Bahram II was the eldest son of Bahram I link Bahram I, add regnal dates, and that he was the fourth ruler of the Sasanian dynasty. Given that the average reader doesn't know who the Sasanians were, I'd recommend taking the opportunity to expand a bit on this, e.g., "the Sasanian dynasty, that had come to rule Iran in the 3rd century" or similar
He had not been born...due to not being mentioned in it means that he was not born (physically) because he was not mentioned in it, rather than what you want to say, which is that he had not been born...as he is not mentioned in it. Also, add a brief mention why the inscription reveals this, i.e. that it enumerates the members of the dynasty at the time.
Looks good, but why the footnote? The footnote adds nothing new, since the reference is already to Rapp. You can simply write: A [[terminus post quem]] for his birth is {{circa|262}}, since that is the date of [[Shapur I's inscription at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht]],{{sfn|Rapp|2014|page=28}} which mentions the rest of the royal family but not him.{{sfn|Frye|1984|p=303}} or something similar. Footnotes should only be used to clarify something tangential to the text, or provide additional, but extraneous information.
Constantine ✍ 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)reply
the governorship of Sakastan, Sindh and Turgistan can you please clarify where these areas were, either by modern reference or relative to the test of the Sasanian realm? A map would also do wonders to improve the understandability of the article for the average reader.
The provinces were but As a result, the province had; be consistent, and clarify whether these provinces were habitually collected under a single governor.
lasted shortly -> lasted briefly. Generally, avoid shortly, which you use throughout; while short=brief, 'shortly' means 'in a concise manner', not 'briefly' or 'soon'.
on September 274 -> in September 274
History of the Prophets and Kings, volume 5 this is vol. 5 in the modern edition, not in the original volumes of Tabari's work. I recommend omitting it, and also using the {{The History of al-Tabari}} for the reference
displays a noteworthy transition sounds like an opinion, please attribute this to the relevant scholar
Introduce Rezakhani with full name ("the historian XY...")
without facing much fighting either 'without facing much opposition" or "without much fighting"
due to facing severe internal problems repetition of 'facing'
re-conquered by the Sasanians. as this was evidently peaceful, 're-captured' or 're-occupied'.
Before Bahram II, all the previous Sasanian shahs -> 'Before Bahram II, the Sasanian shahs' or 'All Sasanian shahs before Bahram II'
which indicates that thenceforth priests were given the office of judge 'indicates' is somewhat unclear here. Does this mean that this is the first instance, and that this became a regular phenomenon after, or that this was already occurring, and Kartir is the first known case?
the latter claimed on his inscription which inscription?
Since the identity of the other figures on his coins is conjetured and even disputed, I would propose moving the "Bahram II was the first shah to have coins minted of his family...." section after the discussion of the figures appearing on his coins. Otherwise this is given as fact, when it is simply one possible interpretation.
Yes, but you need to tie this into the issue of what the coins represent, i.e., make clear that if the one supposition is correct, then Bahram was indeed the first monarch to blah blah...
Constantine ✍ 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)reply
first and penultimate shah is somewhat labored, given that the only other person was a queen and at a distance of over three centuries. O suggest 'He is the first and only shah to have a woman illustrated on his coins, apart from the 7th-century Sasanian queen Boran'
A few cases of citations out of order ([19][8], [25][13], [33][25][34])
References need to be put in such an order that the numbers are also in order, e.g. ref #8 before #ref 19, so that what appears is [8][19]. It is a MOS issue.
Constantine ✍ 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Work is needed in the references:
What is the missing volume number in the Brosius reference? What is the meaning of "London et al."? "Et al." is used for multiple authors, not locations.
in the 'Map of the southeastern Sasanian provinces', I'd recommend adding in parentheses to the caption which modern countries these correspond to, and adding the names of at least a few major landmarks to the map (the Indus river, Persian Gulf, etc.).
Is there no suitable map of the Roman-Sasanian frontier area, or Mesopotamia, for this period? It would help to illustrate Carus' invasion. In the same sense, a map of the entirety of the Sasanian Empire would also be helpful.
In citing Iranica, I'd recommend following the pattern
laid out in the Iranica website, i.e. Encyclopædia Iranica (with the æ), online edition, New York
Bahram II was the eldest son of Bahram I link Bahram I, add regnal dates, and that he was the fourth ruler of the Sasanian dynasty. Given that the average reader doesn't know who the Sasanians were, I'd recommend taking the opportunity to expand a bit on this, e.g., "the Sasanian dynasty, that had come to rule Iran in the 3rd century" or similar
He had not been born...due to not being mentioned in it means that he was not born (physically) because he was not mentioned in it, rather than what you want to say, which is that he had not been born...as he is not mentioned in it. Also, add a brief mention why the inscription reveals this, i.e. that it enumerates the members of the dynasty at the time.
Looks good, but why the footnote? The footnote adds nothing new, since the reference is already to Rapp. You can simply write: A [[terminus post quem]] for his birth is {{circa|262}}, since that is the date of [[Shapur I's inscription at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht]],{{sfn|Rapp|2014|page=28}} which mentions the rest of the royal family but not him.{{sfn|Frye|1984|p=303}} or something similar. Footnotes should only be used to clarify something tangential to the text, or provide additional, but extraneous information.
Constantine ✍ 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)reply
the governorship of Sakastan, Sindh and Turgistan can you please clarify where these areas were, either by modern reference or relative to the test of the Sasanian realm? A map would also do wonders to improve the understandability of the article for the average reader.
The provinces were but As a result, the province had; be consistent, and clarify whether these provinces were habitually collected under a single governor.
lasted shortly -> lasted briefly. Generally, avoid shortly, which you use throughout; while short=brief, 'shortly' means 'in a concise manner', not 'briefly' or 'soon'.
on September 274 -> in September 274
History of the Prophets and Kings, volume 5 this is vol. 5 in the modern edition, not in the original volumes of Tabari's work. I recommend omitting it, and also using the {{The History of al-Tabari}} for the reference
displays a noteworthy transition sounds like an opinion, please attribute this to the relevant scholar
Introduce Rezakhani with full name ("the historian XY...")
without facing much fighting either 'without facing much opposition" or "without much fighting"
due to facing severe internal problems repetition of 'facing'
re-conquered by the Sasanians. as this was evidently peaceful, 're-captured' or 're-occupied'.
Before Bahram II, all the previous Sasanian shahs -> 'Before Bahram II, the Sasanian shahs' or 'All Sasanian shahs before Bahram II'
which indicates that thenceforth priests were given the office of judge 'indicates' is somewhat unclear here. Does this mean that this is the first instance, and that this became a regular phenomenon after, or that this was already occurring, and Kartir is the first known case?
the latter claimed on his inscription which inscription?
Since the identity of the other figures on his coins is conjetured and even disputed, I would propose moving the "Bahram II was the first shah to have coins minted of his family...." section after the discussion of the figures appearing on his coins. Otherwise this is given as fact, when it is simply one possible interpretation.
Yes, but you need to tie this into the issue of what the coins represent, i.e., make clear that if the one supposition is correct, then Bahram was indeed the first monarch to blah blah...
Constantine ✍ 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)reply
first and penultimate shah is somewhat labored, given that the only other person was a queen and at a distance of over three centuries. O suggest 'He is the first and only shah to have a woman illustrated on his coins, apart from the 7th-century Sasanian queen Boran'
A few cases of citations out of order ([19][8], [25][13], [33][25][34])
References need to be put in such an order that the numbers are also in order, e.g. ref #8 before #ref 19, so that what appears is [8][19]. It is a MOS issue.
Constantine ✍ 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Work is needed in the references:
What is the missing volume number in the Brosius reference? What is the meaning of "London et al."? "Et al." is used for multiple authors, not locations.
in the 'Map of the southeastern Sasanian provinces', I'd recommend adding in parentheses to the caption which modern countries these correspond to, and adding the names of at least a few major landmarks to the map (the Indus river, Persian Gulf, etc.).
Is there no suitable map of the Roman-Sasanian frontier area, or Mesopotamia, for this period? It would help to illustrate Carus' invasion. In the same sense, a map of the entirety of the Sasanian Empire would also be helpful.
In citing Iranica, I'd recommend following the pattern
laid out in the Iranica website, i.e. Encyclopædia Iranica (with the æ), online edition, New York