Talk:Sack of Shamakhi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 08:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   After re-reading the article again, there are some sentences that should be re-crafted.

   • However, having been rebuffed by them, he then turned to the Ottomans with the same appeal, which he was granted; designated by the Sultan, he came to be the Ottoman governor of Shriven.

   This sentence needs to be adjusted along the lines of something like: After Beg was rebuffed by the Russians, he then appealed to the Ottomans for help (which the Sultan granted). He was subsequently named governor of Shriven.

   • The order, which came after grand vizier Fath-Ali Khan Daghestani's fall, was made at the instigation of the eunuch faction within the royal court who had persuaded the shah that a successful end of the campaign would do the Safavid realm more harm than good, in that it would enable Vakhtang, the Safavid wali, to form an alliance with Russia with the aim of conquering Iran.

   This sentence needs to be edited into separate sentences. If it were diagrammed I can tell the subject is "The order" but there are simply too many ancillary phrases attached to the main thought. Shearonink (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

   Please see "One sentence" section. Shearonink (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   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?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All the references look good. Shearonink (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - no problems. Shearonink (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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: {{GAList/check|yes}

5. Is it stable?

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

   Seems stable enough. Shearonink (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

   The Shamakhi engraving/image is lacking an US public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

   The image is still lacking its US public domain tag, the Commons permissions/parameters must be completely filled-out, you have to add {{PD-1923}} to its information at File:Schamachia 1734.jpg. Shearonink (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   I see it's been taken care of. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

   An improvement would be to find more images - if any exist - of the city in all its pre-pillaged glory and also if any archeological digs or investigations have been made - if there are any photographs of any remaining cultural artifacts of the city. Shearonink (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

   There are numerous photos of Shamakhi available on Commons. I suggest that someone look through them and figure out which ones would complement the article's content. Shearonink (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Some of the sentences need to be recrafted. Will do a few more readhthroughs to see what I might have missed. Shearonink (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

   Congratulations, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues

Just putting everything here in one place.

• Additional images (There are plenty on Commons that would probably work.) -- just added an additional picture (one which was published just a few years after the sack, in 1729). Unfortunately no success so far in finding a pic that would match your suggestion above though. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Sentences/prose need to be adjusted and corrected to proper grammar and more easily-understood usage. --

Shearonink (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the prose, I've been working on it, in consultation with LouisAragon. See recent edits to the article and User talk:LouisAragon#Sack of Shamakhi (1721). Regarding your comments at the top of the page and just above, the sentences were all grammatically correct. They were perhaps a little long, but perfectly correct grammatically. (I make a point of not leaving ungrammatical sentences when I copyedit an article.)  – Corinne (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The previous versions of those two sentences could be said to be technically correct but they were not as well-written as they could have been. The present versions are much easier to understand.Shearonink (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink:, I believe (please correct me if I'm mistaken) that the two principal points are adressed right now? - LouisAragon (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

One sentence

@LouisAragon: The sentences are much improved. I did find one sentence that needs to be adjusted.

• Daud Beg, a rebel mountaineer chieftain of the Lezgins and a Sunni cleric who had been imprisoned for a long time in the Safavid city of...

"for a long time" is vague - either we know how long Beg was imprisoned or we don't. This sentence has to be adjusted to either A*contain the information about how long he was jailed or B*drop the "for a long time" from the sentence.

I think that sentence might be the last area of concern. I'll do one more readthrough, but, pending finding any issues I might have missed I think I'll be able to finish up this Review once that one sentence is adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:I misspoke above: File:Schamachia 1734.jpg is still lacking its US public domain tag. As soon as the sentence above is adjusted and the image's PD status is adjusted, I will be then able to finish up my Review. Shearonink (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink:, just adresssed both points. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Yes, thanks- got it. Shearonink (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Last readthrough

Almost done but I just realized something... Many people won't know where Shamakhi is, I think that needs to be clearly delineated in the lead, that it is located in Azerbaijan. I know that the city-term is wikilinked but I think it would be useful to our readers to clearly state where the city is. I hope that makes sense. Shearonink (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink:,  Done. Added "(in present-day Azerbaijan Republic"). I explicitly decided to use the official designation "Azerbaijan Republic" instead of "Azerbaijan", because before 1918 no territory in that area was named Azerbaijan, and the name solely referred to historic Azerbaijan (aka Azerbaijan (Iran)). Hence this is more correct. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)