Talk:Persecution of Zoroastrians/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now given the article a quick read through: it appears to be comprehensive and well-referenced, so its obviously not a "Quick fail".

I will now begin my detailed review. I'm leaving the WP:Lead until last and will work my way through the sections, highlighting any "problems. If I don't make any detailed comments on any particular section or subsection that generally means that the section/subsection is OK. Pyrotec (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Any comments, discussion, objections, etc, can be added below:

• Persecutions in Iran -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - Since the article is named "Persecution of Zoroastrians", the word "Persecution" should not be used in the section title (see WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections).
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - The section title states Persecutions in Iran, but much of the section appears to be about Persia. Is it Persia, Iran, or Persian and Iran? I will need to come back to this again. This is now getting confused, I was assuming that Iran (as in Islamist Republic) was a 19th century creation - Iran states that Persia and Iran are used interchangeably. However, later on it says "...province of Khvârvarân today known as Iraq", so Persia appears to have been larger than present-day Iran.

• (Three minor comments)
  • Y The first paragraph starts: "Until the Arab invasion, Persia (modern-day Iran) was ...... dominated by a Zoroastrian majority", and there is a mention of the Sassanian empire and 224 CE, but otherwise there is no "sense" of date. I suggest that the sections needs "anchoring" in time such as: "Until the Arab invasion [in the mid 7th century], Persia ...."
  • Y The first and third paragraphs discusses "Arab invasion" whilst the second has the link Muslim conquest of Persia. The reader, I guess, is intended to assume that Arabs and Muslims are identical (perhaps they are - one appears to be religious belief and the other nationhood).
  • The 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence states "....Sassanian empire that passed a decree in 224 CE". This is unfinished, presummably the decree made Zoroastrianism the state religion?
  • Y Yazdezard is mentioned in the 1st paragraph as asking a question of an Arab solder, but who is Yazdezard? Perhaps this is a typo as Yazdegerd III appears in the next section.

• Different translierations give different results. Nonetheless, I have changed it to Yazdegerd for standarization.

• 642 CE to 10th Century -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - In this section both AD (used once) and CE in use: they need to be standardised.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The Caliphs (642-661 CE) -

• This looks OK.

• • The Umayyads (661-750 CE) -

• Y Is "Zardusht" a typo? Its not defined or wikilinked. Wikipedia suggests "Zerdusht", which is a redirect to Zoroaster.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The Abbasids (752 - 804 CE) & The Saffarids (869-903 CE) -

• These look OK.

• 10th to 20th Century -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• This looks OK.

• Bibliography -

•  Working This needs cleaning up. The individual entries appear to be in random sequence. They aught to be listed in alphabetic sequence by first author's surname.

• Article remains On hold. Pyrotec (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)