Talk:Safavid Georgia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

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

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

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

(b) 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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
All edits in the past year appear to have been helpful. Most have been by the nominator.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images appear to be free use.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images are appropriately captioned.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Well done. Big sweeping topics like this one can be a pig to cover adequately but this article has done a fine job of it. A lot of sweat, tears and loving care has clearly gone into it. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

Discussion

@LouisAragon: @LouisAragon: Copy vio.

Could you do some minor rephrasing to reduce these?

@Gog the Mild: As far as I can see, it appears the vast majority of those are just coincidence. Let me know if you think otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you rephrase ". .. raiding expeditions into Georgia, notably in 1518. ..", ". .. a period of relative peace and prosperity. ..", ". .. two and a half centuries of. .. political dominance over eastern Georgia. ..", ". .. all of Georgia as an Ottoman possession. .." and ". .. a continuation of his predecessors’ efforts to. .."

References.

The unreferenced lists of rulers need to either go or be referenced. I will put the review on hold for 7 days; please do one or the other during that time and let me know.

Done (List of governors of Safavid Georgia). Where do you think would be the best place to insert the link in this article? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could references without publishers or publisher locations have them added please.

As far as I can see, the only sources without publishers are those that are cited from the Enc. Iranica online, so I don't think its needed? I added a few publisher locations (the ones I was certain about), but similarly; I don't think its necessary/needed as long as the publisher is mentioned? Please let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers are now covered. Sorry, but all 12 missing publisher locations need inserting. Do you know how to find publisher locations etc using WorldCat?

Nope never done before. I'll try to figure it out later. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: See here. The publisher location in this case is Costa Mesa, Calif. Always make sure that you have the correct edition. It also gives the publisher and other details, and if you scroll down, the ISBN and OCLC numbers. Worth playing around with a little. (I first tried Slaves of the Shah: New Elites of Safavid Iran, but couldn't find a 2004 edition; there is a 2003 and a 2005. WorldCat is not infallible, but that is worth checking.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added as many locations I could with the help of WorldCat and Google search. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose. The lead.

"located in the area of present-day Georgia" seems a little vague. '... within the territory of...'? '... largely within the territory of...'? '... approximately conterminous with...'? or whatever.
"From Tahmasp I's reign onwards". This seems important, so could you give an actual date, even if prefixed with 'approximately'?
I have copy edited a little. Revert anything you don't like.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. There are a lot of "however"s, most not necessary. Consider losing some of them.
"In 1712–1719 Hosayn-Qoli Khan was kept in Iran". I am not sure what "kept" means. Imprisoned?
"Shah-Navaz, Bakar Mirza". Is that one person's name? It reads a little oddly.

More prose.

The 3rd paragraph of 16th century has "clarify" in the middle. This seems reasonable; what "political and social institutions"? And does Hitchins explicitly address this point?

I will address this tomorrow. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Ok, well, not tomorrow, but better late than never... Done Please don't hesitate to perform a copy-edit on the sentences I just corrected,[1] if you think it doesn't read as smoothly as it used to. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1624/25 Manuchar III Jaqeli," Could you replace with '1624–25' or '1624 or 1625' as appropriate.
"and had made him governor of Kartli, a post which he held for a long period of time." A long period of time is question begging. Is there not even a vague idea of how long this was?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: It is looking pretty good. I will copy all of the outstanding issues below for ease of reference.

Could you rephrase ". .. raiding expeditions into Georgia, notably in 1518. ..", ". .. a period of relative peace and prosperity. ..", ". .. two and a half centuries of. .. political dominance over eastern Georgia. ..", ". .. all of Georgia as an Ottoman possession. .." and ". .. a continuation of his predecessors’ efforts to. .."

@Gog the Mild: Could you please make proposals? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: I have made amendments. Could you check them, and tweak them if needed. (I will need to check again once Earwig has refreshed.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Just checked, looks good. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Shah-Navaz, Bakar Mirza". Is that one person's name? It reads a little oddly.

Already replied about that a few days ago.[2] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I overlooked it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the last two publisher locations, so it's just these two points in the way of a GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Truer words were never spoken. :-) Thank you once again for all your effort. Cheers mate, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]