Talk:Persecution of Zoroastrians/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

edit

I've now given the article a quick read through: it appears to be comprehensive and well-referenced, so its obviously not a "Quick fail".

I will now begin my detailed review. I'm leaving the WP:Lead until last and will work my way through the sections, highlighting any "problems. If I don't make any detailed comments on any particular section or subsection that generally means that the section/subsection is OK. Pyrotec (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Any comments, discussion, objections, etc, can be added below:

  • Persecutions in Iran -
  •  Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - Since the article is named "Persecution of Zoroastrians", the word "Persecution" should not be used in the section title (see WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections).Reply
  •  Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - The section title states Persecutions in Iran, but much of the section appears to be about Persia. Is it Persia, Iran, or Persian and Iran? I will need to come back to this again. This is now getting confused, I was assuming that Iran (as in Islamist Republic) was a 19th century creation - Iran states that Persia and Iran are used interchangeably. However, later on it says "...province of Khvârvarân today known as Iraq", so Persia appears to have been larger than present-day Iran.Reply
  • (Three minor comments)
    •  Y The first paragraph starts: "Until the Arab invasion, Persia (modern-day Iran) was ...... dominated by a Zoroastrian majority", and there is a mention of the Sassanian empire and 224 CE, but otherwise there is no "sense" of date. I suggest that the sections needs "anchoring" in time such as: "Until the Arab invasion [in the mid 7th century], Persia ...."
    •  Y The first and third paragraphs discusses "Arab invasion" whilst the second has the link Muslim conquest of Persia. The reader, I guess, is intended to assume that Arabs and Muslims are identical (perhaps they are - one appears to be religious belief and the other nationhood).
    • The 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence states "....Sassanian empire that passed a decree in 224 CE". This is unfinished, presummably the decree made Zoroastrianism the state religion?
    •  Y Yazdezard is mentioned in the 1st paragraph as asking a question of an Arab solder, but who is Yazdezard? Perhaps this is a typo as Yazdegerd III appears in the next section.
  • Different translierations give different results. Nonetheless, I have changed it to Yazdegerd for standarization.
  • 642 CE to 10th Century -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

    • The Caliphs (642-661 CE) -
  • This looks OK.
    • The Umayyads (661-750 CE) -
  •  Y Is "Zardusht" a typo? Its not defined or wikilinked. Wikipedia suggests "Zerdusht", which is a redirect to Zoroaster.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

    • The Abbasids (752 - 804 CE) & The Saffarids (869-903 CE) -
  • These look OK.
  • 10th to 20th Century -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • This looks OK.
  • Bibliography -
  •   Working This needs cleaning up. The individual entries appear to be in random sequence. They aught to be listed in alphabetic sequence by first author's surname.

Overall summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply