Talk:Iskandar-i Shaykhi/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 23:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a very interesting article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

Well written

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout etc.

Verifiable

it contains a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research; and

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated

images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

This is a well-written article with 95.4% written by a single user (HistoryofIran). The article is stable, broad in coverage and structured with clear paragraphs and subsections.

Text in the last paragraph is identical to text in Kayumarth I. One is a copy or there is a remarkable coincidence. Please correct.

Sorry, but is that really important? Its written by me anyways. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you, the author of the first instance, think it is OK, I am happy to agree. simongraham (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Timur is marked as superseded by a PNG file.

Yes, but that image is more blurry/worse quality. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Seems a good reason to keep the old one. simongraham (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map is taken from a 2007 book. Please confirm the copyright status for the image.

Sorry, I don't understand. The basemap is from DEMIS and is public domain. I just edited it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My misunderstanding. That is OK. simongraham (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Amul related to Amol? If so, please link.

It is already linked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unclear. I mean the mention in "Chalabis or Chalavis, after a district in Amul". Is this something different? simongraham (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand. You mean the Amul mentioned in that sentence? No, that's the same Amul as the others. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"latters family" should be "latter's family". This sentence is complex and could do with rewording to make it easier to read.

Reworded, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear who "he" is in "He was well-received by the Baduspanid ruler". Consider rewording.

Done, whatdya think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for the brackets around fatwa? I feel that they are unnecessary and break the flow.

Ops, removed the brackets. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the dates earlier in the article, "murdered Hasan I on 17 April 1349" should be Hasan II.

Fixed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article on Ghiyath al-Din II? If so, there should be a link. If not, consider red linking.

There's not, and done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Yavari reference has no page numbers. I suggest finding the reference in the printed volume if possible as this would be consistent with the other references.

There were no page numbers in the source, just text. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: Please ping me when you have made the changes. simongraham (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, HistoryofIran. Thank you for your work on this article, and your diligence in the history of the region. That is a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2021 (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.