Talk:Zolf-'āšofte

Rating
Your rating of this page as "Start" is a bit puzzling, since it seems to me to more than amply satisfy the criteria given in Content assessment for grade C or better. Are the sources not reliable? Are the content and organisation inadequate? Does it need improvement in spelling, grammar, or writing style? What more content could be added? On what grounds does it seem to you to be only "Start"? I would be happy to improve it if you give a few clues.

Your assessment of its importance as "Low" is also a bit odd, since this poem is not an obscure work, but one of the best known in Persian literature, written by one of the most famous Persian poets. There are dozens of recitations of it on the Internet. Have you been a little over hasty in your assessment perhaps? Kanjuzi (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe. In honesty, I'm trying to clear the backlog of unassessed articles, and I only know so much history of the world. If you feel this article serves a greater importance in Persia (aka Iran), then I'm completely open to you changinging the WikiProject's rating to "Mid", "High", or even "Top" importance if necessary. The same thing goes for the Poetry WikiProject. No hard feelings, alright? — Alex26337 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's wait and see what other people think about the importance. Just because a poem is well known doesn't necessarily mean that it's important. However, I am a bit miffed that you think the article is only worth a "Start" classification. It may not quite be a B, but surely it is better than a Start! Do you have any reason for rating it so low? Kanjuzi (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kanjuzi: I've taken into though what you said about the quality rating, and after looking over it again, I decided to rerate this article as a C-class. The reason why it's higher than a Start-class article is because it has a good analysis into the poem itself. However, my main reason why its not B-class is because of the article's lack of graphics (e.g. images, infoboxes, diagrams), and my secondary reason is that I have a general feeling that some of the sections need to be expanded on. — Alex26337 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reexamining the article. I am content with C, and agree that there is more that could be added to the description. Kanjuzi (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)