Talk:Mirza Mohammad-Ali Khan Shirazi/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) 03:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 11:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

Well written

...the city served as the capital of Zand dynasty... Should that be ...the city served as the capital of the Zand dynasty...?

Hi Steelkamp. Thanks for the review. I've fixed that bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Istanbul known as Constantinople back in the 19th century?

I think both names were used, but Constantinople being favoured in the West at the time? I just cited Iranica, which uses Istanbul. Though granted they generally use a Persian transliteration for names. Should I change it to Constantinople? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should change it to Constantinople. The Wikipedia article on Istanbul says "Constantinople remained the most common name for the city in the West until the 1930s". Steelkamp (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The delegates of Russia and Britain urged Mohammad-Ali Khan to stay longer so that the Iranians and Ottomans could exchange the confirmed treaty, which did not have with him. This is grammatically incorrect. In particular, that last part.

Ops, fixed it -> "which he did not have with him". --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...as he was not supposed to stay there for longer than two weeks. Is "there" referring to Istanbul or Paris? I reckon it should be explicitly stated which one.

Added Istanbul. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The letter of Mohammad Shah... What is this letter? It was not mentioned earlier in the article.

Ops, changed it to "a letter". --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...which also says that Mirza-Mohammad Ali had with the approval of Naser al-Din Shah sent thirty aristocratic and princely children to the newly established college. I would add commas to change this to ...which also says that Mirza-Mohammad Ali had, with the approval of Naser al-Din Shah, sent thirty aristocratic and princely children to the newly established college.

Done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

A search using Earwig's Copyvio Detector turned up no copyright violations.
The URL for Mousavi 2022 was not working, so I replaced it with a new URL. Hope that's OK.

Thanks! The new update at Brill has messed up all the previous urls on Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gurney & Nabavi 1993 says that Mohammad-Ali Khan died on 10 February 1852, not 9 February. Mousavi 2022 says that he died on 9 February though. Which one is right? If your not sure, I think the discrepancy should be mentioned in the article. E.g. Mohammad-Ali Khan died of illness on 9 or 10 February 1852 in Tehran.

I only used the date by Mousavi 2022 as his article was only focused on Mirza Mohammad-Ali Khan Shirazi, contrary to Gurney & Nabavi 1993 which focuses on Dar ul-Funun - I therefore think that Mousavi 2022 is more qualified in this instance, it's also more recent. It's strange, both Mousavi 2022 and Gurney & Nabavi 1993 state that he died on 18 Rabi II (Rabi Al-Thani) 1268, but give slightly different dates. Two Hijri converters I found also state that 18 Rabi Al-Thani 1268 = 9 February 1852 [1] [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

From reading through Mousavi 2022, I believe that this article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" as per the GA criteria.

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated, if possible

Thankfully all the images are old enough for copyright to not be a problem.
Not required: I recommend adding alt text to the image for accessibility reasons.

General

Those are all the comments I have, so I'm putting the review on hold for seven days for you to address them. Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: Thoughts on the current state of the article now? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been adequately addressed. I will pass the review now. Steelkamp (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steelkamp! HistoryofIran (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]