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

Reviewer: Pharaoh Thutmose III (talk · contribs) 00:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, after assessing the submitted article, have deemed it worthy of "good article" status.

Hello @Pharaoh Thutmose III thank you for your review, but I think you forgot to actually confirm this as passed. Take a look at the instruction page please, if you don't know how. Thanks Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amir Ghandi, as I noted at WT:GAN, it seems clear from their failure to properly conduct a review, their very limited Wikipedia experience, and because they've missed a number of prose issues that need fixing, that this was not an adequate GA review. I've set the nomination status to "2nd opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found to give this extensive article the attention it needs. A good copyedit is in order: there are a number of expressions and wordings that are problematic, though for the most part the writing is clear; it's those atypical phrases that need to be fixed before this can meet the prose requirements of a good article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, BlueMoonset. I'll do some copyediting while waiting for a new reviewer to take this. Amir Ghandi (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New reviewer for nomination

This section is for the new reviewer to conduct the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I'll take this one over, though I don't have much time tonight. I didn't see anything that I need to do to indicate that I'm the second reviewer, is that correct?

Sturmvogel 66, that's correct. Since you're taking it over, I'll switch the review status from "2ndopinion" to "onreview". Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Images properly licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• When Abbas II died in 1666, his grand vizier, Mirza Mohammad Karaki, did not know that the shah had a son Not relevant for the lede

Removed it

• His reign as Safi II undergone troublesome events which led to a second coronation being held for him in 20 March 1668, simultaneously with Nowruz, in which he was crowned king as Suleiman I. Awkward, rephrase

Done

• he found a chance to undertake the kingly education Awkward, rephrase

Deleted the sentence

• Too much material on Abbas's reign. Reduce this to the things that impacted Suleiman's reign

Done

• but departed on the Caspian Sea What does this mean?

Typo, I actually meant 'departed to'

• The tsar of Russia, Alexis, made a delegation "sent" a delegation

Amended it

• which deteriorated his health rephrase

Done

• link toman, astrologer

Done

• , with the shah in their support, rephrase

Done

• Down to reign as Suleiman I, more once these are dealt with--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Sturmvogel 66 All done Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've made a bunch of edits to clean up your prose. Feel free to revert them as you wish.
• and he started shunning responsibilities This is unclear, whose responsibilities? Shaykh Ali's or the Shah?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Shaykh Ali's. Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Sturmvogel 66 BlueMoonset checking to see if this has been officially passed now? The 2nd review still appears in its early stages and there is no checklist provided to confirm everything is in order, though the article has already been listed. Ppt91 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, the article passed. I don't use a checklist, so don't count on one always being present.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]