Talk:Pari Khan Khanum/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the "shah" in parentheses in the first sentence be "Shah", and again later in the article? I don't think I've ever seen it lower-case.
 * It's usual in biographical articles to put the dates of birth and death in the first sentence.
 * What do you mean by "bright" figure?
 * I'd avoid "illustrious"; it's not a neutral term. If she's respected by historians, or was respected in her day, say something to that effect.
 * She was also known to be an accomplished poet: odd phrasing; why not just "She was an accomplished poet"?
 * due to being viewed as too dangerous with the amount of influence and power she held: clumsy phrasing

After getting this far in the article I stopped to look through the rest of the prose, and I think it needs a copyedit. Here are a few more examples, but this is not an exhaustive list.
 * Tahmasp granted her extensive obligation and large amounts of authority
 * he was close to dying two times
 * due to the courage he used to have in the encounters with the Ottoman Empire
 * by making a prostrating
 * by declaring several assurances
 * persisted to visit Pari Khan Khanum's palace ordinarily
 * due to him being a man of old age, almost blind, and pleasure-seeking

Normally I would fail an article with prose of this quality, but you've waited a long time for this review. If you can find someone to work on a copyedit let me know. Meanwhile I'm placing this on hold. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mike, I do not think this is ready at all... (and it's not just copy edits; there's conceptual problems.) Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Missing, for instance, is a description of her upbringing, her education, her knowledge of jurisprudence, her poetic skills. It's in the lead but not in the article. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe you, but I didn't read far enough to figure it out for myself -- the writing was bad enough that I stopped after a paragraph and suggested a copyedit; I was planning to read through again if the copyedit happened. I see a copyedit's been requested at GOCE too. And as you're probably aware the nominator is currently blocked until the day after tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's how I got here--I saw, in Recent changes, the note by that other editor. These are some serious copy edits though, not just periods and commas, and I'm missing content. We can do a bunch of cleanup and then the editor, when they come back, can handle the more substantial issues. It's not a hopeless cause, though I'd prefer to have something much cleaner nominated for GA. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I hate to fail an article that's been waiting close to a year for a review, so I almost always give the nominator a chance, but sometimes I know it's hopeless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I am going to fail this; no work has been done and the article is currently far from GA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)