Talk:Shirvanshahs/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed) Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did some minor copyedits directly to save time.
Lede
  • The Arabic name translates to the 'state/dynasty of the Shirvanshah'. Is this deliberate?
Good catch! It's not, changed it to "Shirvanshah". --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am mistaken, the Arabic and Persian names are now identical. I would merge them (e.g. 'Arabic/Persian: xxx').
Done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • rulers of Shirvan give a modern location here
  • I think footnote #b can easily be incorporated into the main text.
Thoughts? [1] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was footnote #a ;), I had no problem with that, but also not a problem keeping it in the main text. I meant The line was also referred to as the Khaqanids.
Ops. There we go [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first ruling line... This gives the impression there were several ruling lines, but only one is explicitly mentioned. The other line should be mentioned here, or the entire statement should be moved to after the overview of the dynasty (from 861 to 1538) given in the next paragraph
Changed it to resemble the former, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.
  • The Shirvanshahs, existing as independent or a vassal state, from 861 until 1538; one of longest existing dynasties in the Islamic world, are known for their support of culture this mixes up two several things: their duration, political status, and patronage of culture. Suggest splitting these up, or at least treating them in order. E.g. "The Shirvanshahs ruled from 861 to 1538, one of the most enduring dynasties of the Islamic world. At times they were independent, often they had to recognize the overlordship of neighbouring empires. The dynasty is known for its patronage of culture...."
  • Ismail (later regnally known as Ismail I) is redundant, just Ismail I.
Background
  • Introduce Ibn Khordadbeh (geographer)
  • Is it likely that the use of Shirvanshah by later Muslim authors is an anachronism? Do the sources mention anything like this?
Good question. The used sources make no mention of this, so I assume they didn't consider that to be a possibility. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first line of the Shirvanshahs... this belongs under the 'first line' section below
First line (861–1382)
  • Is it possible to have subsections here?
Unfortunately I can't really think of a helpful subsection. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When referring to Shirvanshah (and also Layzanshah, Kasranids etc) as a word/title, please italicize it (MOS:WAW)
I'm not sure understand, so every case of Shirvanshah/Layzanshah etc should be italicized? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where it is a term, e.g. to use the title of Shirvanshah yes, but Shirvanshah Fariburz I or that the Shirvanshahs served as Seljuk vassals no. Also titles like Khāqān-e Kabir etc.
This hurts my non-English brain. I think I did it? [3] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes. Anyhow for GA I think the requirements are considerably less stringent. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • was closely intervened is closely intertwined.
  • of the Hudud al-'Alam what is this? Give a brief description.
  • and onwards either 'and on' or just 'onward'
  • moderately full collection moderately complete collection
  • slowly become Persian to 'slowly become Persianized'
  • ancient rulers would suggest that the Shirvanshahs married with the actual ancient rulers; perhaps 'ancient ruling line'?
  • descended from figures clarify that these were pre-Islamic, Sasanian-era figures
  • link 'infidel', 'Kurdish'
  • Relink 'Georgians' to Kingdom of Georgia?
  • The current phrasing suggests that both the Abbasid caliph and Malik-Shah were introduced to the coinage, whereas I assume that the caliph was mentioned there since the beginning. So perhaps 'the coins of Fariburz I cite not only the Abbasid caliph, but also the Seljuk ruler Malik-Shah I'?
  • Use {{transl|fa|}} for transliterated Persian terms per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
Does that only include words such as naulatiya? Or names such as Layla and Majnun, Hudud al-'Alam (as {{transl|ar|}}) too? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only words/terms. Not proper names.
There we go I think? [4] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Maliks of Darband to a suitable article (or even WP:REDLINK)?
  • Give duration/dates for the Mongol Empire, Ilkhanate, Jalayirid Sultanate
Second line (1382–1538)
  • As previously, some subsections might be nice (not obligatory)
  • A reconquest of Shirvan was attempted multiple times some details here? At least some dates?
Culture
  • Like the Shaddadids and Rawadids 'Like the other regional dynasties of the Shaddadids...' or similar, otherwise the relevance is unclear
  • Link Nestorian Christian, Armenian
Sources
  • Not an expert on the topic, but sufficiently familiar with the region and period. The sources cited are high-quality RS, and include some I'd expect to see for medieval Iranian/Caucasian history. Can't say if anything is missing though.
  • Be consistent in giving locations for books or not
Removed locations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Encyclopaedia Iranica refs are incomplete; at least give editor/publisher, perhaps an ISSN?
Added Routledge & Kegan Paul as the publisher. Though I'm not sure where to find the ISSNN.
Here you go [5] but for GA I think it can be waived. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio check not done yet, will do in the second pass.

@HistoryofIran: That's it for a first pass, where I focused mostly on prose. Once these are done, I'll do another pass. Quite comprehensive, good balance of detail and overview info, and well written; at least for me it was easy to follow the narrative. Constantine ✍ 12:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another review, thank you very much Constantine! I'm a bit pressed for time atm, but I'll try to see to it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: No worries, take your time. I will keep the review open until you can address it, unless you decide to postpone it. Constantine ✍ 10:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Looks good so far, have responded to your queries above. One request, though: please do not strike through the items yourself, I should be the one to do this (also so I can keep track of what I have checked and what not). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a spotcheck of sources, nothing in terms of direct copyvio, but there is a lot of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing with Bosworth 2011a. Sort of difficult to avoid, given the heavy dependence on it, but it should be addressed. Sentence structure, wording, etc. are pretty close. E.g. The history of the Yazidids is closely intervened with another Arab family, the Hashimids, who were based in Darband vs The history of Šervānšāhs was clearly closely bound up with that of another Arab military family, the Hāšemis of Bāb al-abwāb/Darband etc. Constantine ✍ 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I will take a look at the source and do some rewriting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HistoryofIran, please ping me when you are done. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks! --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: I've tried to address the remaining issues. Please let me know if I've missed anything. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: all issues taken care of, except for the pretty close paraphrasing ([6]). Constantine ✍ 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ops, the thought of using that program didn't even occur to me. I'll get to it asap. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Done. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: looks good, am passing now. Well done :) Constantine ✍ 19:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shirvanshahs/GA1&oldid=1190097342"