Talk:Qatran Tabrizi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 23:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this review today. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"which dismisses other accounts" - maybe "which conflicts with other accounts""

That would imply something else.

"The first paragraph of the "life" section mostly goes into detail about what languages he may have spoken and his lost lexicon - should be re-ordered."

I think this fits well, considering he was a poet after all.

"I think the "Life" section should be separated out into two, one on "Life" and one on "Works". The "Legacy" section can be incorporated as a subheading under "Works""

That's what I would usually do, however, with the lack of information and how it's connected together, I think this is fine. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Clarify who De Bruijn is in text."

Done.

Regarding the two other points, I'm afraid to overuse the word "poet". That would make the word "poet" being used thrice in a lead composed of barely two lines. Isn't one enough in this instance? I don't think we should hold the readers hand that much.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the hometown: I agree, it does imply something else, which seems more accurate - I don't see any reason why his poem should completely dismiss other accounts - people can have more than one hometown / lie in a poem etc. Regarding his languages/lexicon, I disagree. The discussion should be moved to a section on his work. Regarding the separate sections, again, I disagree - the reorganization would make the article clearer for the reader. I share your concern about overuse of the word 'poet' - perhaps you could use "writer", "literary figure" or an equivalent phrase. I don't think it's handholding to clarify that when we say "leading figure", we mean specifically in the field of poetry, not in general. Finally, on further consideration, I do think it would be good to have a historical map instead of the one used in the article - let me go search Commons to see if there's one that would be appropriate. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that is what the source says. File:Persia circa 1000AD-pt.svg is inaccurate and irrelevant, why show a map of most of Western and Central Asia when Qatran lived in Azerbaijan and Arran, which the current map (which is based on reliable sources and looks much better) show? Respectfully, I think the article is clear enough as it is, and I stand on my previous argument. Regarding the poet bit, I've changed it now [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the hometown: I don't think, looking at the source, it's inaccurate to say "conflicts", and I think it's clearer for the reader. As to the map - see below - having seen the other options, I agree that the current image is best. Finally, it's up to you to decide whether to make changes, but in my view, it can't pass GA at the moment because of the issue of prose clarity. The current text, as mentioned, is jumbled and difficult to follow in my opinion both as a reader and a reviewer. Let me know what you would like to do. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: what would you like to do here? Happy to discuss further or give you time to make changes, but otherwise I'll have to mark this as not passed in a week or so. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like we're gonna reach an agreement here, so best to mark it as not passed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll do so. Thank you for writing the article in any case, it was interesting to read! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although this didn't go as I had hoped, I still appreciate you reviewing it. The article did ultimately get improved. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In lead, "leading figures" should make clear this is in reference to poetry, not politics. "Serving under the local dynasties" - serving as what? "which dismisses other accounts" - maybe "which conflicts with other accounts" The first paragraph of the "life" section mostly goes into detail about what languages he may have spoken and his lost lexicon - should be re-ordered. I think the "Life" section should be separated out into two, one on "Life" and one on "Works". The "Legacy" section can be incorporated as a subheading under "Works" Clarify who De Bruijn is in text.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass, no issues - sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None found by Earwig or manual spot check against available sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A historical map of Azerbaijan, if available, would be preferable to the present one, since it shows the era immediately before Tabrizi, if I'm reading it correctly. File:Persia circa 1000AD-pt.svg might be ok if it were translated, but I'm not a big fan of File:Shaddadid.gif or File:Rawadids map.png, which seem to be the other two best options. Unless you want to translate/improve File:Persia circa 1000AD-pt.svg, the current choice in the article might be the best. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] The infobox image has information about his burial which is not present in the text. It should be added to the text and cited there.
	7. Overall assessment.