Talk:Women in the Sasanian Empire

This article is being developed as a class assignment. Feel free to add your input. All the help we can get would be great. Thanks. --LittleDuck17 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For my group members, if you are wondering which part you are supposed to do, the To Do List is posted on my talk page. --LittleDuck17 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Great start to your article! The sections are well-organized and the topic is interesting.--Bissonar (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a lot of information gathered. The only thing I can think of is to add a little bit more the intro at the top of the page. --Klabbe21 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I like your article so far. What is written in the first section is very easy to read and is not boring and this is a good thing to strive for in the rest of the sections. I Look forward to reading the article when it is completed!--Swalrus007 (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks really good so far, keep up the good work! --Speterson6 --Speterson6 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Shelby

Your article is interesting to read, and has a lot of facts about the different types of wives.. --Bpio075 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice beginning to your article, it is interesting so far and keeps my attention. The organization of your article helped me to understand how to organize ours. Nice job! --Kireland1 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a very good basic understanding of your information so far, and can not wait to see it completed. How do you pronounce Sasanian? Also, is there going to be more about Zoroastrianism? --Lnickerson1 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a lot of information that is constructed in a very orderly way. I did notice that your "Other Marriage Info" sections seems to be quite long, maybe consider making it its own section? Well done. --Kayla hope (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Very organized. I like the flow and order of the topics being discussed. The article overall was very interesting and easy to understand. --Htulkoff (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I like how you don't have several unnecessary headers --Klabbe21 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You have done a good job so far starting the article and staying focused. It's easy to read and easy to fallow which I think will deem useful . Kcollins11 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a great job so far on this article. I think it is very comprehensive and keeps the readers attention, which is sometimes hard to do with encyclopedia articles. I also wondered about whether or not there will be more information about Zoroastrianism and if not maybe there should be a link to the article that already exists about Zoroastrianism. You've got a great start on this article and it has helped me to understand how to organize my article. Great job! --Kmstevens (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You all seem to have a very solid understanding of the subject matter, and the introductions are very helpful in understanding the overall article. My only criticism would be to possibly add in more links to other pages to further understand certain names, and concepts. Overall, very good understanding of the subject matter and I can not wait to hear about it on Tuesday!--Lnickerson1 (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks awesome so far! I'm excited to learn about this subject --Eamodeo (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like everythings organized and the categories are relevant, it will be great once you develop it. Kbeisaw (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your article seems to continue to expand each day I read it! I am enjoying the topic and have no trouble fully understanding the concept regarding your article. I have yet to catch any mistakes which is good! Personally, your article doesn't attribute to Group 3 Aisha article, but your article provided a lot of information corresponding to our class. It was difficult to create constructive criticism for this groups' article because it is well developed and on time, but I might make multiple sections out of the Marriage section simply because it is much longer compared to others. Possibly linking words outsiders might not understand would also be beneficial to this article as well! Keep up the good work and I look forward to your presentation Tuesday! --Kireland1 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea of making multiple sections in the Marriage section. It definitly did help. Let me know what you think of the sub-titles.--LittleDuck17 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I really like how detailed you have everything. I was thinking that maybe a little more could be put into the roles of women (if possible). I enjoy how you broke down the components of marriage to make it easier to understand. I think your group did a great job here and I'm looking forward to learning about tomorrow in class; good luck! --Speterson6 --Speterson6 (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Shelby P.

Great job on your article so far, it is well-developed and easily understood. The organization of your article is clear and concise and helps your audience to really grasp the topic. As I was reading, I did not find any grammatical or structural errors. The only criticism I have is to develop the "Roles of Women" section, but I'm sure you're in the process of doing so! Keep up the hard work and great start to your wikipedia article!--Bissonar (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well developed! The page has a ton of great information and is well cited. It seems though that the cite for #5 is still not fixed. You may just want to look at that before Friday. Overall, great job! --Htulkoff (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks awesome thus far! Great job. The only criticism I have is that the "role of women" section is not developed enough and would probably be better off in the section "Privileges and Rights of Women". Other than that, keep up the great work!--Eamodeo (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks great. Everything looks well developed and is easy to read. I like how each section is very detailed. My only criticism is to add more references to the brief history section, if possible? Or maybe re-reference the source at the end of the paragraph. Also, in the Boran section I would be careful in writing there was nothing negative about her. Other than that it looks great! Lbeaulieu1 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This article looks pretty good. Most sections seem to be developed well and are also very detailed. There seem to be some very minor edits that could be made but overall a well put together piece. --Nopolski (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Group 2

Kerrie, I think I might have fixed your citation issue, but could you double-check and make sure that it is right? Kellie, I was wondering if we wanted to include a little information about Zoroastrianism in the Brief History section? . Also I think it would be good to say what modern-day regions were once the Sasanian Empire. Dan, I changed the title of the Boran section and put it as a subtitle of the Roles of Women section. Ashley, were you going to do the introdection or did you want me to? Let me know what y'all think. Thanks! --LittleDuck17 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ashley, I like the changed you made to the Sasanian Influence section. It reads better now. Good Job!--LittleDuck17 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wrote a conclusion for the article. Let me know what y'all think!--LittleDuck17 (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sasanian influence on Islam

This section doesn't flow very well with the other sections. Although it mentions how Sasanian ideas about women influenced Islam, maybe this should be a bigger part of this section? In general, the organization of this section could be improved to make clear the connections between the ideas in each paragraph. --Jdenbow (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

types of marriage

It might be a good idea to include 3 further subsections under the heading, "Types of Marriage." Each subsection could explain a different type of marriage. This would make this section easier to read. --Jdenbow (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

links and conclusion

This article should contain more links to other wikipedia articles. Also, it still needs a conclusion that wraps up the entry nicely. Aside from that, I think it just needs general editing for clarity and organization. --Jdenbow (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Women in profession

The article does describe the role and rights of women within the family, but it does not describe what types of profession a woman could have. Was women professionally active at all in Sasanian society, and if so, which professions could she legally have?--Aciram (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Relief of Sassanid King giving flower to his Queen.jpg
• Relief of Sassanid King giving flowers to his queen.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)