Talk:Pari Khan Khanum

Pari Khan Khanum is currently a Royalty, nobility and heraldry good article nominee. Nominated by Amir Ghandi (talk) at 19:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) An editor has reviewed the article, and left comments on the review page. However, this editor has requested a second opinion either from a more experienced reviewer, or someone with more expertise on this subject, to gain further consensus that this article meets the good article criteria. In the meantime, editors are encouraged to revise the article based on the first reviewer's comments. Short description: Safavid princess (1548–1578)

Pari Khan Khanum was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 1, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Iran High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Caucasia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles Women's History Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 4 February 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pari Khan Khanum/GA1. 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pari Khan Khanum/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Amir Ghandi (talk · contribs) 19:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 03:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• ..., a Circassian noble... Perhaps adding that "from the Caucasus Mountains" or "a Circassian vassal of the Sasanids in the Caucasus Mountains"?
  • Done
• She also had a full-brother... Name her because in the previous sentence her mother is mentioned.
  • Done
• Upon her birth, Fathi Beg Afshar was appointed as her dada (nurse). Later in her adolescence, Khalil Khan Afshar became her lala (tutor). What is the relevance of the two sentences in the article's context. Her lala could be mentioned in connection with her murder.
  • Done
• Pari Khan was described... By whom?
  • Court chroniclers
• ...wished to imitate and surpass them Some more details? (Politics? Culture? Arts? ....)
  • Done
• Why not "jurisprudence" is linked to Fiqh?
  • Done
• ...the Safavid historians deemed her "distinct from the females" Who said this?
  • Done
• Shortly introduce the Qizilbash in the text.
  • Done
• ...the court's inquiries... The court's or courtiers'?
  • The court as a collective
    • I would rephrase (for instance, "Despite inquiries/frequent inquiries by courtiers,...")
      • Done
• ...there was a precedent of the eldest son succeeding his father... I assume Tahmasp's ascension had set up the precedent.
  • Yes
    • Made it clear in the text.
      • Done
• ...was Tahmasp's second son who had been imprisoned... Did he arrest two of his sons?
  • Would 'second eldest son' be better?
• Reportedly, Pari Khan assumed... Delete "Reportedly", or provide us with more info ("The contemproaneous X writes that she assumed ... but the historian Y does not accept this narration..").
  • Done
• ... in case of an attack Delete or rephrase.
  • Deleted
• Although Tahmasp was mindful of the factionalism in the court, he did not appoint a successor. Repetition of info from the section's first sentence.
  • Deleted
• ...the new king King or shah? (twice in the text)
  • I changed every king to shah
• Introduce Khwaja Majid al-Din Ibrahimi Shirazi. Do we know why she chose him?
  • Done, and added a note
• ...her vizier Her vizier or vizier? Some context ("to the head of state administration..."....)
  • As her personal vizier. Her administration was separate from the main royal court
    • I would clarify his role. (Perhaps, "...and appointed the calligrapher Khwaja Majid al-Din Ibrahimi Shirazi to administer/head her court as her personal vizier.")
• ...a coronation was held... Why not "he was crowned"?
  • Done
• ...reportedly snubbed them... Delete "reportedly", or provide us with more info ("The contemproaneous X claims that he snubbed them ... but the historian Y does not accept this narration..").
  • Done
• ...said to them... Who writes this?
  • Done with the above
• ...being suspected...was presented By whom?
  • Added
• ...a main participant in Ismial's death Participant? Perhaps instigator or culprit?
  • Changed to instigator
• Reportedly, after Ismail's death,... Delete "Reportedly", or provide us with more info.
  • Done
• Introduce Iskandar Beg Munshi.
  • Done
• ... to maintain her power We are not informed that she assumed power after her brother's death.
  • Rephrased
• ...her envoys... Envoys or officials/representatives?
  • Representatives is better
• ...gave refuge to many notable men and women; for example, Makhdum Sharifi Shirazi, who with the help of Pari Khan escaped to the Ottoman Empire. I am not sure I understand. Who gave refuge to whom (the Ottoman Empire or she)?
  • Reworded
• She ordered everyone to remain in Qazvin... Everyone?
  • Changed to officials
• Delete "Prof." an introduce Losensky as an Iranologist or literature academic.
  • Done
• ... is regarded as the most powerful woman of her era... By whom?
  • Added
• It does not seem that queenship was Pari Khan's goal. Attribute this PoV to a scholar.
  • Done
• She also openly criticized his rule and condemned his systemic purge of all his male relatives. I would move this to the main text from the footnote, because the purges are mentioned in a subsequent sentence. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Seated princess (Art and History Trust No.92).jpg: US PD tag is needed; the source cited in Commons (its page 53) does not verify the picture
  • Fixed
• File:Shah Ismail II on the throne (cropped).jpg: US PD tag is needed
  • Done
• I suggest that captions should be uniformised in regard to the data presented Borsoka (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• All but one sources are reliable academic publications.

*Why do you think Birjandifar's thesis (one of the main sources) can be regarded as a reliable source?

• • Birjandifar is an expert with a PHD,^[1] whose work has been published by major journals such as Iranian Studies. This thesis itself has been cited by major Safavid experts such as Colin P. Mitchell
• ISBN is missing for Davis (2023), Ghereghlou (2016), Losensky (2004), Moshir Salimi (1957), Pārsādust (2009); add issn, publisher and location of publishing for Aldous (2021), Gholsorkhi (1995), and Soudavar (2000). Borsoka (talk)
  • Davis (2023) already has one. Ghereghlou (2016), Losensky (2004), and Pārsādust (2009) are part of the Online version of Encyclopedia Iranica, so I could only find ISSNs for them. Moshir Salimi (1957) does not have any. Done for Gholsorkhi and Soudavar. Aldous was deleted because it was no longer needed.
• I could not check any of the cited sources, so GA2C-D are accepted AGF. I was involved in wording, so I ask for a second opinion. I would pass this thoroughly researched, interesting article about a talented Sasanid royal princess. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]