Talk:Pari Khan Khanum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the "shah" in parentheses in the first sentence be "Shah", and again later in the article? I don't think I've ever seen it lower-case.
It's usual in biographical articles to put the dates of birth and death in the first sentence.
What do you mean by "bright" figure?
I'd avoid "illustrious"; it's not a neutral term. If she's respected by historians, or was respected in her day, say something to that effect.
She was also known to be an accomplished poet: odd phrasing; why not just "She was an accomplished poet"?
due to being viewed as too dangerous with the amount of influence and power she held: clumsy phrasing

After getting this far in the article I stopped to look through the rest of the prose, and I think it needs a copyedit. Here are a few more examples, but this is not an exhaustive list.

Tahmasp granted her extensive obligation and large amounts of authority
he was close to dying two times
due to the courage he used to have in the encounters with the Ottoman Empire
by making a prostrating
by declaring several assurances
persisted to visit Pari Khan Khanum's palace ordinarily
due to him being a man of old age, almost blind, and pleasure-seeking

Normally I would fail an article with prose of this quality, but you've waited a long time for this review. If you can find someone to work on a copyedit let me know. Meanwhile I'm placing this on hold. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I do not think this is ready at all... (and it's not just copy edits; there's conceptual problems.) Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Missing, for instance, is a description of her upbringing, her education, her knowledge of jurisprudence, her poetic skills. It's in the lead but not in the article. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but I didn't read far enough to figure it out for myself -- the writing was bad enough that I stopped after a paragraph and suggested a copyedit; I was planning to read through again if the copyedit happened. I see a copyedit's been requested at GOCE too. And as you're probably aware the nominator is currently blocked until the day after tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's how I got here--I saw, in Recent changes, the note by that other editor. These are some serious copy edits though, not just periods and commas, and I'm missing content. We can do a bunch of cleanup and then the editor, when they come back, can handle the more substantial issues. It's not a hopeless cause, though I'd prefer to have something much cleaner nominated for GA. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I hate to fail an article that's been waiting close to a year for a review, so I almost always give the nominator a chance, but sometimes I know it's hopeless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to fail this; no work has been done and the article is currently far from GA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]