Talk:Teresa Sampsonia/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

Review

• In the Info box, Safavid Empire needs to be piped to [[Safavid dynasty|Safavid Empire]] as Safavid Empire is a redirect.
• full name after married → full name after marrying
• and later also the wife → and later the wife
• in name → in the name
• Following the death of her husband and mainly due to further impediments brought upon her by the grandees at the court and eventually the authorities, → Need to take a long breath for this.
• she decided to leave her country of birth, namely Safavid Iran. → There's an inconsistency with the name of the country in the info box.
• , namely → Remove
• devoted her years → devoted her later years
• , in the same grave she would be buried later herself as well. → in the same grave that she herself would later be buried in.
• Teresia was noted and received by many of the Royal houses of Europe, as well as famed contemporary writers such as Thomas Herbert. → I don't see the point of single sentence paragraphs. Merge with previous paragraph.
• in the Safavid Empire → Link [[Safavid dynasty|Safavid Empire]]
• As her mother is mentioned her, she can be added to the info box. Her father, too, if his name is known.
• On the 2nd of February 1608, → On the 2 February 1608 (per WP:MOSDATE)
• an English adventurer who was sent to the Safavids after a Persian embassy several years earlier had been sent to Europe in order to create an alliance against the arch rivals of the Safavids (and also known by Abbas to be an enemy of several European empires), → Another long sentence
• In Robert Shirley's → Remove first name, as this is the second instance whereby he is mentioned.
• surname Shirley from → No need to say his surname again
• Shift the double image to the right, it's creating a large void between the two sections unnecessarily.
• She accompanied Robert on his several → Surname only, never first name. Apply this to subsequent first name usage, I can see it several times with Teresia too.
• became on intimate terms with the Carmelite nuns → I don't think intimate is the correct word for talking about a nuns.
• according accounts → according to accounts?
• and afterwards to → and then
• Their elder child → Their eldest child
• favour and care of the Queen. → Which Queen?
• Other sources however do state that according accounts, → Other sources state that
• The last two paragraphs of the Travels section can be made one paragraph.
• Departure from the Safavid kingdom and later life is a very large section. I would split it off into Departure from the Safavid kingdom and Later life as two separate sections.
• Things in life went down from here and on for Teresia. → Far too informal
• contrived to get Teresia and her husband in discredit → Phrasing doesn't quite make sense here
• Fueled by jealousy and envy, → You just said it was about jealously moments ago
• illness now herself as well. → Too puffy
• without a permission → without permission
• she had to obtain one first. → Obtain what? You can't obtain a permission. It's usually a document or formal agreement.
• Cast in literature → Bit of an odd title
• No need to link 1607 either.
• Two references are missing access dates
• As most sources are books, I'll assume good faith in that everything is cited truthfully.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Outcome

There are some structure and layout issues, and grammar and phrasing need work. It has a general feeling of reading bias and like someone who admires her has written it in a non-neutral way. I don't think this is ready to be passed yet. I'd recommend asking the Guild of Copy Editors for help.  — Calvin999 09:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.