Talk:Safavid Georgia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Safavid Georgia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 4, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Safavid Georgia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 July 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other points?
@Kober: considering you scanned/copy-edit a pretty significant part of the article already, would you be willing to take a look at the remaining part as well? As you know, I highly value you edits. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, I will do that. Thanks for highly valuing my edits. I think you have done a really great work in bringing so much information on Safavid rule together and what you will read below are my suggestions to improve the content and not a criticism of your contributions or "combatitive" tone on my part. But I cannot resist an impression that the article views Georgia as the country that should have naturally belonged to the Safavids and all those rebellions and eventual loss of Persian control were rather an anomaly. For example, the Kakhetian uprisings in the early 17th century were characterized as revolts by "some nobles" rather than the people's resistance to Abbas's extermination policy. That's what I meant by "slanted towards Iranian imperial perspective". My comment was not intended as an offence and did not target you as a major contributor to this entry.
- Back to the content, I think a relatively minor incident such as that associated with Rostom's Mingrelian marriage creates an undue weight problem especially given the fact that such an important figure as Teimuraz I is largely ignored. Teimuraz was a unique phenomenon in the history of Georgia — the man who spent decades fighting against the Safavid encroachments, losing many members of his family to Abbas's revenge.
- I will briefly outline my vision of what should be done to make the article shine:
- Teimuraz I should be given more prominence.
- The key events such as the Kakhetian tragedy of 1615/6 should be given more prominence.
- The fact that the Georgian rulers continued to use their traditional royal titles of "king" and even "king of kings" should be mentioned. The structure of the Georgian kingdoms and Georgian version of feudalism was not eventually altered by the Safavid hegemony. Actually, the Persians approved or appointed rulers following the principles of Georgian hereditary monarchy. This is important and should be mentioned, obviously, with proper references.
- Essential role of Rostom of Kartli and his successor Vakhtang V as a "peace-builders" and attempts by Vakhtang to unify all of Georgia should be more emphasized.
- The fall of eastern Georgia to the Ottomans at the time of the Safavid collapse should be further detailed. There was an excellent article by David Marshall Lang on this period of time.
- "Cultural influences" section is really great and I would add more on this, given Iran's huge cultural influence on Georgia. Persian poetry and arts were appreciated in Georgia as high culture. The coinage section is an absolutely excellent idea.
- I'd tentatively suggest removing the rulers section or rather making it as a separate list entry.
- Georgians' leading role in the Afghan campaigns should be mentioned.
- Kakheti's changing fortunes and sometime loss of kingdom should be mentioned as well as the fact that it was at times attached to the Karabakh beylerbeylik.
- Vakhtang VI's role in Georgia's cultural revival should be mentioned.
- A Lesgian factor in Georgian-Safavid relations should be mentioned.
--KoberTalk 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Kober: Thanks much. You mentioned many great points, and I concur with you basically in all of them. The list of rulers is something I think would be worth keeping, though a separate list entry could probably work as well. As long as it doesn't create unnecessary confusion for newb readers.
I will start addressing the points in the near future. But please don't hesitate if you feel like working on it as well; the article is just as much mines as it is yours. :-) Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)- Thanks to always helpful colleagues at WP:REX, I've got a very helpful chapter on Georgia from Röhrborn, Klaus Michael (1966). Provinzen und Zentralgewalt Persiens im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (in German). de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110831092.. I'll shortly try to improve the article using this source. --KoberTalk 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Kober: Thanks much. You mentioned many great points, and I concur with you basically in all of them. The list of rulers is something I think would be worth keeping, though a separate list entry could probably work as well. As long as it doesn't create unnecessary confusion for newb readers.
source review tips
To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:
- First, copy/paste
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');to Special:MyPage/common.js . - On the same page and below that script add
importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page. - Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add
.citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.
When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- 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) 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);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| All edits in the past year appear to have been helpful. Most have been by the nominator. | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All images appear to be free use. | Pass |
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Images are appropriately captioned. | Pass |
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass | Well done. Big sweeping topics like this one can be a pig to cover adequately but this article has done a fine job of it. A lot of sweat, tears and loving care has clearly gone into it. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)}} |
Discussion
@LouisAragon: @LouisAragon: Copy vio.
- Could you do some minor rephrasing to reduce these?
- @Gog the Mild: As far as I can see, it appears the vast majority of those are just coincidence. Let me know if you think otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could you rephrase ". .. raiding expeditions into Georgia, notably in 1518. ..", ". .. a period of relative peace and prosperity. ..", ". .. two and a half centuries of. .. political dominance over eastern Georgia. ..", ". .. all of Georgia as an Ottoman possession. .." and ". .. a continuation of his predecessors’ efforts to. .."
References.
- The unreferenced lists of rulers need to either go or be referenced. I will put the review on hold for 7 days; please do one or the other during that time and let me know.
Done (List of governors of Safavid Georgia). Where do you think would be the best place to insert the link in this article? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could references without publishers or publisher locations have them added please.
- As far as I can see, the only sources without publishers are those that are cited from the Enc. Iranica online, so I don't think its needed? I added a few publisher locations (the ones I was certain about), but similarly; I don't think its necessary/needed as long as the publisher is mentioned? Please let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Publishers are now covered. Sorry, but all 12 missing publisher locations need inserting. Do you know how to find publisher locations etc using WorldCat?
- Nope never done before. I'll try to figure it out later. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @LouisAragon: See here. The publisher location in this case is Costa Mesa, Calif. Always make sure that you have the correct edition. It also gives the publisher and other details, and if you scroll down, the ISBN and OCLC numbers. Worth playing around with a little. (I first tried Slaves of the Shah: New Elites of Safavid Iran, but couldn't find a 2004 edition; there is a 2003 and a 2005. WorldCat is not infallible, but that is worth checking.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Done Added as many locations I could with the help of WorldCat and Google search. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Prose. The lead.
- "located in the area of present-day Georgia" seems a little vague. '... within the territory of...'? '... largely within the territory of...'? '... approximately conterminous with...'? or whatever.
- "From Tahmasp I's reign onwards". This seems important, so could you give an actual date, even if prefixed with 'approximately'?
- I have copy edited a little. Revert anything you don't like.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Optional. There are a lot of "however"s, most not necessary. Consider losing some of them.
- "In 1712–1719 Hosayn-Qoli Khan was kept in Iran". I am not sure what "kept" means. Imprisoned?
- "Shah-Navaz, Bakar Mirza". Is that one person's name? It reads a little oddly.
More prose.
- The 3rd paragraph of 16th century has "clarify" in the middle. This seems reasonable; what "political and social institutions"? And does Hitchins explicitly address this point?
- I will address this tomorrow. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Ok, well, not tomorrow, but better late than never... Done Please don't hesitate to perform a copy-edit on the sentences I just corrected, if you think it doesn't read as smoothly as it used to. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Ok, well, not tomorrow, but better late than never...
- "In 1624/25 Manuchar III Jaqeli," Could you replace with '1624–25' or '1624 or 1625' as appropriate.
- "and had made him governor of Kartli, a post which he held for a long period of time." A long period of time is question begging. Is there not even a vague idea of how long this was?
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @LouisAragon: It is looking pretty good. I will copy all of the outstanding issues below for ease of reference.
- Could you rephrase ". .. raiding expeditions into Georgia, notably in 1518. ..", ". .. a period of relative peace and prosperity. ..", ". .. two and a half centuries of. .. political dominance over eastern Georgia. ..", ". .. all of Georgia as an Ottoman possession. .." and ". .. a continuation of his predecessors’ efforts to. .."
- @Gog the Mild: Could you please make proposals? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @LouisAragon: I have made amendments. Could you check them, and tweak them if needed. (I will need to check again once Earwig has refreshed.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Just checked, looks good. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @LouisAragon: I have made amendments. Could you check them, and tweak them if needed. (I will need to check again once Earwig has refreshed.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- "Shah-Navaz, Bakar Mirza". Is that one person's name? It reads a little oddly.
- Already replied about that a few days ago. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies, I overlooked it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies, I overlooked it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have added the last two publisher locations, so it's just these two points in the way of a GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Truer words were never spoken. :-) Thank you once again for all your effort. Cheers mate, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Additional notes
- Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Safavid Georgia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.