Done

  • Other than that, the article appears to generally be fine and I haven't noticed any other missing content. I'll support with the last couple changes. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • I am a bit busy right now, I'll do a thorough re-review in a couple of days. Constantine ✍ 09:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am busy. Perhaps early next week I'll be able to continue on giving my review. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

@Mr rnddude, Lingzhi, Cplakidas, and AustralianRupert: I have changed the article quite a bit, I have changed all books to SFN's, Cplakidas is there a way to make SFN's for websites? I have found nothing on that. I also added in a piece about the possibility of some of the Iazyges not moving. As a lot of sources disagree or contradict each other, and there is a lack of sources willing to talk about any remainder after the time the Iazyges moved, I feel that discussion about them can't really be expanded beyond a few sentences, but if anyone has found a source that is more in depth please share it. I will be away from the 26th to the 31st, with limited access to internet, so I won't be very active. If anyone has more suggestions or problems with the article, feel free to raise them in the meantime and I will try to resolve them when I get back. Thank you all for your efforts! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I have added for the possible Iazyges that stayed behind says that the slave master race the Arcagarantes didn't build houses, but the Limigantes did. This may contradict the sentence above it that says that the Iazyges built or at least lived in towns, however the above also mentions that the Roxolani enslaved the Iazyges and became the Arcagarantes, so I am of the belief that it isn't necessarily contradictory. Thoughts? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, sfn templates can be used for websites: if you take a look at Australian Flying Corps, you will see one option for using them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @AustralianRupert: I forgot to ping you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iazyges, I was planning on having a look over the weekend. Sorry for the delay, but with the holidays on the one hand and the "return to work" hectic afterwards, time has been short for a considered review. Best, Constantine ✍ 09:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will have to leave this to others more qualified in the subject matter. My support stands, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back at working through this nomination Thursday/Friday and then Sunday/Monday. Ping me if I haven't left any comments by Friday. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mr rnddude: per instruction above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I haven't forgotten. Expect some comments a little later today. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Iazyges&oldid=791880439"